Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

GoBucks89 said:
From the numbers I have seen, the costs of extending the tax cuts on the above $200k/$250k folks is about $700 billion over ten years. Cost of extending them on everyone else is about $3 trillion over ten years. Which one is the little bit that isn't so little?

$700,000,000,000

Interesting aside...
It's funny (and of course totally predictable) that almost 80% of "Obamacare" could be funded by simply letting the over-$200k/250k tax cuts expire.

I seem to recall the GOP complaining that we simply can't afford "Obamacare". Interesting, then, that we can afford to give wealthy people more money. :)

$3,000,000,000,000 > $700,000,000,000. By a lot. In reality, we cannot afford to extend the tax cuts for anyone (certainly not in the long term). I think its hypocritical to say we can't afford one but can afford the other which costs 4 times as much as the first. And we need to cut spending. By a lot bigger "a lot" than the costs of any tax cuts. Both will have negative impacts on economic growth in the short term but positive impacts in the long term. Unfortunately, politicians live for the next election cycle which is no where near the long term.

I seem to recall that the Obamacare costs numbers were skewed (taking us back to the subject of this thread and the history of politicians skewing costs/revenues to get what they want :) ). The 10 year cost amount of $1 trillion (which could be 80% paid for by letting upper end tax cuts expire as a matter of math but not reality) began in 2010 but Obamacare doesn't kick in full until 2014 (cost wise there is little until then). So the per year costs are skewed if you simply divide by 10. Weren't the CBO numbers something north of $2 trillion for the costs of Obamacare in the first real decade starting in 2014? That would put the upper end tax cuts at less than 40% of the costs of Obamacare which, while not nothing, doesn't seem as dramatic as you portray it. Letting the tax cuts expire on all of us would more than pay for Obamacare (and would save some other spending cuts). On a pay as you go approach, should we do that?

And I think its wrong to view any tax cut as a gift. Taking less is not a gift. From anyone.

GoBucks89 said:
$3,000,000,000,000 > $700,000,000,000. By a lot.

98% > 2%. By a lot.

RE: the rest of your post... I really hate getting into Voodoo Economics discussions, simply because it's difficult to argue against a position that has zero data to support it. So I won't.

Regardless, that's irrelevant to my point, which was simply to counter RGB's apparent contention that if Solution 001 doesn't completely solve Problem A, then Solution 001 isn't worth implementing, even along side Solutions 002-999.

I don't see anything in my post that is based on voodoo economics (at least not as I have ever seen it defined). And I agree that there is no magic bullet which will solve our deficit/debt problems. I was just suggesting another one with respect to letting the income tax cuts expire on the remaining 98% of us (and really its something like the other 45% of us who actually pay income taxes). In the long run as I said, I think the tax cuts should expire on all of us. And in reality, tax increases beyond that (along with large spending cuts) will be necessary as well (again in the long run -- I like to think I still have a lot of living to do in the long run and I know my kids do). And I don't think you will find many (if any) credible economists who think that getting our financial house back in order with broad based spending cuts or broad based tax increases (there are not enough "rich" folks to tax only the "rich" and solve our debt/deficit issues), or a combination of the two, will not result in a smaller economy in the short run. Thats the main reason why no politician wants to implement them.

Roughly back on topic, the city says they'll still make money with the coaster, even with the cost overruns. This is the reason I find it silly to draw a line in the sand over what government should or shouldn't do.

Brandon, you're the one with the skewed sense of economics. I was responding to an idea posed by many people (including yourself in your follow up post) that if we just raise taxes on 2% of the population, all our financial problems will be solved. Just about every reputable economist has said that we will not get out of this financial malaise only by taxing, or hoping to grow, or spending. It's going to take some of all of them.

You sound like 97% of the population, who are only capable of telling everyone else what they should be doing to fix things. What are you willing to sacrifice?

RatherGoodBear said:
I was responding to an idea posed by many people (including yourself in your follow up post) that if we just raise taxes on 2% of the population, all our financial problems will be solved.

First of all, that is not remotely what I posted. I honestly have no idea how you arrived at such a conclusion.

Secondly, in reading back through the thread, I don't see who was proposing that raising taxes on the upper-income earners would solve all of our financial problems. Perhaps you could point them out?

You sound like 97% of the population, who are only capable of telling everyone else what they should be doing to fix things. What are you willing to sacrifice?

And let me guess... you're part of that exclusive 3% who have all the answers, right? Sure sounds like that's what you're implying.

And since you asked, I'm more than happy to pay more in taxes. I don't think I ever suggested otherwise.

And you're also welcome to point out where I said because solution 1 wouldn't work, we shouldn't bother trying solutions 2-999.

RatherGoodBear said:
And you're also welcome to point out where I said because solution 1 wouldn't work, we shouldn't bother trying solutions 2-999.

I never claimed you said such a thing. I pointed out that it may take more than one solution to complete an objective, and that as such, dismissing any one of those solutions is absurd. If you're saving money for a house, and you don't have enough leftover cash in your wallet today to buy that house, do you spend that money and start saving tomorrow instead? Of course not - you use that small sum of money as a partial solution to buying a house, combined with leftover money tomorrow, and the next day, and so on.

Regardless, you did dismiss "Solution 001" entirely, based on what you wrote in response to rollergator (who, so far as I can tell, did not suggest that "Solution 001" would solve our entire financial problem):

RatherGoodBear said:
Well I suppose if you believe that taxing dividends as regular income will erase the entire deficit...

Perhaps that isn't what you intended to convey, but that's what you wrote, and how it was perceived.

If I have *ever* suggested that there is a single simple fix to ANY of our problems, be it national security, budget deficits, unemployment, national fiscal solvency, toerance for other's beliefs, etc., then I was off-base or misunderstood.

No "hard" problem has a simple answer - but there clearly are roads towards solutions, and roads that take us further away from desirable outcomes...

Often times it isn't clear what the desired outcome is or that any suggested road will lead to a/the desired outcome.

Yep. Just like it isn't always clear what the true meaning of a post might be or that a post will have any real meaning at all.

:)

Deep.

My desired income would have fewer taxes deducted. Does that count?

GoBucks89 said:
Deep.

Says the "well." ;)

Vater said:
My desired income would have fewer taxes deducted. Does that count?

I think that was like #547 on Brandon's list.

GoBucks89 said:
Deep.

Says the "well."

Witty.

Governmentspending money when "times are tough" on things that stimulate theeconomy (and potentially enhance infrastructure, although that's notrelevant in the ZP case) - isn't necessarily a Bad Thing (TM). Call meKeynesian if you must, but the idea that "all government spending isbad and wasteful" is fine in you tea party coffee klatches or whatever,but it's extremely short-sighted and dettrimental to the economy and toour Nation as a whole.

Roads, schools, playgrounds, clean air,clean water, national defense, etc., all call for someone OTHER thanprivate enterprise to step in and ensure that "public consumables"aren't exhausted/destroyed by those who are driven purely by the profitmotive.

Japan had eight (8) stimulus plans in the 1990's-2000's to end atwo decade depression. They literally paved most the island withpublic works projects...anybody see the airport they built on theocean. I mean that they built their own island to make land for theairport, really amazing stuff, along with a giant waste of cash too,but I digress. In 1991 the Nikkei was at 30,000...by 2007 it was12,000. They pumped $1.7 Trillion into the economy for 16 plus yearsfor what? Sixty percent of Japan's former wealth disappeared. $1.7Trillion and no job growth whatsoever.

The point is that government spending on projects does not work. It isan illusion. There is no stimulus. There are no new wealth or jobscreated. All that really happens is that we redistribute wealth/moneyfrom those who pay taxes to those that help politicians get elected. When you understand that over 40% of American households not only payno federal income taxes, they actually get money back (take money)...itis very difficult to pass fiscally responsible policies.

Knowing what happened in Japan...having the fortune to see it with our own eyes in such fresh/recent memory...why would we want to emulate such a failed strategy? I use Japan as one recent example...there are others. At the time 1.7Trillion over 16 years was an unthinkable number. Now Bush and Obamahave taken this to a new level.

A quick look at the 10 year projections for Obama's budget plans chainsthe USA to 15-16 TRILLION of debt. Folks one trillion is 1 milliontimes 1 million. Lebron James at $40 million per year would have toplay for 25,000 years (yes twenty-five thousand years) just to get toone trillion.The amount of debt we are talking about is simplyunimaginable and unsustainable. Bush started this with 3.1 TRILLION onthe budget in 2009...Obama quickly added 900 BILLION to bring it to 4TRILLION. When Reagan was in office the budget was $500 billion. Ifyou look at the current 4 Trillion and adjust forinflation...expenditures have gone up 250% since 1980. Wages have notdone the same.

I'm not sure where to mention this, but does anybody understand thatabove and beyond the 15-16 trillion debt estimated over 10 years withObama we also have that little unfunded liability problem forentitlements? They estimate it at $50 TRILLION. these are the socialSecurity and Medicare liabilities... Now, do we believe that theseestimated numbers are too high or too low? You tell me how well mostgovernment estimates hit their mark and which direction they typicallymiss.

The problem is not that we don't spend enough or that we don't spend in the right places. We simply spend too much. We either cut spending, or we fail. You could tax 100% (all of it) theincome of the wage earners making over $250K a year, and you stillcan't break even. Never mind that they would quit working and move toa better opportunity in another country. If we pretend they would"take it"...we could confiscate all their yearly earnings and it is notenough to balance the budgets that Bush and now Obama propose withtheir spending.

Do the math folks. They told us the $787 billion we spent on thestimulus plan was going to create 3 million plus jobs. Now, both the787 billion number was too low and the 3 million jobs never appeared,but that is not the point. If we use the lowball $787 billion numberand do the math, we could have just given 3 million unemployed people$225,000. What might that have done for the economy versus what wedid? Do you think 3 million people with $225K might have invested themoney, payed down their mortgages, started a small business, etc?

I could go on forever, but I hope these numbers give some reality tothe amount of SPENDING our government has tied our hands to. Theconcept of a Trillion is so far beyond what we can conceptually graspthat it staggering. This is not something that we can just ask theAmerican people to pay a hundred more bucks a paycheck, or even $1000and expect that we can afford it. this is not something we can ask themythical "rich" to bail us out. We are simply printing paper andpretending numbers like a trillion do not matter. Eventually they will.

It is easy to generalize about tea party members, etc as kooks, but thenumbers do not lie. We spend too much. Until the average American iseducated in the simple math of our exponential growth in the rate ofspending, we continue to navigate a sinking ship. In 2009 the FederalGovernment (just the Federal) spent an average of $17,000 (seventeenthousand) on each U.S. household. Five years from now if the healthcare debacle is allowed to continue, along with Bush's Medicare D,etc...we will long for the good old days of $17K per household.

The point of the previous paragraph is to show that it is preposterousto think that we are not spending enough. We are spending too much. absent some very tough decisions and REAL cuts in spending, not justcuts in the rate of growth, we've written a check we can't cash. Thequestion is will the American people ever do the math, or will theysimply fool themselves into thinking that someway, somehow, we canafford all these entitlements and somebody else can foot the bill...

Aamilj said:
The point is that government spending on projects does not work. It isan illusion. There is no stimulus. There are no new wealth or jobscreated. All that really happens is that we redistribute wealth/money from those who pay taxes to those that help politicians get elected.

Even though that's a totally unsubstantiated statement, and one that history would likely disagree with, what you're really saying is not that it doesn't work, but doesn't work the way you'd like it to.

And poor people don't vote. Duh.

If poor people did vote, and voted intelligently, then we wouldn't be extending the Bush tax cuts for those earning anywhere from 250K all the way up. And regardless of what rhetoric you choose to believe, the substantiated facts show that tax cuts for the wealthy cost the goverment more, and stimulate the economy less, than extending unemployment. "The logic is simple: Poor people are more likely to spend their extra money than rich people, giving more bang for each federal buck."

Also note the Bush cuts for the wealthiest were extended two years, while the unemployment extension lasts only 13 months. Personally, I feel Obama failed once again to push harder for something even a little bit more progresssive.

An average household making about 75K will theoretically see about 1,100 in savings from yesterday's "agreement", whereas one making 1M will see savings of about 106,900. As someone who truly is..."middle class" - I'll pay the extra 1,100 if the CEO in the gated neighborhood is willing to fork over the extra 106,900. Oh, he's not willing to do that? Shocking! ;)

rollergator said:
Personally, I feel Obama failed once again to push harder for something even a little bit more progresssive.

Agreed. I'm all for bipartisanship, but the key part of that word is bi-. There have been only token acts of bipartisanship from the GOP, sprinkled over the mass amounts of juvenile refusals to work with Democrats.

I suspect Obama knows that there will be little or no opposition from anyone within his party in '12, which is why he's been so spineless. I also suspect he's overestimating how many people will be rushing to the polls to re-elect him.