Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wall Street cuts losses on Boehner "fiscal cliff" comment
Yahoo Finance ^ | November 28,2012 | Angela Moon

Posted on 11/28/2012 8:48:22 AM PST by Hojczyk

Stocks sharply pared losses on Wednesday after U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said he was optimistic that a deal on the "fiscal cliff" to avert large tax hikes and spending cuts could be reached. After falling nearly 1 percent, the S&P 500 pared losses to trade near flat after Boehner said that Republicans were willing to put revenues on the table if Democrats agreed to spending cuts.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/28/2012 8:48:26 AM PST by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Why do we have 435 house members and 100 senators????


2 posted on 11/28/2012 8:50:36 AM PST by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

“Boehner said that Republicans were willing to put revenues on the table if Democrats agreed to spending cuts.”

Yawn.

FU Boehner!

How much did YOU make in the last 24 hours on this script?


3 posted on 11/28/2012 8:52:43 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

John Boehner said he was optimistic that a deal on the “fiscal cliff” to avert large tax hikes and spending cuts could be reached

In other words We have No Intentions of Honoring ANy deal made, and Will NEVER HOLD THE PRESIDENT OR the DEMONCRAT PARTY TO THEIR WORD, and we will do everything possible to save them, so they can come spit in our faces tomorrow.


4 posted on 11/28/2012 9:04:33 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
that Republicans were willing to put revenues on the table if Democrats agreed to spending cuts.

Does this clown really think the Demonrats will agree to spending cuts (on anything but the military)?

5 posted on 11/28/2012 9:07:16 AM PST by mykroar (BAD-ANON: One Game At A Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Wall Street ought to wise up.

Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff with Tax Increases will kill the value of stocks.

Increasing tax rates will reduce economic activity.

Business profits and stock values will suffer.

Keynesianism doesn’t work. Ever. Not once in the history of the world.

The Laffer Curve will have the last laugh.


6 posted on 11/28/2012 9:19:49 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Working is for suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs

The dims are NEVER going to cut a dime from anything but the Military... so there will be no deal.. unless boner surrenders... now that worries me.

LLS


7 posted on 11/28/2012 10:46:41 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
Increasing tax rates will reduce economic activity.

Historically, higher periods of economic growth have been during periods of higher marginal income tax rates.

Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945

8 posted on 11/28/2012 10:52:42 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ksen

The analysts cherry picked the start date as post-WWII so that the only un-destroyed country on the planet (U.S.) showed great growth under high rates.

Pluswhich, if higher marginal tax rates CAUSED higher periods of economic growth, then a 99% tax would maximize economic growth, wouldn’t it?

Further, has the Laffer Curve been disproved?

Additionally, “Hauser’s Law,” postulates that US federal revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have remained stable at approximately 19.5% over the period 1950 to 2007 despite changes in marginal tax rates over the same period. Doesn’t that show that changes marginal rates are merely avoided by citizens by changing their economic behavior and presentation of taxable income to the Feds?

Do you believe the CBO is an unbiased source for Tax Policy advice? Or, mightn’t they be biased towards the source of their paychecks?

One can go on all day.


9 posted on 11/28/2012 11:17:51 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Working is for suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
The analysts cherry picked the start date as post-WWII so that the only un-destroyed country on the planet (U.S.) showed great growth under high rates.

I'm fairly confident that a 67 year period is a long enough to show if there's a trend or not.

Pluswhich, if higher marginal tax rates CAUSED higher periods of economic growth, then a 99% tax would maximize economic growth, wouldn’t it?

I never said that higher tax rates CAUSED higher growth but upon rereading my post I see how it can be read that I was inferring that. I wasn't, so I'm sorry for not being clearer. The Congressional Research Service report I posted concludes that even though there is a correlation between higher marginal tax rates and higher GDP growth there is not a strong enough statistical connection for there to be causation.

Further, has the Laffer Curve been disproved?

It has to be be proved before it can be disproved. And if it has been proved you need to then go on and prove that the current top rate is on the right-hand side of the curve and not on the left-hand side of the curve.

Additionally, “Hauser’s Law,” postulates that US federal revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have remained stable at approximately 19.5% over the period 1950 to 2007 despite changes in marginal tax rates over the same period. Doesn’t that show that changes marginal rates are merely avoided by citizens by changing their economic behavior and presentation of taxable income to the Feds?

Hauser's Law also has its own problems while not technically incorrect the way it is explained by Hauser is very misleading in that there is over a 1% GDP difference in collections between tax cut years and tax hike years.

Do you believe the CBO is an unbiased source for Tax Policy advice? Or, mightn’t they be biased towards the source of their paychecks?

The report I posted was by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) not the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And while The National Review does take exception with the conclusions of this report as a whole they write that it is silly to accuse services like the CRS of being partisan.

10 posted on 11/28/2012 11:47:51 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Ah yes, the old cause/effect dissonance. Good to see you’re still trying.


11 posted on 11/28/2012 11:55:10 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ksen

I posted before I read your #10.


12 posted on 11/28/2012 11:56:47 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

NP! :hug:


13 posted on 11/28/2012 11:59:09 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ksen

I’ve had liberals try to argue C/E with me concerning the tax numbers. I see you are not of that stripe. Hugs Back.


14 posted on 11/28/2012 12:05:58 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson