Thursday, July 29, 2010

Cartoon of the Day

Gary Varvel.  

29 Comments:

At 7/29/2010 8:50 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

It's likely the government's huge spending spree and massive regulations created the slow-growth recovery, offsetting much of TARP and the quantitative easing.

So, there's more debt and less tax revenues. The Bush tax cuts may expire at the wrong time preventing (again) a stronger recovery:

AP survey: A bleaker outlook for economy into 2011
July 29, 2010

The U.S. economic recovery will remain slow deep into next year, held back by shoppers reluctant to spend and employers hesitant to hire.

They (economists) foresee weaker growth and higher unemployment than they did before.

Economic growth the rest of this year and early next year will weaken, to less than 3 percent.

The unemployment rate will be no lower at the end of the year than it is now -- 9.5 percent. A majority think it will be 2015 or later before the rate falls to a historically normal 5 percent.

State budget shortfalls pose a "significant" or "severe" risk to the national economy. The loss of tax revenue has forced state and local governments to cut services and lay off workers.

Growth would have to equal 5 percent for a full year to drive the unemployment rate down by 1 percentage point.

"There's a risk that the loss of momentum will snowball and feed on itself, but I think in the end the recovery will stay on track," predicted James O'Sullivan, chief economist at MF Global.

 
At 7/29/2010 8:54 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Consider the following from the Tax Foundation: My Tax Burden

2011 INCOME TAX CALCULATOR

Fill out the left-hand column and click Calculate to estimate your 2011 income tax under three scenarios:

(1) Congress allows all of the Bush tax cuts to expire;
(2) Congress acts to extend into 2011 all of the Bush tax cuts; and
(3) Congress passes the tax laws suggested in President Obama's budget, letting some tax cuts expire, extending some, and enacting some new tax laws.

 
At 7/29/2010 9:05 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Juandos,

I just guesstimated our household numbers at that tax calculator website you linked.

Ouch!!

 
At 7/29/2010 9:52 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Ouch!!"...

Ouch!! is right Paul and as ugly as that picture could be consider the following from the Tax Foundation site:

State and Federal Tax Collections on Oil Industry Exceed Oil Industry Profits

I mean how many 'mom & pop' shops are going to be hurt by this (oil industry will pass all or at least a large portion of these tax increases onto the consumers) along with the aggregate decline of employment?

 
At 7/29/2010 12:20 PM, Blogger misterjosh said...

Consider cigarettes. Philip Morris makes $0.63 per pack, the gub'mint makes $3.50 per pack. What the hell?

The cartoon needs a lineup of storms: Obama's spending, the wars, seniors' selfishness, etc.

The cause of all of these storms isn't global warming, but instead a lotta hot air coming out of a gutless congress.

 
At 7/29/2010 12:22 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

coyote posting another "great moment in regulation" today.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/07/more-great-moments-in-regulation.html

seems that the liability imposed upon the ratings agencies by the fin reform bill has led them to stop rating things like fords car loan bonds.

the problem? it's illegal to sell them without a rating.

so, $1.4 tn in securitization market is now in jeopardy (except the freddy and fanny stuff guaranteed by the US treasury)

given that they are already buying 90% of mortgages at the moment, hard to see how the market for mort sec gets any worse, but under these rules, hard to see how it gets any better either.

it's a de facto nationalization of mortgage securitization, as only the agencies currently run and backed by the US government can get the ratings needed to participate.

 
At 7/29/2010 12:31 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Consider the following from the Tax Foundation: My Tax Burden

2011 INCOME TAX CALCULATOR
"

Thanks, juandos, - I think - now I can be upset throughout the year, whenever I choose, instead of just once a yer at tax time. :-)

 
At 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Here be dragons.

I am no fan of taxes, nor am I in support of letting the tax cuts expire. However, even with massive reductions in entitlements (which will probably not happen without a default, IMHO) tax revenue may never be enough to balance the federal budget.

I think any real solution to our fiscal woes will require tax increases of some kind. With austerity in front of them, to be sure. There may be a sweet spot where Americans benefit from improved government finances and higher taxes. Althought it's above my pay grade to model that.

 
At 7/29/2010 3:26 PM, Blogger Bill said...

Jason: Wrong. We do not have a problem caused by a shortage of tax revenue. We have a problem caused by an explosion of government spending. Cut government spending dramatically and the sooner the better for the economy. The government is sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.

 
At 7/29/2010 3:39 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"tax revenue may never be enough to balance the federal budget."

Not if we roll back to the spending of FY2007.

 
At 7/29/2010 5:48 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Tax cuts spur economic growth to raise tax revenues. Unfortunately, the federal government squandered trillions of dollars in only 1 1/2 years, and built massive waste into the system. So, a tax cut isn't possible now.

In the recession, the federal government cut taxes (very little for most Americans), while many state governments raised taxes. The California sales tax rate in Alameda County was raised to 9.75% a year ago. Also, tuition, fees, fares, etc. were raised by huge percentages. The unemployment rate in California is still above 12%.

"At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax in the United States, which can total up to 10.75% with local sales tax included."

 
At 7/30/2010 12:19 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Tax cuts spur economic growth to raise tax revenues. Unfortunately, the federal government squandered trillions of dollars in only 1 1/2 years, and built massive waste into the system. So, a tax cut isn't possible now."

Peak, if the first part is true, - and I believe it is - then the last part can't also be true. If reducing taxes increases tax revenues, then it should be true no matter what government has done.

 
At 7/30/2010 10:24 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"If reducing taxes increases tax revenues, then it should be true no matter what government has done"...

Well Ron H consider the following by Ryan Dwyer writing in the Washington Times back Feb. of this year: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue

Here's the money line in Dwyer's commentary: 'Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the '03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending'...

Let's not forget about this liberal fairy tale...

 
At 7/30/2010 11:50 AM, Blogger David Zetland said...

The tax cuts were too deep in the first place (esp. given Bush's spending and committments), so their expiration merely undoes the initial stupid.

OTOH, I think that some of them are a good idea...

 
At 7/30/2010 12:08 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Ok, if you don't want to give them up, how about this:

Create and maintain direct-hire, non-contract, non-temporary, full-time work - you get a sizable tax cut for every unique employee brought in and as long as they are working there. Deeper tax cuts can be had through employment-connected training programs.

Allow people to whistleblow on businesses that are trying to game the system. Should they decide to do so either way, any adverse action taken against them is considered retaliation.


The U.S. economic recovery will remain slow deep into next year, held back by shoppers reluctant to spend and employers hesitant to hire.


How about just giving them no option to refuse people? They are not interested in playing ball (e.g. hiring on a good-faith basis) unless they have run of the government. Either they're with us or against us.

Let's not forget about this
The problem is that you can't forget what breaks your narrative. They've done enough damage through NAFTA, allying with the Far East, and supporting the DMCA. There's plenty of room for blaming Clinton without selectively fitting things in.

 
At 7/30/2010 2:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"How about just giving them no option to refuse people? They are not interested in playing ball (e.g. hiring on a good-faith basis) unless they have run of the government. Either they're with us or against us."

How about you get off the couch, start your own business and show everyone how it's done?

 
At 7/30/2010 2:38 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"The tax cuts were too deep in the first place (esp. given Bush's spending and committments), so their expiration merely undoes the initial stupid"...

So extorting from the productive with government force in order to pander to the parasitic is a good thing, eh?

Sadly George W was not a real conservative, a Constitutional conservative...

 
At 7/30/2010 3:43 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


How about you get off the couch, start your own business and show everyone how it's done?

Except for the part where it does nothing to change the situation.

 
At 7/30/2010 4:18 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Except for the part where it does nothing to change the situation."

Of course it would, if your theories work it will revolutionize capitalism. It's just that easy, right, sethstorm.

 
At 7/30/2010 4:39 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 7/30/2010 4:48 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Of course it would, if your theories work it will []. It's just that easy, right, sethstorm.

Again - make it harder to refuse a US citizen for any work. Simple as that.

 
At 7/30/2010 4:53 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

David Zetland said: - "The tax cuts were too deep in the first place (esp. given Bush's spending and committments), so their expiration merely undoes the initial stupid."

By "too deep" do you mean that they caused total tax revenues to decrease?

"OTOH, I think that some of them are a good idea..."

Could you be more specific?

 
At 7/30/2010 5:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues."

You're right, juandos, it's too bad the increased revenue was just spent.

Thanks for the link to Ricardo Cobos' explanation of the Clinton surplus. Interesting stuff.

 
At 7/30/2010 6:08 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Either they're with us or against us."

"sethstorm, I just have to ask: Who is "us" in this sentence?

"Let's not forget about this

The problem is that you can't forget what breaks your narrative. They've done enough damage through NAFTA, allying with the Far East, and supporting the DMCA. There's plenty of room for blaming Clinton without selectively fitting things in.
"

What is this? Are you quoting someone? How about a little more context? This has no meaning as it stands.

 
At 7/30/2010 8:57 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Again - make it harder to refuse a US citizen for any work. Simple as that."

So get off the couch and demonstrate it if it's so simple.

 
At 7/31/2010 10:31 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


"sethstorm, I just have to ask: Who is "us" in this sentence?

The part of the US that wants an economic recovery, and is willing to do so. They represent the solution. Those who wish to withhold secure work and cause no recovery are the problem.


Paul said at 8:57PM, 7/30/2010...

Your reply made no sense.

 
At 7/31/2010 11:12 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Your reply made no sense"...

Oh the irony of this line coming from sethstorm...

Hey Ron H, I can't help but wonder if sethstorm was enticed by the following: Proposed Legislation for Corrective Actions To the Modern Recession

It has words like this: 'Proposal I: Anti-Hoarding Asset Tax on the Truly Wealthy'...

 
At 7/31/2010 2:51 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Juandos:
Read that document, saw nothing in it close to what I am suggesting.

What I am suggesting is a way to get the private sector to not hold back an economic recovery. In trying to get around regulation, the private sector wishes to make workers more disposable without compensating for the risk. Second, they overzealously add qualifications instead of taking what we already have(the unemployed) and directly hiring them.

By generally removing the ability to refuse the unemployed, the negotiaing ability is no longer in favor of those whom do the most damage, the reluctant parts of the private sector. Any training that is needed to address actual skill gaps is done within the context of actual work, not misdirected retraining efforts.

 
At 7/31/2010 7:18 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"It has words like this: 'Proposal I: Anti-Hoarding Asset Tax on the Truly Wealthy'..."

juandos thanks for the good laugh. Where do you find such gems? More "Tax The Rich" schemes. That will solve all our problems.

Whoever is writing that drivel needs some serious economics training.

Even sethstorm says he can't find anything meaningful in it.

I wouldn't have believed it without reading it. Up 'til right now I would have laughed if someone suggested that they thought the rich were busy stuffing paper dollars into their mattresses, but there it is in plain print!

I'm not sure I understand how I can be taxed on cash I keep under my bed? Who would know? Besides, I've already been taxed on it once.

By the way, juandos hope the election in your state on Tuesday goes well.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home