The Deficit

[blueballs]

For the umteenth million time, the workers and business owners of this country are not undertaxed, in fact we're overtaxed when you factor in regulatory and usage fees. Congress has a spending problem and the cure for the deficit is to reduce spending. Period. End of story.

businesses not undertaxed?

In 2009 Exxon made $19 billion in profits, paid no federal income taxes and was given a $156 million rebate from the IRS.

Sooooooooooooo, how much as a percentage of their revenues do you think they should be taxed? Because that is how much the price of ALL products in our economy will rise, and if you think we've got fiscal problems now you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[AZGrizFan]

Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers pay them.

People that have jobs pay taxes too.

[Ivytalk]

If you want a good morning jolt, read Lawrence Lindsey's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. He says there are three reasons why the deficit is actually far worse than it appears: 1. The risk of higher, or "normalized," interest rates that would generate huge increases in annual interest payments if they happen. 2. Higher "official" economic growth figures than what is justified for a historical period after a financial crisis. 3. Long-run cost estimates of Obamacare are underestimating the incentive for private employers to junk their private insurance plans in favor of government coverage. Any of these factors, if they kick in, would engulf the savings generated by even Paul Ryan's plan.

And these bozos in Congress are headed for a showdown over a relative pittance.

[Ibanez]

If you want a good morning jolt, read Lawrence Lindsey's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. He says there are three reasons why the deficit is actually far worse than it appears: 1. The risk of higher, or "normalized," interest rates that would generate huge increases in annual interest payments if they happen. 2. Higher "official" economic growth figures than what is justified for a historical period after a financial crisis. 3. Long-run cost estimates of Obamacare are underestimating the incentive for private employers to junk their private insurance plans in favor of government coverage. Any of these factors, if they kick in, would engulf the savings generated by even Paul Ryan's plan.

And these bozos in Congress are headed for a showdown over a relative pittance.

Agreed. There is no comprimise, the Democrats and Republicans want the others to feel the pain (politically) but they don't want to take the steps of increasing taxes where they should be, eliminating spending on superflous offices, administrations and spending with a more, financially sound budget.

No, our elected leaders, want the credit for "saving America" without having to cut entitlements or increasing taxes (to name a few.)

[Wedgebuster]

Political football on the verge of morphing into Russian roulette, with plenty of rope laying around for folks to hang themselves with, don't bite the hand that feeds ya, be careful what you sow, and it's all fun and games 'till someone gets an eye put out.

[CitadelGrad]

If you want a good morning jolt, read Lawrence Lindsey's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. He says there are three reasons why the deficit is actually far worse than it appears: 1. The risk of higher, or "normalized," interest rates that would generate huge increases in annual interest payments if they happen. 2. Higher "official" economic growth figures than what is justified for a historical period after a financial crisis. 3. Long-run cost estimates of Obamacare are underestimating the incentive for private employers to junk their private insurance plans in favor of government coverage. Any of these factors, if they kick in, would engulf the savings generated by even Paul Ryan's plan.

And these bozos in Congress are headed for a showdown over a relative pittance.

The risk of higher interest rates is directly related to QEI and QEII programs that are designed to put inflation into the monetary system. The idea is an old Keynesian idea that you can inflate away the debt by debasing the currency, then repaying the debt with dollars of less value than the dollars that were borrowed. It's a common practice (usually with disastrous results) in third world nations. I've never seen it done in a modern industrialized economy.

I guess when you have a banana republic president, you are going to get banana republic policies.

[UNHWildCats]

UNH, could you post all of your one-sentence statements in one post?

I could, but then I wouldn't annoy you.

[Ivytalk]

If you want a good morning jolt, read Lawrence Lindsey's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. He says there are three reasons why the deficit is actually far worse than it appears: 1. The risk of higher, or "normalized," interest rates that would generate huge increases in annual interest payments if they happen. 2. Higher "official" economic growth figures than what is justified for a historical period after a financial crisis. 3. Long-run cost estimates of Obamacare are underestimating the incentive for private employers to junk their private insurance plans in favor of government coverage. Any of these factors, if they kick in, would engulf the savings generated by even Paul Ryan's plan.

And these bozos in Congress are headed for a showdown over a relative pittance.

The risk of higher interest rates is directly related to QEI and QEII programs that are designed to put inflation into the monetary system. The idea is an old Keynesian idea that you can inflate away the debt by debasing the currency, then repaying the debt with dollars of less value than the dollars that were borrowed. It's a common practice (usually with disastrous results) in third world nations. I've never seen it done in a modern industrialized economy.

I guess when you have a banana republic president, you are going to get banana republic policies.

You mean it's really Jose Jimenez Obama? Or Speedy Gonzalez Obama?

[AZGrizFan]

Political football on the verge of morphing into Russian roulette, with plenty of rope laying around for folks to hang themselves with, don't bite the hand that feeds ya, be careful what you sow, and it's all fun and games 'till someone gets an eye put out.

That about covers it.

[kalm]

If you want a good morning jolt, read Lawrence Lindsey's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal. He says there are three reasons why the deficit is actually far worse than it appears: 1. The risk of higher, or "normalized," interest rates that would generate huge increases in annual interest payments if they happen. 2. Higher "official" economic growth figures than what is justified for a historical period after a financial crisis. 3. Long-run cost estimates of Obamacare are underestimating the incentive for private employers to junk their private insurance plans in favor of government coverage. Any of these factors, if they kick in, would engulf the savings generated by even Paul Ryan's plan.

And these bozos in Congress are headed for a showdown over a relative pittance.

Agreed. There is no comprimise, the Democrats and Republicans want the others to feel the pain (politically) but they don't want to take the steps of increasing taxes where they should be, eliminating spending on superflous offices, administrations and spending with a more, financially sound budget.

No, our elected leaders, want the credit for "saving America" without having to cut entitlements or increasing taxes (to name a few.)

This is a very good post.

[ASUMountaineer]

UNH, could you post all of your one-sentence statements in one post?

I could, but then I wouldn't annoy you.

I'm not annoyed, just wondering if you were capable.

[houndawg]

Political football on the verge of morphing into Russian roulette, with plenty of rope laying around for folks to hang themselves with, don't bite the hand that feeds ya, be careful what you sow, and it's all fun and games 'till someone gets an eye put out.

Then it becomes a game of "find the eye".

[89Hen]

increasing taxes where they should be

Where should they be?

[AZGrizFan]

I could, but then I wouldn't annoy you.

I'm not annoyed, just wondering if you were capable.

Clearly the answer to that is a resounding "no".

[CitadelGrad]

The risk of higher interest rates is directly related to QEI and QEII programs that are designed to put inflation into the monetary system. The idea is an old Keynesian idea that you can inflate away the debt by debasing the currency, then repaying the debt with dollars of less value than the dollars that were borrowed. It's a common practice (usually with disastrous results) in third world nations. I've never seen it done in a modern industrialized economy.

I guess when you have a banana republic president, you are going to get banana republic policies.

You mean it's really Jose Jimenez Obama? Or Speedy Gonzalez Obama?

I believe bananas grow in Africa as well.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the idea that Exxon paid no US income taxes in 2009 is probably one of those cases in which somebody in the media got something wrong and the initial impression stuck even though the media institution later wrote a correction of sorts. Here is the correction of sorts:

http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/20 ... ome-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And a quote from the author:

My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil “recorded” no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of “paid.” All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.

And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn’t paying taxes in the U.S., don’t worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it’s worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas

I'm sure Exxon paid many billions of US taxes in 2009. But yet another false impression was created by the media and it'll never be erased.

[JohnStOnge]

On the original post: I think it'd be interesting to have someone go over CBO projections on revenues, expenditures, and deficits over the past 30 years or so and see how close they are to what actually happened. My guess is that the results would support the conclusion that you'd do just as well hiring a psychic.

That's not said to support or oppose raising taxes, cutting them, or leaving the same. And it's not even really a criticism of the CBO. I just think it's too difficult a problem. They have to make assumptions about what the economy is going to be doing. They have to try to guesstimate the effects of the tax policies in the scenarios on that economy.

It's kind of like I wonder the same thing about the Colorado State guys making hurricane predictions every year before the season. It'd be interesting to see if their predictions have been any better than just using a random numbers generator.

Yet with absolutely no information as to how well such institutions do with respect to predicting the future people tend to take them seriously.

As far as tax increases go: Cut the Federal government back to what it should be, put it back in its proper box, get rid of the idea that the Federal government is responsible for taking care of the poor, making sure everybody has health care, and otherwise trying to ensure the well-being of individuals first. Then the Federal government would be spending less than half of what it spends now. If there's not enough tax revenue THEN, then talk to me about supporting the idea of raising taxes. Only don't talk to me about supporting the idea that 10 percent of the population should be carrying 60 percent of the tax burden because they happen to have been more successful. Come up with a tax scheme such that if people support spending programs they know that it means they're actually going to have to contribute something at least close to their share in paying for them.

[BDKJMU]

For the umteenth million time, the workers and business owners of this country are not undertaxed, in fact we're overtaxed when you factor in regulatory and usage fees. Congress has a spending problem and the cure for the deficit is to reduce spending. Period. End of story.

businesses not undertaxed?

In 2009 Exxon made $19 billion in profits, paid no federal income taxes and was given a $156 million rebate from the IRS.

BS unless you provide a link.

[BDKJMU]

ConocoPhillips made $16 billion in profits from '07-'09 and received $451 million in tax breaks.

BS unless you provide a link. And saying they got 451 million in tax breaks doesn't mention if that was after paying billions in taxes.

[BDKJMU]

Large corporations are avoiding $100 billion in taxes every year by using offshore tax shelters.

BS unless you provide a link.

[BDKJMU]

In the past 5 years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate was only 1.1%.

BS unless you provide a link.

[BDKJMU]

In 2005 1 of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue.

BS unless you provide a link.