|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 18 2013 00:30 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 23:49 Doodsmack wrote:
So that turned out to be a disaster for Republicans that got them and the country nowhere.
Gee, that was hard to foresee.
LOL What did they actually loose though? "Popularity" unfortunately is fickle, especially given that there are no permanent changes that remind the public. It was an expensive waste of time but not expensive enough to call back to - "We could have used that money the Reps wasted back in October" doesn´t really have weight. The Tea Party will have to repeat their acts of insanity in order to have real consequences.
I think it will have consequence for the 2016 presidential elections. Even though it will have been three years ago, it's a big deal. There's a narrative that the Republican Party is kind of a joke right. This event fits into that narrative, and the narrative existed before this event. Tea party will be fueling the narrative going forward.
|
Yeah we all know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are so lets just keep the good guys in power and make sure that they impliment the solutions we all know we need to prosper from now on.
|
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
|
On October 18 2013 03:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
This is not an all or nothing game, and addressing the immediate does mean that the corresponding solutions need be temporary.
|
United States43557 Posts
On October 18 2013 03:00 Sermokala wrote:
Yeah we all know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are so lets just keep the good guys in power and make sure that they impliment the solutions we all know we need to prosper from now on.
Actually once the present bad guys fade away into irrelevance what you do is you take the people who were the good guys and divide them into better and worse shades of good and then the better become the new good guys. It's why we're describing the Republicans as bad guys even though they don't really measure up compared to the baby eating party. Politics evolves.
|
On October 18 2013 03:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
no he doesnt. There is very little evidence that there is any sacrifice going on when the bond market is willing to fund the US government spending at sub-inflation levels.
|
I hope this is the legit view of Tea Party Patriots all around. 2010 taught us that 2014 doesnt matter, TRIPLE DOWN ON THAT IDEOLOGICAL PURITY!
http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/16/advancing-ever-advancing/
This fight would expose conservative activists to the frauds they have funded.
Men like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and others have preached a great sermon against Obamacare, but now conservatives who supported them see that these men have refused to actually practice what they’ve been preaching. They’ve refused to stand and fight with the rest of us.
|
On October 18 2013 03:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering.
These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Talking about reduction of debt with high unemployment (and low interest rates) is a complete misunderstanding of priorities
|
On October 18 2013 03:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 03:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone. Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering. These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
|
On October 18 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 03:33 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2013 03:04 LaughingTulkas wrote:On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone. Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering. These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on. Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
Trying to predict future budgets while we have high unemployment is a bad idea. If you deal with the unemployment issue, the long term issues become massively less severe.
The reason they want deal with entitlement reform now is that they can leverage the worse economic outlooks to destroy the social safety net (which is their goal). It's a shell game. You fix the short term problems first, so that you can see what you're really dealing with long term.
|
If unemployment goes down, then the budget deficit must necessarily also go down because tax revenue will increase. This is one of the reasons Clinton was so successful at creating a budget surplus, unemployment was very low during his years in office.
|
WASHINGTON -- Two conservative groups endorsed a primary challenger to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) Thursday, one day after Cochran voted for a bipartisan budget deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. Club For Growth PAC and Senate Conservatives Fund, two groups that opposed the Reid-McConnell bill, endorsed the candidacy of state Sen. Chris McDaniel within minutes of each other.
The endorsements could be a sign of a coming counterattack by conservative interest groups against Republicans who voted for the deal. SCF, Club For Growth and Heritage Action all tried to rally Republicans not to vote for the bill, but it won the support of 87 House Republicans and 27 Senate Republicans. Cochran, 75, has not announced that he's running for reelection in 2014, but he has won by wide margins in deeply conservative Mississippi since 1978.
"Mississippi needs a strong fiscal conservative in the Senate who will fight President Obama and his agenda of higher taxes and bigger government," said Club For Growth President Chris Chocola. "Senator Chris McDaniel is ready to take the fight straight to the liberals in Washington who have led us to $17 trillion in debt. Club members look forward to strongly supporting his candidacy in the primary and general elections next year."
"Chris McDaniel is a constitutional conservative who will fight to stop Obamacare, balance the budget, and get America working again," said Senate Conservatives Fund Executive Director Matt Hoskins.
Source
|
On October 18 2013 03:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 03:00 Sermokala wrote:
Yeah we all know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are so lets just keep the good guys in power and make sure that they impliment the solutions we all know we need to prosper from now on. Actually once the present bad guys fade away into irrelevance what you do is you take the people who were the good guys and divide them into better and worse shades of good and then the better become the new good guys. It's why we're describing the Republicans as bad guys even though they don't really measure up compared to the baby eating party. Politics evolves.
No, we aren't describing them as bad guys due to simple relativism. We're describing them as bad guys because they did a bad thing. While politics may tend toward having factions, that doesn't mean we can't determine that some people are truly acting wrong.
|
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
High unemployment is a long term problem, because (IIRC) the current employment numbers are supposedly the normal unemployment. Due to technology we have had a pretty significant shuffle of the workforce.
Also, what about the constant over-spending and waste in programs? Isn't that extremely gigantic? It seems like we have known about our waste for decades, but we never do anything about it. Are there any solutions there? Is it necessary waste?
|
On October 18 2013 05:22 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. High unemployment is a long term problem, because (IIRC) the current employment numbers are supposedly the normal unemployment. Due to technology we have had a pretty significant shuffle of the workforce. Also, what about the constant over-spending and waste in programs? Isn't that extremely gigantic? It seems like we have known about our waste for decades, but we never do anything about it. Are there any solutions there? Is it necessary waste?
While over spending and waste are issues, they are not as big a problem as most of that money is circulated back into market. Tax reform is a much bigger issue. Honest businesses pay too much tax and there are too many dishonest businesses.
|
On October 18 2013 05:30 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 05:22 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. High unemployment is a long term problem, because (IIRC) the current employment numbers are supposedly the normal unemployment. Due to technology we have had a pretty significant shuffle of the workforce. Also, what about the constant over-spending and waste in programs? Isn't that extremely gigantic? It seems like we have known about our waste for decades, but we never do anything about it. Are there any solutions there? Is it necessary waste? While over spending and waste are issues, they are not as big a problem as most of that money is circulated back into market. Tax reform is a much bigger issue. Honest businesses pay too much tax and there are too many dishonest businesses.
I dont think that corporate tax honesty is a big issue, corporate taxes are only ~12% of revenue for the US.
|
On October 18 2013 05:33 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 05:30 ragz_gt wrote:On October 18 2013 05:22 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. High unemployment is a long term problem, because (IIRC) the current employment numbers are supposedly the normal unemployment. Due to technology we have had a pretty significant shuffle of the workforce. Also, what about the constant over-spending and waste in programs? Isn't that extremely gigantic? It seems like we have known about our waste for decades, but we never do anything about it. Are there any solutions there? Is it necessary waste? While over spending and waste are issues, they are not as big a problem as most of that money is circulated back into market. Tax reform is a much bigger issue. Honest businesses pay too much tax and there are too many dishonest businesses. I dont think that corporate tax honesty is a big issue, corporate taxes are only ~12% of revenue for the US.
I think that's exactly the problem, that corporate taxes only account for 12% of the revenue.
|
On October 18 2013 05:39 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 05:33 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 18 2013 05:30 ragz_gt wrote:On October 18 2013 05:22 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments. High unemployment is a long term problem, because (IIRC) the current employment numbers are supposedly the normal unemployment. Due to technology we have had a pretty significant shuffle of the workforce. Also, what about the constant over-spending and waste in programs? Isn't that extremely gigantic? It seems like we have known about our waste for decades, but we never do anything about it. Are there any solutions there? Is it necessary waste? While over spending and waste are issues, they are not as big a problem as most of that money is circulated back into market. Tax reform is a much bigger issue. Honest businesses pay too much tax and there are too many dishonest businesses. I dont think that corporate tax honesty is a big issue, corporate taxes are only ~12% of revenue for the US. I think that's exactly the problem, that corporate taxes only account for 12% of the revenue.
Well, then you just want higher corporate taxes. Though if you raise corporate taxes you also have to realize that this is an indirect tax on people too.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's pretty clear that we've been moving towards modern feudalism for a while. if a government wants to stay financially viable it has to tap into these modern avenues of how the money flows. the rent return on capital is too high and permeable across borders.
chances of any drastic corporate tax reform happening is about 0 though. i think i'll move to australia or north europe once i get done with this school thing
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
We are definitely in need of corporate tax reform. What ragz said is correct: there have been unintended/intended consequences that negatively affect small/honest businesses while large corporations have been taking advantage of "loopholes" and the like.
At the moment, revenue-neutral corporate tax reform should be a thing to push for. After that, whether or not we increase tax revenue from corporate taxation should be decided from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
