|
On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
the US has enough cash and revenue to pay back its current liabilities. the problem is their accounts payable - social security, medicare, defense etc.
obama is following the keynesian idea of how to get a nation out of a recession, which is for the government to spend -- however, the thing that is being overlooked here is that keynes meant for this spending to be funded out of savings, not debt. the US, in attempting to stimulate the economy, has taken on enormous amounts of debt in order to fund federal programs and stimulate the economy, which has not worked for obama at all. that isn't to say that the previous administration did a good job managing the budget. in fact, bush's administration was, fiscally speaking, incredibly irresponsible. obama inherited this, so the entire blame cannot be placed on him, but the policy decisions he has made during his tenure have made the previous president's look prudent in comparison.
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
as margaret thatcher once said -- "the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money."
I find US citizens rather funny whenever they discuss a serious topic which requires a lot of thought and introspection. Usually there is some dumb one line quote involved, some vague notions of horrible policies that are left unnamed that take up a vast portion of funds, complete lack of any numbers or actual facts, and finally some catcalls towards either the left or right for being "the reason the country is in a mess".
|
The stimulus ITSELF is the tax on the economy. It doesnt do anything good to the economy, only bad. Regardless of whether the stimulus comes from santa claus,the fed or china, The same remains true.
It is money that will not be spent by the private sector. It will be spent by the gov't. And the individuals that made the choice can ONLY be repaid in the future by others in the private sector. That's all that matters - the effect on the private sector as a whole.
|
I'm sad because this is occurring right as the new space program is getting off the ground.
Could have been a great era in human exploration. Oh well, I guess the Chinese can own space.
|
So, Harry Reid's drafted a plan that more or less calls the GOP's bluff, with that whole "potential for higher taxes" that leaves me nauseous. We'll see how it does in the House.
Someone needs to mail Obama some guides on negotiation and rhetoric.
On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
in fact, bush's administration was, fiscally speaking, incredibly irresponsible. obama inherited this, so the entire blame cannot be placed on him, but the policy decisions he has made during his tenure have made the previous president's look prudent in comparison.
Well put.
On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
No, it really doesn't. Obama's stimulus was smart but ongoing scrums have worn out the steady recovery it provided. Extending the Bush tax cuts largely factor into this because, simply put, revenue streams must increase. Even Reagan raised taxes - during a recession, no less.
So, you can cut essential programs to further burden an already overburdened poor to protect the rich and maintain outrageously, unsustainably low levels of taxation - like, really - or you can raise taxes to a level that's actually sane.
If you mean outside the House of Representatives, then doubly so: no, it really, really doesn't. The idea that a proper deficit reduction involves no hikes is a fringe belief.
On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
as margaret thatcher once said -- "the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money."
I have no idea what this has to do with anything.
Considering how far right even the Democrats are, no one should have the right to call anyone in American politics a socialist.
|
On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute?
Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day).
Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
|
On July 26 2011 04:41 murkk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
the US has enough cash and revenue to pay back its current liabilities. the problem is their accounts payable - social security, medicare, defense etc.
obama is following the keynesian idea of how to get a nation out of a recession, which is for the government to spend -- however, the thing that is being overlooked here is that keynes meant for this spending to be funded out of savings, not debt. the US, in attempting to stimulate the economy, has taken on enormous amounts of debt in order to fund federal programs and stimulate the economy, which has not worked for obama at all. that isn't to say that the previous administration did a good job managing the budget. in fact, bush's administration was, fiscally speaking, incredibly irresponsible. obama inherited this, so the entire blame cannot be placed on him, but the policy decisions he has made during his tenure have made the previous president's look prudent in comparison.
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
as margaret thatcher once said -- "the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money." I find US citizens rather funny whenever they discuss a serious topic which requires a lot of thought and introspection. Usually there is some dumb one line quote involved, some vague notions of horrible policies that are left unnamed that take up a vast portion of funds, complete lack of any numbers or actual facts, and finally some catcalls towards either the left or right for being "the reason the country is in a mess".
a fair point about vagueness, but i don't have time at work right now to dig up statistics and quotes from the WSJ/FT. my post was merely theory. there also no catcalling towards either party, if you read my post i think both parties are responsible for the financial mess (and their inability to concede and negotiate is the reason why it is not being resolved). taxation is something that will always be heavily debated in the US, and generally once someone forms a certain belief about who should and shouldn't be taxed it is difficult to convince them otherwise.
anyhow, the debt ceiling has been raised some 17-19 times already -- i really don't think raising it again would cause any huge impact on global economies.
On July 26 2011 04:57 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. No, it really doesn't. Obama's stimulus was smart but ongoing scrums have worn out the steady recovery it provided. Extending the Bush tax cuts largely factor into this because, simply put, revenue streams must increase. Even Reagan raised taxes - during a recession, no less. So, you can cut essential programs to further burden an already overburdened poor to protect the rich and maintain outrageously, unsustainably low levels of taxation - like, really - or you can raise taxes to a level that's actually sane. If you mean outside the House of Representatives, then doubly so: no, it really, really doesn't. The idea that a proper deficit reduction involves no hikes is a fringe belief.
i think we are actually in agreement on this, the right/wealthy generally believe that they have earned and worked their way into wealth, and as such, should be taxed less -- i.e. they should not have to pay for others who did not work as hard as they did (which of course is not always true in the real world).
looking at the budget in terms of revenues and expenses, i think at this point it is far more important to cut expenses than to increase revenues (although i agree that both need to occur in order to find a long-term fix for the problem).
Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
as margaret thatcher once said -- "the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money." I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Considering how far right even the Democrats are, no one should have the right to call anyone in American politics a socialist.
this is true as well -- obama's policies are for the most part quite center right, but you'll hear people every now and then (people in the US who scream that the sky is falling, etc) that obama is bringing us to the path of socialism, which i think we are a long ways from. you heard it a year ago during the healthcare reform talks, and you are hearing it again now with the debt talks... i just thought it was a funny quote from a hardcore fiscal conservative :p
|
On July 26 2011 05:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute? Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day). Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit.
I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing.
Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
|
On July 26 2011 04:41 murkk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:30 TheMusiC wrote:
the US has enough cash and revenue to pay back its current liabilities. the problem is their accounts payable - social security, medicare, defense etc.
obama is following the keynesian idea of how to get a nation out of a recession, which is for the government to spend -- however, the thing that is being overlooked here is that keynes meant for this spending to be funded out of savings, not debt. the US, in attempting to stimulate the economy, has taken on enormous amounts of debt in order to fund federal programs and stimulate the economy, which has not worked for obama at all. that isn't to say that the previous administration did a good job managing the budget. in fact, bush's administration was, fiscally speaking, incredibly irresponsible. obama inherited this, so the entire blame cannot be placed on him, but the policy decisions he has made during his tenure have made the previous president's look prudent in comparison.
the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically.
as margaret thatcher once said -- "the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money." I find US citizens rather funny whenever they discuss a serious topic which requires a lot of thought and introspection. Usually there is some dumb one line quote involved, some vague notions of horrible policies that are left unnamed that take up a vast portion of funds, complete lack of any numbers or actual facts, and finally some catcalls towards either the left or right for being "the reason the country is in a mess".
I find people in general rather funny when they completely ignore entire chunks of reading, only to generalize an entire population based on a single quote. There have been more than a few US citizens in this thread who have provided credible opinions backed up with factual evidence.
|
You guys forget. The US can always print more dollars. No individual European country has the power to make more Euros to appear to pay off their debt
|
On July 26 2011 05:11 TranceStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute? Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day). Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit. I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing. Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further.
Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
|
Some men just want to watch the world.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8P3UW.jpg)
|
On July 26 2011 05:16 Danger_Duck wrote:
You guys forget. The US can always print more dollars. No individual European country has the power to make more Euros to appear to pay off their debt
every country in the world can print more money. but that wouldnt sort anything.
let me tell you, imagine;
1 apple is 5 euro/10 dollars right now in the global market and you have 1 euro only. so you go and print 4 more euros thinking you will have 5 euro in the end and finally manage to buy the apple which will sort your problems but unfortunately its not that simple and wont happen because lets say there are 100 euros around the world and 200 dolars around the world due to 1 apple price in euro/dollar. with printing 4 more euros there will be 104 euro and 200 dolars overall. which means there will be more euros in the market and less dollars, so it makes euro less valuable and dolar more valuable. at the end it turns back to 100 euro and 192 dollars in the values market and 1 apple will cost five-six point something euros/nine point something dollars because of that.
you have printed 4 more euros so you can have the 5 euro to buy the apple right? but it costs more than 5 euros now unfortunately so all you have done was pointless basicly. it only made you have more money in your own currency for short term spendings which is by the way is still not letting you buy anything new at all but in the long term you have also ruined everything because your currency lost some value. you lose either way.
well on the bright side, you can wipe your ass with that printed out 4 euros.
|
On July 26 2011 05:33 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:11 TranceStorm wrote:On July 26 2011 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute? Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day). Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit. I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing. Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further. Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much.
The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs.
It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
|
I will laugh when the neoliberal-republican-"economists" drive the last rest of the USA in the ground.
It's not like there aren't already 40 million poor people in your country.
The democrats are no better, just saying.
|
On July 26 2011 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:33 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On July 26 2011 05:11 TranceStorm wrote:On July 26 2011 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute? Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day). Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit. I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing. Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further. Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much. The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs. It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed.
I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
|
On July 26 2011 05:51 Reyis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:16 Danger_Duck wrote:
You guys forget. The US can always print more dollars. No individual European country has the power to make more Euros to appear to pay off their debt every country in the world can print more money. but that wouldnt sort anything. let me tell you, imagine; 1 apple is 5 euro/10 dollars right now in the global market and you have 1 euro only. so you go and print 4 more euros thinking you will have 5 euro in the end and finally manage to buy the apple which will sort your problems but unfortunately its not that simple and wont happen because lets say there are 100 euros around the world and 200 dolars around the world due to 1 apple price in euro/dollar. with printing 4 more euros there will be 104 euro and 200 dolars overall. which means there will be more euros in the market and less dollars, so it makes euro less valuable and dolar more valuable. at the end it turns back to 100 euro and 192 dollars in the values market and 1 apple will cost five-six point something euros/nine point something dollars because of that. you have printed 4 more euros so you can have the 5 euro to buy the apple right? but it costs more than 5 euros now unfortunately so all you have done was pointless basicly. it only made you have more money in your own currency for short term spendings which is by the way is still not letting you buy anything new at all but in the long term you have also ruined everything because your currency lost some value. you lose either way. well on the bright side, you can wipe your ass with that printed out 4 euros.
yeah .. if you start to explain monetary policies with apples you wont get anywhere. Printing money does a lot ... the US is doing it a lot right now. unfortunatly the FED who prints the money does lend it to the US state. It buys US Bonds.
|
On July 26 2011 05:57 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 05:33 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On July 26 2011 05:11 TranceStorm wrote:On July 26 2011 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute? Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day). Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit. I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing. Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further. Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much. The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs. It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed. I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically).
I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
|
On July 26 2011 05:51 Reyis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:16 Danger_Duck wrote:
You guys forget. The US can always print more dollars. No individual European country has the power to make more Euros to appear to pay off their debt every country in the world can print more money. but that wouldnt sort anything. let me tell you, imagine; 1 apple is 5 euro/10 dollars right now in the global market and you have 1 euro only. so you go and print 4 more euros thinking you will have 5 euro in the end and finally manage to buy the apple which will sort your problems but unfortunately its not that simple and wont happen because lets say there are 100 euros around the world and 200 dolars around the world due to 1 apple price in euro/dollar. with printing 4 more euros there will be 104 euro and 200 dolars overall. which means there will be more euros in the market and less dollars, so it makes euro less valuable and dolar more valuable. at the end it turns back to 100 euro and 192 dollars in the values market and 1 apple will cost five-six point something euros/nine point something dollars because of that. you have printed 4 more euros so you can have the 5 euro to buy the apple right? but it costs more than 5 euros now unfortunately so all you have done was pointless basicly. it only made you have more money in your own currency for short term spendings which is by the way is still not letting you buy anything new at all but in the long term you have also ruined everything because your currency lost some value. you lose either way. well on the bright side, you can wipe your ass with that printed out 4 euros.
The word you're looking for is inflation, and not every country in the world can print money, trust me Greece wishes it could just print money.
And actually, its more than short term spendings, because in your case, the 4 dollars you borrowed are only worth 3 "ancient" dollars ajusted for inflation.
So you're borrowing 4 and giving back 4 that are only worth 3, so you're making a profit, which is precisely what the US is doing.
|
Here's an idea...shoot every single public official, and furthermore every single individual who even attempts to give the elite class a tax break. It's really that fucking simple. It's absolutely unbelievable that people aren't aware of one of the best times in US history - the 50s and 60s - and how high the tax bracket went then. Some rich were paying literally almost 90% of their income to the government, who created jobs, developed industry, and kept the country competitive with the rest of the world. That has all changed, and now everyone simple accepts the governments opinion that if they hit the rich, somehow magically all the money that they stole FROM US is going to DISAPPEAR and DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.
Unregulated economy simply results in the same thing it has always resulted in. Revolution. Having money means you can make more money than someone who doesn't have money. Eventually this means you hit the "tipping point" of about 90% of wealth in 10% of hands, which in every single fucking instance in the history of the planet has resulted in a bloody fucking revolution. Nobody seems to get the idea.
What bothers me the most is that people don't seem to have a problem with the rich coming into existence in the first place. There is something disgusting about someone earning in a year's time the equivalent of tens or hundreds of thousands of average yearly wages. No one human being is that valuable to our fucking society. I think that's what people are missing, personally. And together, they need to do something about it.
What does this have to do with the debt? Everything. Because the lack of taxes on the rich are the whole reason we're in this situation in the first place. Middle class and low class individuals can't afford to pay 20-35% of their paychecks. The rich can easily afford to pay 60-70%+. But they don't. They pay at most pretty much the same the upper middle class does.
|
On July 26 2011 06:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:57 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On July 26 2011 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 05:33 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On July 26 2011 05:11 TranceStorm wrote:On July 26 2011 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2011 04:41 xXFireandIceXx wrote:the taxation issue really rests on how far left or right you lean ideologically. but the tax code has to be reformed in the states, regardless of which party is in power. you can only cut so many programs in a growing country. and to be honest, just cutting spending won't do. but it's not so much as the tax rates, as it is the tax "loopholes" that exist. most americans don't even pay taxes. i mean, how can you run a country with social programs when most people don't contribute? Cutting spending is the only real solution. Sure, I don't doubt that there will be some tax increases at some point, whether they are in the form of closing loopholes or simply raising the rates. However, we're talking about a government that is spending 40% more than it is receiving in taxes. We're talking about a $1.4 trillion annual government deficit in a $14-15 trillion economy. No one in their right mind is going to suggest taxing the economy an extra 10%. (in reality, the rate would have to be significantly higher than 10%, but that's a conversation for another day). Again, this is a spending a problem, and suggesting that we can't cut that many programs is pure crap. Let's start with getting rid of Obamacare and reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That's where the real money is anyway. Not even eliminating all pork projects and defense spending would close the budget deficit. I agree that cutting is absolutely necessary in our current state. Reforming the tax code and removing 'loopholes' will only perhaps net a little bit more income which will not come close to the shortfalls the government is currently experiencing. Closing 'loopholes' and eliminating inefficiencies is a common crutch phrase used by politicians to justify their spending plans, but such things will always exist and there will be a point at which these inefficiencies will be unable to be reduced any further. Yes, but how many social programs are you going to cut? Tax reform is a must but I agree in that cutting spending is the most important priority right now. However, it's tough to cut from so many domestic programs that people actually need. You can only cut so much. The answer is simple: we're going to ultimately cut as much spending as we must to balance the budget. Yes, it's going to suck for a lot of people, but this is the price that must be paid for continuously electing fiscally irresponsible politicians to office. Again, we're talking about a 40% budget deficit. Social security, defense, unemployment/welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and HHS spending are the largest programs (in that order) and constitute more than 75% of the federal budget. Interest on debt spending is the next largest line item, but it only constitutes 4.63%. Accordingly, the cuts will have to come from these programs. It's also worth noting that Medicare and Social Security are the fastest growing programs, so they will need to be significantly reformed. I doubt any president or political party will risk doing that. Cutting 14.7 trillion dollars in social services?That is pretty suicidal (politically). I said that cuts will be made to those programs -- not that they will be eliminated. Also, I agree that in the past, touching any of those programs was political suicide. However, what we're witnessing right now is a signficant shift in American politics. The cuts will be made.
Yeah, cut from the poorest because they can't fight back. But the rich can't pay taxes because it hurts "the economy" (=their pockets). Hopefully the USA will become anytime a progressive country again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
