Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

Charles Nungester said:
Yeah but the economy was growing and expanding, Not stuggling along at less than inflation

Uh, yeah, that was my point about there being no correlation.

RatherGoodBear said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, or what you mean by "socialist systems." Basically under a socialist government, the state provides all your needs, but in return, they tell you what you need. You don't have too much say in the matter.

And now you're arguing in absolutes? As in, if I'm suggesting that I don't mind certain governing systems in the US becoming socialized, I suddenly support completely socializing the entire system? We've used socialist programs in this Country for a long time, mostly to good effect.

Here are some of my experiences with traveling to and speaking with people who lived or came from socialist countries.

So what? Do you honestly think that you wouldn't hear similar stories about life here in the US? In other words, anecdotal evidence is completely irrelevant.

Uh, yeah, that was my point about there being no correlation.

I have no opinion either direction on whether there is a strict correlation or not. That would take a serious statistician to discern, not an economist or run of the mill politician. I would say that from an "eyeball test" perspective, there is certainly more evidence to support cutting taxes stimulates tax receipts versus raising them (moment to note we are discussing the relatively non-important sprained ankle again). Whether there is a strict correlation statistically, w all variables accounted for...not sure it can be done.

In1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998,the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in1999.

At the same time, total federal revenue rose every year after the 1997 tax cuts.In addition, it’s worth noting that total federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion,an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to$2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%.

Moreover, although the economy was doing respectably well in the four years before the1997 tax cuts, it did considerably better after the tax cuts. For example, from 1993 to 1996, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, but the annual growth rate jumped to 4.2% after the tax cuts (both rates are adjusted for inflation). In the four years before the tax cuts, the rate of real wage growth was only 0.8%, but it rose to 6.5% after the tax cuts.

Aamilj said:
I would say that from an "eyeball test" perspective, there is certainly more evidence to support cutting taxes stimulates tax receipts versus raising them (moment to note we are discussing the relatively non-important sprained ankle again).

I'd say you're looking at the chart from so far away that you're not discerning between different tax-cutting measures. Some really do stimulate the economy significantly, while others have a virtually-imperceptible effect. Of course, what I'm still trying to understand is how so many "conservatives" (and your stated viewpoints certainly suggest that you consider yourself among them) don't seem to be at all concerned with the debt impact of all that revenue-slashing.

How come when conservatives are talking about extending unemployment beneifts (which have proven to be stimulative WELL beyond the amount of money put into the unemployment benefits themselves - to the tune of about $1.60 net impact per government dollar spent), suddenly we can't afford to spend that money because we already owe the Chinese too much.....but when it comes to cutting estate taxes and income tax on incomes over $250K, then suddenly the government can afford the revenue hit? Obviously I'm confused...

Of course, what I'm still trying to understand is how so many "conservatives" (and your stated viewpoints certainly suggest that you consider yourself among them) don't seem to be at all concerned with the debt impact of all that revenue-slashing.

I've explained this earlier. Tax policy...raise them or cut them is the sprained ankle. It is that 2.7 Trillion # per year.

I think a more pragmatic question is why aren't democrats or republicans concerned about the unfunded liabilities to the tune of $60-100 Trillion (depending on who you believe)? This is our problem. There are two ways out. Drastically cut spending/benefits or print paper. Each of these options has tough consequences...though the later caould bring the whole country down. Tax policy cannot treat the disease. We could take 100% of everything and not come close to the money needed to fund our unsustainable promises. The disease is too progressed.

As for your "revenue-slashing" debt impact statement...? I respectfully disagree. Most (all?) times we have cut taxes in this country the government revenues have increased, not decreased. I've showed you the Bush and Clinton examples of what happened to our tax collections AFTER tax cuts. Both different kinds of tax cuts by the way, but both had a stimulating not "revenue-slashing" affect. I think it is fair to ask why some (mostly those who claim to be liberal) refuse to acknowledge this phenomenon?

Opinion here... But I think for a lot of politicians the "revenue-slashing" myth gives a bit of political cover to those who have a guilty conscience. Statistically, economically, etc you have to really manipulate the data to conclude that tax cuts do not stimulate tax collection in most (all?) cases. Heck, even now most liberals support tax breaks for what they label middle class. Why do that if it really leads to "revenue-slashing?"

Certain politicians have a pragmatic benefit to create class warfare. If you make the "mythical rich" the bad guy...you get votes. If you honestly explain that most (all?) times we have cut taxes there has been more money for ALL, that is not a real motivator to get to the polls.

But you seem fair and proud (?) to come from a leftist perspective. I ask you, in all honesty and without any motivation other than discussion...what do you folks on the left suggest we do about our 60 Trillion plus Medicare and Social Security promises? Knowing that we cannot possibly meet these obligations even if we taxed everybody 100%...how much are you willing to cut/concede? In fairness...questioning just the left is BS as we have seen that elected officials on the Republican side are just as scared to point the reality/graveness of the situation...

Aamilj said:
Knowing that we cannot possibly meet these obligations even if we taxed everybody 100%...how much are you willing to cut/concede?

Interesting.

Kind of made me think, you know even if taxing everyone 100% was a fix, it still wouldn't be a good idea.

That's where I tend to stand (and care) in the discussion.

Talk about trickle down, trickle up, trickle sideways, trickle out your orifices - whatever. It's all a different way of deciding who should pick up the tab.

Still seems to me like the best answer is to share it fairly.

rollergator said:
Of course, what I'm still trying to understand is how so many "conservatives" (and your stated viewpoints certainly suggest that you consider yourself among them) don't seem to be at all concerned with the debt impact of all that revenue-slashing.

I'm more concerned about the revenue-slashing that already occured somewhere between there and here. If the concern is the money coming in, then rather to continue to try to take more and more from those that we've decided "have" maybe we should ask for some from those on the other end of the spectrum that only seem to "take." And not even in the sense of asking them to actually give, but rather to simply take less.

And if it isn't too obvious, I tend to believe the burden needs to be shared a bit more equally.

Instead of a redstribution of wealth, how about a redistribution of debt? ;)

Instead of a redstribution of wealth, how about a redistribution of debt?

At least this gets to the real problem of SPENDING. I'm not looking at this from a fairness perspective, though I will concede that if I were I would fall in line with Gonch. I am strictly looking at this pragmatically.

Take all emotion and political tendancies away from the problem and look at the numbers. There is no way out sans cutting spending (I am talking 60% or so of our unfunded liability promises) or printing paper.

How much you want to bet that the election 2012 features Obama or his primary challenger running on raising taxes on the evil rich while the Republican candidate runs on lowering them? Neither have ran a new play since I have been alive. Like this very thread we will all get caught up in the tax debate without noticing that it does not matter.

When a wheelbarrel full of hundred dollar bills is worthless, how much will anybody care if they got 10 wheelbarrels full from the "rich" via raised taxes, or we got 10 wheelbarrels full via a flat tax (which I indeed support by the way) on everybody? The 10 wheelbarrels will still be worthless if we don't cut the spending/promise problem.

It is a fools argument that partisans continue to debate. Who will and how can we change course?

Definitely we need to "spend" less, whether that be in social programs, foreign wars, subsidies, or infrastructure. I'd tend to think that last one should be "off-the-table" (along with education) since those cuts tend to lead to reduced future growth.

As far as "where the money comes from", that's an entirely separate question - in a way. The bottom line needs to be considered, but it seems that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to favor the concept of "screw it, our kids can pay that off" - or maybe they believe we can just default on our obligations?

Either way, as someone in that so-called "middle class", I'd be happy to give back my tax cuts in exchange for the elimination of the tax cuts for those earning over 250K. And I do hope we can abstain from the vitriolic language, no one "on the left" as far as I can tell has claimed the "rich" to be hated or despised due to their success...only that they're more able to pay additional taxes than the guy earning minimum wage.

Definitely we need to "spend" less, whether that be in social programs, foreign wars, subsidies, or infrastructure.

Common ground...

Now the question is who, with any real power do you, or anybody, see who seems to understand this and has a plan to do something about it? I admit I see nobody. How do we, as Americans...not partisans...come together to solve the one MAJOR problem that stands to destroy us absent action?

Jeff was correct 10 pages ago (I think it was this thread) when he said people vote to cut spending and when their firehouse gets shut down they bitch. How do we get the bitching to stop and educate everybody what is coming if we continue to "kick the can?" At some point we need to look at the big picture and understand that a local firehouse closing is better than the alternative.

I guess this could be construed as my opinion...but those numbers certainly do not lie.

rollergator said:
The bottom line needs to be considered, but it seems that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to favor the concept of "screw it, our kids can pay that off"

Until it comes to something they *don't* support; then all of a sudden it's "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!? [But ignore the same logic for *my* pet causes.]" ;)

US states have spent nearly half a trillion dollars more than they have collected in taxes, and face a $1tn hole in their pension funds, said the CBS programme, apocalyptically titled The Day of Reckoning.

Ran across this article today. Talks about a lot of the stuff we discussed in this thread. It does not say if Green Bay is one of the cities in trouble. Interesting that we were a couple weeks ahead of the curve on this discussion. Once the European Press gets the story, it is typically about a month before our press catches on. Though 60 minutes is apparently "on it."

That article is nearly a word for word recitation of the 60 Minutes story. I would say "our press" has caught on.

So if the Green Bay says that building this ride will pay for itself, and that turns out to be the case, will you come back and say you were wrong?

Always figured "The Day of Reckoning" couldn't be too far off with all the spend-but-don't-tax policies of the last generation of politicians. Statesmen may have been able to make difficult choices at one time, but they can't get elected with that as a platform.

Sure hope no one has become too addicted to weekly trash pickup... ;)

We need a parent rather than a friend. But just like a lot of parents today want to be their kids' friends rather than their parent, politicians want to be our friend as well. And what kid doesn't want a friend who tells them what they want to hear/allows them to do what they want to do rather than telling them what they need to hear/do? And how do you think things would turn out if kids got to vote for their own parents?

So if the Green Bay says that building this ride will pay for itself, and that turns out to be the case, will you come back and say you were wrong?

Of course I would. But in fairness we need to be honest about the argument. I've stated that this is not the governments role (i.e. building coasters). I've said that taking the risk that private entities would not back is bad policy. Even if this project succeeds...so what... A blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. But over time government not only fails to secure the nut, it mounts up trillion dollar deficits. The fundamental question is how did we let it get to the point that local government finds it acceptable to gamble our tax dollars on projects that have a good chance of failing.

In light of the mounting debt at all levels of government the more pertinent questions involve understanding how and why some folks still trust that government entities know what to do best with our money.

Oh, so if the risk is low, as they claim, they're just blind squirrels. I see.

Jeff, where did you hide the like button?

Edit: Nevermind. I forgot: +1.

Oh, so if the risk is low, as they claim, they're just blind squirrels. I see.

I'd say they are blind squirrels because they overestimated construction costs by $500K of a 3 million project. Maybe healthy squirrels collect 1/7th less nuts than they need for the winter though...?

And yet they did anticipate overruns and provided for that. And they still believe it will pay for itself.