Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (44804)	8/11/2010 12:33:05 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. Tax cuts don't cost money, which is not to say that they don't (often but not always) reduce our ability to pay for the spending (which does cost money), so they can impact the fiscal situation in a negative way. But the negative impact was much smaller than the massive spending increase that happened in the same time period. If you mean to say that since Bush was a Republican and since many Republicans voted for all the non-entitlement spending increases (with the entitlements increasing under a previously determined formula) that the Republicans caused damage through massive spending, than I agree, but the Democrats where typically calling for more spending (at least for the non-military programs which represent over four fifths of our spending) not less; and also the damage, while important, was not the destruction of our economy. And that fiscal damage is now being added to by all the new Obama spending.

To: tejek who wrote (44804)	8/11/2010 8:56:09 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Liberal Tax Revolt Game-Changer? Post a CommentBy Larry Kudlow - July 30, 2010 6:17 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Image via Wikipedia The liberal tax revolt, as the Wall Street Journal is calling it, is a very important topic -- especially for investors and small-business entrepreneurs. And for new jobs. The so-called revolt is comprised of three Democratic senators: Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, and Ben Nelson. They want to extend all the Bush tax cuts. That includes taxes on the wealthy, or the top personal tax rate, the investment taxes on capital gains and dividends, and the estate tax. So is this revolt a game-changer, or merely wishful thinking? With a strong pushback against the revolt by President Obama, Treasury man Tim Geithner, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, right now it looks like wishful thinking. But with Democrats getting badly paddled in various polls, you never know. When Tim Geithner told me in a CNBC interview a few weeks ago about his 20-20 rule for the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, I blogged that this was a good thing -- in particular the story for dividend taxes, which could go to 39.6 percent. But no increase at all on investment taxes would be even better. Let's say you're an investor who went long stocks in March 2009 and now has a long-term capital gain. You could sell right now at a 15 percent tax rate before it goes up to 20 percent. In a nutshell, this is the tax-hike story that has hung over the stock market this year like the proverbial Sword of Damocles. Year-end tax-related selling could still be in front of us. So the liberal tax revolt is a very important issue for investors. It could mean a potential stock market rally in the second half of the year. It's also important for job seekers. Just take a look at the new Investor's Business Daily poll by the accurate surveyor Raghavan Mayur. He notes that the average length of joblessness has soared to over 35 weeks, nearly two-times greater than the previous high for any downturn. And his polling data show that nearly one-half of households can be categorized as "job-sensitive." That's a huge number. These are the people who are either looking for work or fear that they may be laid off -- or both. Regarding the direction of the country, confidence in the job market, the likelihood of a second recession, and satisfaction with federal economic policies, Mayur's polling shows that the large job-worrying population is extremely pessimistic. Come November, that's going to translate into votes against the Democratic Congress. And this pessimistic, jobs-sensitive group is undoubtedly thinking, along with the tax-hike-revolt Democratic senators: What sense does it make to raise taxes on anyone? Or on any business, large or small? Then there's the confidence-threatening war between business and the White House, which is also related to the liberal tax revolt. It's still a battle royale between the nation's business leaders and the administration over taxes, spending, regulation, and trade. Treasury man Geithner made lite of this war at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week. A Daily Caller headline read: "Geithner Bored by Complaints from Business about Obama Policies." White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel also doesn't seem that concerned. In a Wall Street Journal interview with Jerry Seib, Emanuel was a bit more conciliatory about reexamining regulatory issues, but he was still inconclusive. There are two big things that businesses want right now: One is an across-the-board corporate tax cut, including cash expensing for investment. This is the single most powerful job-creator of all. The other is a senior business executive in one of the key economic policy slots in the White House. Neither of these requests seems to be on the table. But to conclude that the White House is burying the hatchet with business you'd have to see these conditions met. So far it ain't happening. techcentralstation.com It should be noted that these same democrats opposed the effort to keep tax rates from returning to ridiculous when it could have been achieved with their support. I suspect this is just a yellow dog democrat trick.

To: tejek who wrote (44804)	8/11/2010 10:18:25 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

The Washington War on Investment Post a CommentBy Larry Kudlow - August 9, 2010 12:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will higher tax penalties on investment really spur jobs and faster economic growth? Most commentators would say no. It's really a matter of economic common sense. But Tim Geithner says, Yes! Speaking to a group in Washington this week, the Treasury secretary said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would imperil the fragile economic recovery. He argued that government needs the revenues from those top-end tax hikes. So failure to raise taxes would harm growth. And then he went on to say that the trouble with the wealthy is that they save more of their tax breaks than do other groups. Okay. Are you confused now? Most people would be. Let's start at the top. The coming tax bomb would raise the top marginal tax rate on capital gains from 15 to 20 percent, on dividends from 15 to 20 percent (or perhaps all the way to 39.6 percent), and on top incomes from 35 to 40 percent. Meanwhile, the estate tax could go as high as 55 percent. Now, it is indisputable that cap-gains, dividends, and estates are essentially investment. What's more, most successful earners who pay top personal tax rates are by near all accounts the folks who are most likely to save and invest. But Mr. Geithner is suggesting the economy doesn't need more saving. This thought was echoed by Jared Bernstein, a top White House economist, who told me in an interview that the saving and investment multipliers for economic growth are way below the stimulative effects of government transfer payments, such as more aid to state and local governments and further extensions of unemployment benefits. Echoing that thought, the Senate this week voted to approve $26 billion in aid for state and local governments -- partly funded, by the way, by an $11 billion yearly tax increase on the foreign earnings of U.S. multinational corporations. Here, too, a tax on profits is a tax on investment. The Senate also rejected an amendment by South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint that would extend all the Bush tax cuts. In effect, pulling all this together, the position of the Democratic party in power in Washington is that transfer payments (taxing and borrowing from Peter to pay Paul) are good for growth, and that investment is bad. Go figure. I guess it's a battle between the demand side and the investment (or supply) side. The great flaw in the thinking of the Democrats is that they are ignorant of the economic power of saving and investment. Saving is a good thing. Stocks, bonds, bank deposits, money-market funds, commercial paper, venture capital, private equity, real estate partnerships -- all that saving is channeled into business investment. And whether that capital goes into new start-ups or small businesses or large firms, it finances the kind of new investment in plants and equipment and software and buildings that ultimately creates jobs and family incomes. And that, in turn, spurs consumption. But pulling out just one dollar from the private sector and rechanneling it through the government as a transfer to someone else creates nothing. At best it's a safety net. At worst it may damage private-business activity and actually reduce employment. Without saving there can be no investment. And without investment there can be no enhanced productivity, which is the ultimate source of long-term prosperity and wealth. Now, there are some Democrats who understand this. Senators Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, among others, support an extension of the upper-end tax cuts precisely to increase investment incentives that will create jobs. Bayh and Lieberman often refer to the John Kennedy tax cuts that lowered marginal rates across-the-board for successful earners and businesses. They correctly worry about small-business job creation in this process. And they have moved from the demand-side of today's Democratic party over to the supply-side of the John Kennedy era. Bayh and Lieberman have the story exactly right. And Treasury man Geithner has it fundamentally wrong. Geithner tries to make a deficit-reduction argument, saying that extending tax cuts for the wealthy will cost $700 billion over the next ten years. But the real debate in advance of the Erskine Bowles deficit commission, which will restructure budget and tax reform, is about a one-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. That's priced at $30 billion by the White House, about the same as the new bill to aid state and local governments. Which policy would help growth more? My answer is to keep the incentives for investment. Or, find spending cuts immediately to cover both options. That would restore even more confidence. We might also be surprised when the growth-and-revenue-increasing benefits of lower investment tax rates pay for those tax cuts in the future -- just as they have in the past. ideasinactiontv.com