EPTU.S. Midterm Elections 2010 - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RushBoxer!
United States173 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax. Edit: only after we reach full employment though | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:23 Romantic wrote: I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax. I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy. Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit. I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:26 dcemuser wrote: I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy. Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit. I don't want higher taxes, but increasing taxes has been shown to be much more effective than cutting them to reign in spending, for obvious reasons. I agree with your Plan B, but Republicans will never do it (lol they never will) and Democrats are afraid of their own shadow and would be worried about being called weak. Best bet: Increase taxes heavily ... after full employment | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:26 dcemuser wrote: I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars then you weren't paying attention to him when he campaigned | ||
|
LOLtex
United States148 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:26 dcemuser wrote: I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy. Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit. I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican. Problem is we already created the mess, we can't just up and leave it. That'll make things far worse in the long run. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:23 Romantic wrote: Edit: only after we reach full employment though not possible in a free market, and not in the "failure of a free market" sense, either. full employment implies dictatorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_unemployment | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:33 jalstar wrote: not possible in a free market, and not in the "failure of a free market" sense, either. full employment implies dictatorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_unemployment I consider full employment to be NAIRU. I thought most people did, perhaps I am wrong | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:26 dcemuser wrote: I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy. Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit. I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican. Even if Obama COMPLETELY ELIMINATED the military's budget and abandoned having any military at all, we'd still be close to 400 billion dollars in the hole. The military budget is only a mere 664 billion. Our deficit in the 2010 budget is pushing 1200 billion. The exact figure is still unknown at this time (due to the exact amount of tax returns not being released yet). The government has to get used to the fact that tax returns aren't what they used to be and probably won't be any time in the near future. In 2009, the government received 600 billion dollars less than projected in tax returns. A lot of people in what I would consider to be the "upper middle class" (high-tech laborers, often making low 6-figures) lost their jobs and many of them who got back into the business had to take jobs that don't pay as well. Additionally, new college graduates have a very slim chance of getting a job that will reflect their education. Underemployment is a growing problem, with some estimates indicating that underemployment is as high as 15%. We need to find ways to cut back spending. But the budget continues to grow. That's my problem with Obama's spending: it's not that he already spent that money, it's that he does not seem to have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit, and that there is no indication that the money being spent is helping to relieve problems. | ||
|
drewcifer
United States192 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:26 dcemuser wrote: He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican. hahaha this was funny for some reason | ||
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:34 Romantic wrote: I consider full employment to be NAIRU. I thought most people did, perhaps I am wrong Sorry man but if you ever studied sociology you would know that there is no such thing as full employment that is a myth, a farse, a lie, because there always have to be a certain amount of unemployed people in every country so you can have a low minimum wage that makes the economy work. I didnt say it various sociologists said it and its true there will never be full employment in a capitalist free market economy. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On November 03 2010 16:29 LOLtex wrote: Problem is we already created the mess, we can't just up and leave it. That'll make things far worse in the long run. I love this logic. The US invades a country, and whether through mismanagement, underestimating the opposition, incompetence, structural factors, or by design, the situation isn't improving and said country is close to a civil war. A war the USA is a direct cause of. And now, even if most people recognize the wars were a mistake and didn't go well, we still "can't" leave, because then we "abandon" the poor innocent women and children we set out to rescue in the first place *cough*. Really, what makes you think the military will handle the rest of the ongoing wars any more competently than they did originally? Second, a lot of the conflict comes from the fact that there still is an occupation, it's the US armies that provoke attacks by being in places they shouldn't be. Third, don't pretend that the military is just a security force. If you want to leave some troops behind to act as body guards for the politicians, then fine, but that's not what they're doing. Fourth, with this logic the military profits from "failure", the more incompetent, the more necessary they'll apparently be. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
Don't expect much change from Obama. I'm glad to see however that Rand Paul did well. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
| ||
|
Varth
United States426 Posts
My own country makes me vomit with the anti tax stuff, all you people want your government services and are unwilling to pay for them, and and now are electing people THAT COST YOU YOUR JOBS IN THE FIRST PLACE back into office. You obviously deserved losing your job if you are so unwilling to educate yourself about your own country that you live in. Politics have gotten so horrible in the last 6 years in this country, politicians, MOSTLY republicans and some democrats as well, are more focused on their own political careers and political parties that they have forgotten why they were elected, to help the damn people in their country. Republicans in the last 2 years complete strategy was say no to everything, because they KNEW that many americans can't see past their own nose, and that the economy couldn't be recovered fast enough to keep them satisfied, so that they could say OMG SO MANY PROBLEMS BLAH BLAH BLAH VOTE FOR US. I used to BE A REPUBLICAN when they were actually /gasp moderate, too bad the last few moderate republicans left HAD THEIR OWN PARTY turn on them. LEARN TO THINK LONG TERM AMERICA This is a rant, and i somewhat apologize, but I really had to say this. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
| ||
|
crayhasissues
United States682 Posts
 ) will help, but a balance of both would bring the most success. | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On November 04 2010 00:19 Varth wrote: Anyone who says that Obama is increasing taxes in 60 days, obviously doesn't have their facts straight, its a tax break expiring that SHOULD EXPIRE because OBVIOUSLY the USA is strapped for money. My states Universities have been faced with such shortages that they needed to lay off teachers, and close buildings, all because people cant stand not being able to buy their stupid fucking coffee just 1 time a day instead of 3-4, or one less outfit A YEAR. lol, I know this was aimed at me. Let me repeat "well see how much taxes go up in 60 days"... Take some time to think that over before calling someone out. State Universities fall under the same problem as public schools. That has little to do with more taxes... | ||
|
Xtar
79 Posts
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country," Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation. I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die. But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what? | ||
| ||
