Here's our debate that started on Facebook (all on Sept 6th):
Avner Bezborodko Please
try not to use partisan fact checkers to bolster a partisan argument.
The only non-republican presidents we have had have been Kennedy,
Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Kennedy's policy was a lowering of the tax
rates, something no Democrat today would
permit. Both he and Johnson presided over an America that was
preeminent in a world still recovering from the devastation of WWII and
communism. Clinton entered as we were rising out of a recession, as the
USSR failed and we were the only super power (remember the Peace
Dividend?), and he had the "benefit" of a Republican congress and
grid-lock that reduced our spending.
President Obama should have benefited greatly from his timing. Coming out of such a deep recession we should have been able to create many more jobs. But I can speak as an owner of two growing manufacturing operations that the one thing businesses do not want to do today is add employees. We know it will only hurt us in the end.
(I talk to a lot of my suppliers and competitors. The only ones who unequivocally say they are doing well are the manufacturers of machinery, and when I probe I find out it is all coming from an increase in automation. That they are being asked to automate previously automated tasks is a secular change.)
President Obama should have benefited greatly from his timing. Coming out of such a deep recession we should have been able to create many more jobs. But I can speak as an owner of two growing manufacturing operations that the one thing businesses do not want to do today is add employees. We know it will only hurt us in the end.
(I talk to a lot of my suppliers and competitors. The only ones who unequivocally say they are doing well are the manufacturers of machinery, and when I probe I find out it is all coming from an increase in automation. That they are being asked to automate previously automated tasks is a secular change.)
I find it funny that you say "The only non-republican..." and then go on to mention half of the presidents that we've had in that time. You mentioned Kennedy's policy of lowering tax rates. Do you realize what the rate was at the time? Eisenhower (R) proceeded JFK and the top bracket was NINETY ONE PERCENT! JFK reduced that to "a more sensible" 65%. Today that top bracket is 35%. Would you permit a return to those "more sensible rate"s?
Obama has proposed a modest !MODEST! increase of an additional 2-3% to that top bracket while also cutting spending. Unfortunately today's Republicans see ANY revenue increase, whether its closing loopholes or a straight forward tax increase, as heresy. Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO today!
Jonathan Zucker Also,
saying "President Obama should have benefited greatly from his timing"
has to be one of the most dubious statements I've ever seen. We weren't
coming out of a recession when Obama became president. Not even close. I
am in finance and I recall, vividly,
my friends getting laid off from Lehman, Morgan, Merrill, Wachovia,
AIG... I recall the bond market, which I work in, COMPLETELY frozen like
a deer in the headlights! Banks wouldn't lend money to other banks
because they didn't have confidence in the assets and the books of
contra lenders. We were quite literally on the brink of a complete and
utter collapse. Had the government not stepped in, the FDIC would have
been bankrupt. That's right. You would have gone to your ATM and nothing
would have come out. The banks were going belly up lightning fast and
the federal insurance company that was in charge of protecting people in
case of a bank collapse was itself on the brink b/c of the scope of a
system wide collapse.
Why do people forget so easily?!
Yet, getting back to the original Politifact article, Obama still has more private sector jobs created on his watch then Bush '43 in his entire 8 year term. That's not a partisan statement. 'That is a fact, and it is undisputed.' (say that in Kevin Bacon's voice ala' A Few Good Men - it sounds better).
Why do people forget so easily?!
Yet, getting back to the original Politifact article, Obama still has more private sector jobs created on his watch then Bush '43 in his entire 8 year term. That's not a partisan statement. 'That is a fact, and it is undisputed.' (say that in Kevin Bacon's voice ala' A Few Good Men - it sounds better).
Avner Bezborodko A
couple of things before I respond. First, if you want to discuss
something as an adult don't assume you know where someone is coming from
until you have investigated it. Politifact absolutely is partisan.
Any organization that slices or dices the numbers
only in ways that help one side is regardless of their party. So are
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, and most every other media outlet out there
including Fox. Those that tell you they aren't are the ones you have to
watch carefully.
September 6 at 7:04pm
Avner Bezborodko Second,
words like "funny" when you start a response imply a lack of serious
debate or open mindedness on your part. Try discussing something while
attempting to understand the other persons point of view. See if
someone can correctly express to you your own position and assumptions
and if you can express them back to them to their satisfaction.
September 6 at 7:07pm
Avner Bezborodko Now
to your response: Presidents - while half the presidents were
Democrats, only 16 of the 48 years prior to Obama had Democratic
presidents, which also increases the likelihood that Republicans were in
the WH during recessions. And Republicans and Democrats
of that time were not the same as they are today, nor were times
similar. That was my point (and not a partisan one), that you can't
throw out simple numbers and think that that leads to some sort of deep
understanding. In fact it is usually done to obfuscate something.
Which brings us to the red herring of the 90% tax rates prior to the Kennedy administration. You do realize that people became extraordinarily wealthy during that time without paying marginal tax rates that even approach those we will pay after the payroll tax and tax cut phase outs and the phsae in of the 3.8% Obamacare tax (not to mention real estate and state taxes that today dwarf what they once were)? Tax rates like those are what lead to the country club mentality and lifestyle. Everything was paid for by the corporation; the car, the house, the meals, the plane, childrens' education, the country club, and it was all tax-free. ALL personal interest was tax deductible. And there were no "phase-outs" of the various deductions.
The very rich (and I barely make the 5th percentile, which in NYC, as you know isn't as rich as it sounds) pay a higher percentage of income tax revenues than they ever did in American history and we have never been in the situation we are today where the bottom half pay nothing. While that might appeal to some as "fair" and make them FEEL good it just isn't good policy. The income of the very rich is very volatile, and their wealth quite mobile (see the capital flight from Spain). To depend on it for the well being of the rest, while it FEELs good to some will lead to catastrophes in your revenue later and to the progressive erosion of responsible spending.
Which brings us to the red herring of the 90% tax rates prior to the Kennedy administration. You do realize that people became extraordinarily wealthy during that time without paying marginal tax rates that even approach those we will pay after the payroll tax and tax cut phase outs and the phsae in of the 3.8% Obamacare tax (not to mention real estate and state taxes that today dwarf what they once were)? Tax rates like those are what lead to the country club mentality and lifestyle. Everything was paid for by the corporation; the car, the house, the meals, the plane, childrens' education, the country club, and it was all tax-free. ALL personal interest was tax deductible. And there were no "phase-outs" of the various deductions.
The very rich (and I barely make the 5th percentile, which in NYC, as you know isn't as rich as it sounds) pay a higher percentage of income tax revenues than they ever did in American history and we have never been in the situation we are today where the bottom half pay nothing. While that might appeal to some as "fair" and make them FEEL good it just isn't good policy. The income of the very rich is very volatile, and their wealth quite mobile (see the capital flight from Spain). To depend on it for the well being of the rest, while it FEELs good to some will lead to catastrophes in your revenue later and to the progressive erosion of responsible spending.
Avner Bezborodko As
to partisanship and Politifact regarding jobs, timing matters. Yes
Obama created more, but he started at a low water mark of a loss of 8.8
million jobs and after 5.5 TRILLION dollars of deficit spending (how can
one argue this isn't a Keynesian spend???).
Most of the jobs were lost during Bush's years and Bush himself
started with a relatively high employment figure prior to the secular
technology boom (we had never had a higher participation rate than in
2000).
And as to the financial crisis. There is a difference between liquidity crises and solvency crises. "Breaking the buck" as monetary funds threatened to do in the fall of 2008 was a solvency crisis. But a solvency crisis existed as well and still does to some degree, still does to an even greater degree today in Europe. Liquidity makes a good palliative treatment for that, but in the end it will wear off and possibly even backfire. Most of that was created through various warped feedback loops in the financial world; asleep at the switch credit rating agencies, growing GSE's who warped market feedback, quickfire mortgage brokers, corrupt appraisers, naive German bankers, etc, etc, etc. That they convinced poiticians not to restructure their companies and industry and that no one will be indicted is a major black mark against anyone who wants to claim that industry's main purpose is to grease the wheels of commerce. I won't go so far as Taibbi's "Vampire Squid" but I understand the sentiment. I am against the politicians who fomented this, in either party, and I hold contemptible the bureaucrats that don't try this, reform the system, and look to the very same industry as their next career move.
September 6 at 7:48pmAnd as to the financial crisis. There is a difference between liquidity crises and solvency crises. "Breaking the buck" as monetary funds threatened to do in the fall of 2008 was a solvency crisis. But a solvency crisis existed as well and still does to some degree, still does to an even greater degree today in Europe. Liquidity makes a good palliative treatment for that, but in the end it will wear off and possibly even backfire. Most of that was created through various warped feedback loops in the financial world; asleep at the switch credit rating agencies, growing GSE's who warped market feedback, quickfire mortgage brokers, corrupt appraisers, naive German bankers, etc, etc, etc. That they convinced poiticians not to restructure their companies and industry and that no one will be indicted is a major black mark against anyone who wants to claim that industry's main purpose is to grease the wheels of commerce. I won't go so far as Taibbi's "Vampire Squid" but I understand the sentiment. I am against the politicians who fomented this, in either party, and I hold contemptible the bureaucrats that don't try this, reform the system, and look to the very same industry as their next career move.
Jonathan Zucker "if
you want to discuss something as an adult "? No need to condescend. I
apologize for the "funny" wording. You are correct. I did not mean to
imply any lack of respect or understanding. I always look at others'
point of view and take debating seriously. I enjoy the 'give-and-take' and look forward to it.
Regarding the tax rates I don't know if we will agree on a suitable site to use as a reference but here's one that believe is quite extensive, thorough and factual.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1
The vast majority of economist agree that by all recent standards, today's tax rate is near the lowest its been since WWII.
Today's top 5% of earners do pay a higher percentage of overall taxes but what you are missing is the fact that the divide between the top percentage of Americans and the rest is greater than its been since the great depression. That is not because the wealthy all of a sudden became that much more efficient or productive compared to the rest of America. It is because of a tax system that is grossly skewing breaks for the top earners allowing them to avoid paying taxes the way the rest of Americans do.
We may disagree here but I believe that the wealthy owe a great deal of their well being to the fact that they are in this country and therefore we should not shy away from demanding that they pay their fair share of taxes. By "fair share" I mean to say that I also believe in a progressive tax system.
Regarding capital flight, this is not Spain and the analogy is false. Capital flight takes place when their is doubt about sovereign solvency, not tax rates. The tax code should be structured to crack down on tax avoidance just like Reagan did in the '80s.
The foreign money that would move would be negligible compared to the revenue generated. And, again, I don't believe that we need to act from a position of fear that the rich will leave the country. If some want to leave the country anyhow, I would say to them, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
That being said, I absolutely agree with you that we have to expand the tax base to make sure that as many people as possible have skin in the game.
Not to nitpick but I believe that the Republican/Democrat score was 28yr/20yr.
....I just saw your second post...
gotta get kids to bed but I'll respond later.
Regarding the tax rates I don't know if we will agree on a suitable site to use as a reference but here's one that believe is quite extensive, thorough and factual.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1
The vast majority of economist agree that by all recent standards, today's tax rate is near the lowest its been since WWII.
Today's top 5% of earners do pay a higher percentage of overall taxes but what you are missing is the fact that the divide between the top percentage of Americans and the rest is greater than its been since the great depression. That is not because the wealthy all of a sudden became that much more efficient or productive compared to the rest of America. It is because of a tax system that is grossly skewing breaks for the top earners allowing them to avoid paying taxes the way the rest of Americans do.
We may disagree here but I believe that the wealthy owe a great deal of their well being to the fact that they are in this country and therefore we should not shy away from demanding that they pay their fair share of taxes. By "fair share" I mean to say that I also believe in a progressive tax system.
Regarding capital flight, this is not Spain and the analogy is false. Capital flight takes place when their is doubt about sovereign solvency, not tax rates. The tax code should be structured to crack down on tax avoidance just like Reagan did in the '80s.
The foreign money that would move would be negligible compared to the revenue generated. And, again, I don't believe that we need to act from a position of fear that the rich will leave the country. If some want to leave the country anyhow, I would say to them, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
That being said, I absolutely agree with you that we have to expand the tax base to make sure that as many people as possible have skin in the game.
Not to nitpick but I believe that the Republican/Democrat score was 28yr/20yr.
....I just saw your second post...
gotta get kids to bed but I'll respond later.
Jonathan Zucker Ahh. OK they're down....I hope.
I still stand by the argument that Politifact is, if not "NON"-partisan, than at the very least, it is the most "UN"-partisan fact checking site out there. That is why it is the most highly regarded and referenced site by both the left and right. Both MSNBC and FOX. Both the NYT and WSJ.
You said that Obama looks good because he followed Bush '43 and Bush '43 looked bad because he followed Clinton and Clinton looked good because he followed Bush '41.....
Isn't this proving the point!? The Democrats have in fact created more private sector jobs than Republicans. If what makes Democrats look good is that Republicans look so bad then so be it.
You want to make the argument that Clinton was most effective when paired with a Republican congress. OK. Are you then making the case that Congress is to take credit/blame instead of the president?
You also say that Clinton came into office with the recession coming to a close. Yes that is true. Clinton was a beneficiary of cyclical economic timing. Do you acknowledge though that it was a Democratic congress that forced Bush '41 to raise taxes which put the economy back on solid ground, in spite of Bush's "read my lips" pledge, and actually made it pay for its spending? If you'll recall, it was Bush '41 after all who derided supply side economics as voodoo economics. He knew that cutting too much would simply lead to imbalance and debt.
In fact I believe that Republicans of today are simply being disingenuous when they say they don't want to kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Benefits, etc. They are simply in the Grover Norquist camp and think we should kill those programs all together. I think most of them genuinely understand the basic math and see what history has shown which is that trickle down economics doesn't work. It will simply create massive deficits, which they hope, will lead to the destruction of the social safety net.
This is what has led me to the Democrats. I see current Republican theology as social Darwinism mixed with theocracy brought in from the religious right. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican party. They left me.
Regarding your comment on the financial crisis I have to say I agree!!! Liquidity can backfire if taken too far but I don't believe we've taken it too far. I believe in capitalism and markets and for the past three years the markets have been telling us, with record low interest rates, that there is a low fear quotient of the U.S. debt - AT THE MOMENT!! The market goes up every time the fed says that more stimulus could be coming and pulls back when there is fear the Fed will pull back. That shows that the market can take more debt and that, at the moment, we need to be focusing on getting the economy on surer footing more than dealing with the debt. In fact, it's exactly when interest rates are low that we SHOULD be borrowing. We should be investing in people and projects that will have long term benefits that outweigh the investments.
The past deregulation is a pock on both houses. The corruption went completely unchecked and unpunished which is a travesty of justice and morality. However, Republicans continue to fight against REASONABLE and MODERATE regulations which is beyond belief, especially in light of such recent history. This isn't some intangible unimaginable possibility. It was reality. It just happened! You're right that the bureaucrats should reform the system. They should reform the finance industry to recognize that if you're too big to fail then you're just too big.
September 6 at 11:25pmI still stand by the argument that Politifact is, if not "NON"-partisan, than at the very least, it is the most "UN"-partisan fact checking site out there. That is why it is the most highly regarded and referenced site by both the left and right. Both MSNBC and FOX. Both the NYT and WSJ.
You said that Obama looks good because he followed Bush '43 and Bush '43 looked bad because he followed Clinton and Clinton looked good because he followed Bush '41.....
Isn't this proving the point!? The Democrats have in fact created more private sector jobs than Republicans. If what makes Democrats look good is that Republicans look so bad then so be it.
You want to make the argument that Clinton was most effective when paired with a Republican congress. OK. Are you then making the case that Congress is to take credit/blame instead of the president?
You also say that Clinton came into office with the recession coming to a close. Yes that is true. Clinton was a beneficiary of cyclical economic timing. Do you acknowledge though that it was a Democratic congress that forced Bush '41 to raise taxes which put the economy back on solid ground, in spite of Bush's "read my lips" pledge, and actually made it pay for its spending? If you'll recall, it was Bush '41 after all who derided supply side economics as voodoo economics. He knew that cutting too much would simply lead to imbalance and debt.
In fact I believe that Republicans of today are simply being disingenuous when they say they don't want to kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Benefits, etc. They are simply in the Grover Norquist camp and think we should kill those programs all together. I think most of them genuinely understand the basic math and see what history has shown which is that trickle down economics doesn't work. It will simply create massive deficits, which they hope, will lead to the destruction of the social safety net.
This is what has led me to the Democrats. I see current Republican theology as social Darwinism mixed with theocracy brought in from the religious right. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican party. They left me.
Regarding your comment on the financial crisis I have to say I agree!!! Liquidity can backfire if taken too far but I don't believe we've taken it too far. I believe in capitalism and markets and for the past three years the markets have been telling us, with record low interest rates, that there is a low fear quotient of the U.S. debt - AT THE MOMENT!! The market goes up every time the fed says that more stimulus could be coming and pulls back when there is fear the Fed will pull back. That shows that the market can take more debt and that, at the moment, we need to be focusing on getting the economy on surer footing more than dealing with the debt. In fact, it's exactly when interest rates are low that we SHOULD be borrowing. We should be investing in people and projects that will have long term benefits that outweigh the investments.
The past deregulation is a pock on both houses. The corruption went completely unchecked and unpunished which is a travesty of justice and morality. However, Republicans continue to fight against REASONABLE and MODERATE regulations which is beyond belief, especially in light of such recent history. This isn't some intangible unimaginable possibility. It was reality. It just happened! You're right that the bureaucrats should reform the system. They should reform the finance industry to recognize that if you're too big to fail then you're just too big.
No comments:
Post a Comment