On August 03 2011 14:22 Senorcuidado wrote: That attitude is seriously what everyone is talking about in the danger of extremism. What do we get when both sides of the government refuse to compromise? Exactly what we have now, the world almost ending every few months and the government unable to function properly. Paul Ryan got a raw deal, I didn't think it was fair to paint his bill like the Dems did. But I have a pretty hard time feeling sorry for Republicans in the misinformation department...
While I commend Paul Ryan for his bravery, a fair criticism is that he's still asking society's most vulnerable to make sacrifices without asking the rich to make any. That's the problem. Entitlement cuts are inevitable, but defense spending needs to be cut too and the rich have to pay their fair share. As a whole package that's much more palatable to everybody.
Democrats should be more willing to talk about those big spending cuts, yes. Republicans should be willing to talk about closing tax loopholes and stopping this madness of "trick-down economics". They got a ton of concessions from Obama (as usual) and still walked out over the closing of tax loopholes? That's childish. Pretending that Democrats are the whole problem and Republicans are innocent is lunacy. The problem isn't liberals or conservatives, the problem is extremism.
You are right that you can't solve the deficit by raising taxes, but you are ignoring that everyone here agrees about that. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of the solution, it can have a substantial impact and lessen the impact of the spending cuts. What we can't do is keep pretending that tax cuts for the rich is good for anybody other than the rich. That economic model has failed, the rich got very very rich, the poor got poorer, and the government can't pay its bills. It's time to put dogma aside and be realistic.
Here's where I disagree with your argument: the solution to the government's deficit problems is necessarily extreme. I hate to repeat myself so much in this thread, but this point is just too critical: we have a $1.4+ trillion deficit and $14-15 trillion in debt. Those are HUGE numbers. Let's just pretend for a second that taxes are adjusted such that the government gets a huge amount of new revenues. I'll even be generous. Let's say that the increased taxes is equal to $500 billion in new revenue annually (this number is unrealistic). Even assuming this huge increase in new taxes, we would still need to freeze government spending increases and then cut spending by at least $1 trillion annually to balance the budget and begin paying off the principal of the $14-15 trillion in debt that we've already amassed.
We've been hearing repeatedly from the media and from politicians (predominantly democrats) that cutting $4 trillion in spending over 10 years is extreme (and let's not forget that, under their baseline budgeting system, those cuts still would not offset automatically slated increases in spending over that same time period). Assuming that the fiscal plan that I set forth above was held in place for 10 years, the spending cuts be scored by the CBO as a $19 trillion cut in spending over that period. ($1 trillion in actual cuts per year for 10 years [$10 trillion] + $9 trillion in "cuts" from immediately freezing spending levels under the baseline budgeting system). Please explain to me in what universe $19 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years would not be considered "extreme."
And that's the real problem. We're so fucked right now that the only way out is to implement rather draconian and extreme spending cuts, even with new taxes. Even if our economy starts going gangbusters with growth, we'd still need implement some dramatic measures to start paying off the debt and reducing it to sustainable levels for when the next economic shitstorm hits. What this means politically is that democrats and liberals are going to have to eat a massive shit sandwich for the good of the country and enact spending cuts on the very entitlement programs that they champion. There is no "moderate" solution where republicans and democrats can meet halfway on this. Democrats simply have to capitulate. Will republicans have to to give up defense spending cuts? Yep. But again, most of the action necessarily will be in entitlement program reform.
lol Daunt, people don't care about the numbers. The fact this thread even exists and is thriving is proof people don't care about the numbers. They will spout whatever BS is already in line with their entire ideological point of view, but you won't hear them discuss the actual depth of the hole we are in.
Most don't even know, or are unwilling to accept it. That's how you get people saying "it's all overblown, there is no problem, this was manufactured by the republicans." I made a thread with plenty of numbers from every reliable source I could think of, from the federal reserve, to the IMF, to the accounting offices... In the end it was called troll bait and ignored. Just give up now, people don't care about the facts, or the numbers.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
Yeah, it's kinda hard for me to disagree with you.
Let's get real. What you are suggesting 'needs' to happen is for the majority of Americans to accept the highway robbery perpetrated by a minority. That's not going to happen; that road leads to violence. That's why moderation is required.
The deficit that we're in is not just due to outrageous spending, it's also stealing from our most productive sect of society. The shift of a good portion of the tax burden was propped on to the backs of the middle class and small businesses for almost half a century, the people who are most responsible for growing our economy. It's probably going to take a century to restore this - too bad nobody cares about their future grandchildren or great grandchildren.
Everyone tries to negate the fact that almost half of our outstanding debt is money borrowed from Government accounts that all working Americans pay into. And as was pointed out like 4 posts above me, the amount taxed is capped at $106k and is not applied to capital gains.
If Social Security wasn't turned into an ATM for Federal Spending this would be well and good. The problem is the government has done a terrible job investing those funds into activities that would ensure they could keep up with the interest payments. They continued borrowing and spending on things with terrible or negative ROI, and kicking the can down the road even further. What this has resulted in is a true flat tax! Social Security is supposed to be a vehicle for forced retirement savings and investment into the government, but very few of us (I'm assuming anyone reading this still has at least 25 years left in the workforce) will ever see that promise realized - and worse yet no one is truly interested in fixing it. They'd rather kill it.
Ok, so we kill it or neuter it. Now what? Where are we going to get that extra 15% tax from all payroll income? People and businesses aren't going to keep paying the same amount for bullshit, especially when there are no guarantees that things will change. Lets just force everyone to pay for their own retirement. And then when they don't, how will we deal with all of the sick and hospital bound?
TLDR: to think that you can be headstrong and go to extremes to solve a problem that affects almost 300 million people is beyond foolish. It repeats the mistakes of the last 3-4 decades where we ignore any kind of middle ground (middle class) and only concentrate on the extremes. This still will give us a middle, but it's not the mode - which is what is most important in a Democratic society.
I will paste this again as it basically states it best. Senator Coburn is my hero, not necessarily for his stance on all issues but because of his resounding character. Will there be cuts? Yes. Yes there will have to be changes to our entitlement programs but we do not have to pay off the bill all at once. We can take greater steps to curbing deficits and paying off our bill. Most democrats understand this and if we where honest on the extent of the problem Americans would all pitch in and share the sacrifice to get us out of this. We are all in this together. I think it is good that many of us while initially very passionate have come to some semblance of an understanding. I think many dems just want there to be higher taxes so that its not all being taken out on the back of middle class. Further, keep in mind that we have control of our currency and most of our debt is owed to ourselves. It would not be surprising if a lot of our debt was written off by the fed.
The discussion that cuts were made is a complete joke. Nothing was cut, but "future spending", while approving the growth of future spending. The deficit will continue to grow and once interest rates come up, which they must and they will in soon (in the next year or so), the only way to pay it off is going to be by devaluing the dollar.
The fundamental issue is that the government is not a provider or a creator, which is what many (most?) have come to think. Rather it is an agency that redistributes resources very inefficiently. They have no way to increase revenue but by taking more resources and distributing these equally inefficiently. The issue is, the more one takes from the producers in society, the less they produce. Increasing taxes has been shown to not increase net revenue. So it must borrow, but one cannot pay of debt with more debt. The ability of the government to stimulate growth with debt has also been a failure. So until the expenditures are cut, nothing will change and nothing will get better. Things will just get worse and when they come to a head, it will be worse than if they were confronted now.
One could instantly balance the budget though if the government simply cut back to 2004 levels. Why has expenditure nearly doubled when the population hasn't doubled and technology has only made things more efficient? Where is the issue here? The government itself is the issue.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. - Senator Barack H. Obama...March 2006
As for taxing the rich, I'm against it. What made the USA powerful today is the "American Dream". Increasing the burden towards the rich shifts away from this ideology. It is a myth that the rich don't contribute. The money they have are invested heavily back into the economy. What made them rich is their ability to wisely make decisions on how to use their capital. In general, govts don't make these good decisions.
It could also be argued that the Government provides a framework and a healthy environment for these people to flourish. On that basis they owe more taxes. Do you think Bill Gates would have become a billionaire living the North Korean dream?
On August 03 2011 13:10 thepeonwhocould wrote: This whole issue is alot simpler than people make it out to be.
If an individual is in debt, what advice would you give them in order for them to get out of debt?
Cut all non-critical spending and start paying off your debts.
I sort of agree. Please define "non critical". You would ask a million people and get a million different answers depending on their thoughts and circumstances. The debate about that would be more heated than the current one. For example, I'd slash defense but many people would be up in arms (pardon the pun) at the mere thought of that.
On August 04 2011 09:42 cfoy3 wrote: Further, keep in mind that we have control of our currency and most of our debt is owed to ourselves. It would not be surprising if a lot of our debt was written off by the fed.
Whats controlling the currency got to do with it? You can't print your way out of trouble, that just leads to inflation. Also, the bigget chunk of the debt "owed to yourselves" is social security. Try reassigning that money and telling the people who contributed to it that it was actually taken from them under false pretenses. Thats what it amounts to. I'd wager a few lynchings would take place. I'd be in the mob if my social security contributions were taken away like that. Plus they'd have to rewrite law and effectively bullshit the voting public colosally to make them swallow a turd like that.
On August 04 2011 10:03 AcuWill wrote: One could instantly balance the budget though if the government simply cut back to 2004 levels. Why has expenditure nearly doubled when the population hasn't doubled and technology has only made things more efficient? Where is the issue here? The government itself is the issue.
The issue is that the population is aging, the baby boomers are starting to collect Social Security and Medicare checks, we're in two wars, we're trying to create jobs and get out of a recession, we're paying interest, and
Contrary to what Fox News may tell you, government spending has not shot through the roof because of discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is responsible for nearly all of it. It's not like the government suddenly decided to spend tons more money. The policies we already had in place for decades guaranteed that our spending would spike; the problem is that in spite of this, no measures to increase revenue or reform spending were taken because both are politically unpopular (hilariously, we even decided to decrease revenue like a bunch of idiots).
The super committee idea is probably the dumbest thing I've heard out of US politicians in a few years, mostly because I can't imagine 12 senators I would trust with that kind of anonymity and power.
On August 04 2011 13:01 Nevuk wrote: The super committee idea is probably the dumbest thing I've heard out of US politicians in a few years, mostly because I can't imagine 12 senators I would trust with that kind of anonymity and power.
Yeah this is the biggest joke ever. Giving so much power to 12 senators that you wont likely be able to vote for. This is what i call fake democracy; in the sense that the decisions are made without your agreement, and when you can vote, it's wether you want to have mister-dickhead or mister-lier taking care of the future decisions. If I make a vote where either you give me half of your money or we raise the prices by half, Is this democracy ? No because I can chose the options you have to vote for, and in either case, I'm chosing what's gonna happen. If I make a vote for presidential and the only candidates you see on TV are those who could afford a very expensive campaign because of relationship with some financial monopoles, is it democracy ? Voting Obama or revoting Bush would actually have been exactly the same. Very few of the "promises" Obama did for being ellected haven't been done. But you won't see that on TV. At the moment you start controlling opinions, this aint democracy. How did they manage to make you believe that protesting is bad ?? I love USA as a country, and I love the americans, but I really dont trust american governements. + Show Spoiler +
This documentary is a little bit too sensionalist imo but the facts are here and and can be verified. I urge any of you who haven't watch it, to watch it. Even if it's for criticize how bad the documentary is. because you can't expect your government to tell you what they want to hide.
On August 04 2011 10:03 AcuWill wrote: One could instantly balance the budget though if the government simply cut back to 2004 levels. Why has expenditure nearly doubled when the population hasn't doubled and technology has only made things more efficient? Where is the issue here? The government itself is the issue.
The issue is that the population is aging, the baby boomers are starting to collect Social Security and Medicare checks, we're in two wars, we're trying to create jobs and get out of a recession, we're paying interest, and
Contrary to what Fox News may tell you, government spending has not shot through the roof because of discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is responsible for nearly all of it. It's not like the government suddenly decided to spend tons more money. The policies we already had in place for decades guaranteed that our spending would spike; the problem is that in spite of this, no measures to increase revenue or reform spending were taken because both are politically unpopular (hilariously, we even decided to decrease revenue like a bunch of idiots).
I don't watch the news of any type, so don't pigeon hole me. Thanks.
And you made my point for me, there were no changes to spending, therefore nothing was done. I am not interested in getting into a specific debate of microscopic points, but I find it interesting that you agreed with me, perhaps with a difference of perspective and a need to attack what you believed to be my political ideology and news source. This is not a party issue, it is a government functionality and bureaucracy issue.
I would like to point out though, that all spending is discretionary. Also, how one handles the government Ponzi schemes of Medicare, Medicade and Social Security plays a huge role in spending.
Bill Gates made a interesting presentation at TED about how the state budgets and the debt is handled very poorly and how in the end schools might loose out.
On August 04 2011 09:42 cfoy3 wrote: I will paste this again as it basically states it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YWGNGnycYk Senator Coburn is my hero, not necessarily for his stance on all issues but because of his resounding character. Will there be cuts? Yes. Yes there will have to be changes to our entitlement programs but we do not have to pay off the bill all at once. We can take greater steps to curbing deficits and paying off our bill. Most democrats understand this and if we where honest on the extent of the problem Americans would all pitch in and share the sacrifice to get us out of this. We are all in this together. I think it is good that many of us while initially very passionate have come to some semblance of an understanding. I think many dems just want there to be higher taxes so that its not all being taken out on the back of middle class. Further, keep in mind that we have control of our currency and most of our debt is owed to ourselves. It would not be surprising if a lot of our debt was written off by the fed.
Very good video.
The issue with higher taxes is that history has shown in the US that higher taxes does not equal higher revenue. It is not as simple as taxing one group or another and poof, instant revenue.
Also, with so much government intervention with taxation and the government essentially being able to determine whether or not a class of people can continue to have success we get into a crappy situation:
Low income people want to live off the high income, high income want to live off the low, and the middle class just wants to be left alone and have anyone else take the burden. Small business is raped up and down and just wants to be left alone. The solution is to not have the government make these decision and interventions. Flat tax EVERYONE and allow for growth.
That is the other issue, is that taxing makes industry, creators and produces not want to produce as much. I will give a few real world examples.
Google, Microsoft and Cisco all have tens of billions of dollars that they have made offshore. They are not willing to bring it into the country because they do not want to pay repatriation tax. So, instead it stays outside, gets invested into other countries, creates jobs and stimulates the economies of those countries. The end result is hundreds of billions not being invested into the US economy, net revenue loss for the state, less production and long term economic damage.
California recently passes a tax to increase revenue by taxing companies that don't have storefronts and operate on the internet. (As is well known, they are having a financing issue. They figured that more tax = more revenue.) They have labelled them as storefronts. These are small businesses that don't use the roads, police, fire, public transit, etc. that regular storefront taxes pay for. What happened? Amazon instantly closed all of their affiliated sellers. That's 10000 small businesses that went out of business in California overnight. Again, net loss in revenue, damage to economy and now, there will be NOBODY willing to open any e-business in California. Other e-businesses have moved out of state overnight.
I am in the process of opening a business. I don't want to get into the hurdles that I have to go through from all levels of bureaucracy, which make me wish I opened just one county over for example. Rather I will focus on how the tax situation has shaped my business design. I have designed it so that instead of having 4 full time employees, I will be hiring part-time from the local college base. This hurts 4 people who could have full-time, long term jobs. It hurts me because I will have to hire and train new people constantly, therefore making me inefficient. It hurts the government because tax revenue is lost on wages, income from my business and overall profitability as well as removing what would have been 4 middle class citizens.
Worse, my business is designed to limit success. (!!!!!) The current structure with taxation and regulation for small businesses is such that it is more profitable and FAR less hassle for me to minimize success and not expand further than me being able to hire what would be 4 full time employees. Regardless of demand, I will not expand further. The income that I would generate would actually lead to net loss of productivity and revenue, as well as make my life less pleasant to live. Once again, this leads to a net loss of revenue.
If the government spent less time trying to pander to specific interests, the low, middle, upper classes, small business, big business at the expense of the other groups and simply let people prosper, net revenue would increase and government expenses would decrease. (As was supported by your video.)
On August 05 2011 09:00 RowdierBob wrote: On a related topic, shit is getting bad again.
Dow 512 points today. Very grim. Aussie markets about to open and predicted losses of up to 4% are expected.
GFC round 2, or are we headed for something much worse (depression)?
It's going to be worse. People are finally waking up to the fact that sovereign spending is out of control, and many suspect that the debts are unpayable at this point because the debtor-states are insolvent. It's starting in Europe, but it'll be spreading further around the globe soon enough.
I just saw Austen Goolsbee talk to Jon Stewart and he talked about an infrastructure bank to create a form of capital. It's the same thing FDR did after the depression, so it's not a very new idea, but I would like to see the internet improved upon as part of a plan like that.
If we had the fastest internet in the world and it was free, that would help so many small businesses get an edge over the CEOs who have bought out Washington in the last 30 years. It would also be interesting to see the term "infrastructure" rexamined because transportation infrastructure at this point has been catered to the corporations and urban sprawl.
One thing people need to understand is that debt is not necessarily a bad thing. When you owe someone money they have a vested interest in you and hope you do well in order for them to get paid back. The problem is when it's time to pay out and there's no funds to pay with. This is most notably happening with social security in the US.
The US needs to redesign the social security program as it is not self sufficient and the working population cannot support the baby boomers retirement. Sadly the people who invested the most in it are the most likely to get shafted. The social security program should have been done as an investment fund. All money put into the program should be invested so that it can return dividends and pay back a greater amount at a later date. Unfortunately it's more like a giant ponzi scheme and America is the sucker for believing in it.
Taxes are actually designed to tax the upper class the most, but unfortunately it's the middle class that is hit the hardest by taxes. Upper class has learned to be financially smart and they are aware the government will happily take 50% of their income. They can afford it, but who wants to lose money when we could make charity donations or hide the cash and end up paying less in the long run? More thought needs to be put into the tax system and where the money is going. Sadly to the US government, this has been interpreted as hiring more IRS auditors.
In government class, we learned the saying "there's no such thing as gravy". It's true, when money comes into your district/budget you want to spend as much of that money as possible so that you'll receive at least that much money next year. What you don't want to do is spend 50% of what came in and have them only budget 50% next year because that's all you needed. Because of this we now have many offices with more jobs then required and spending more money then they really need. Government jobs are not self sufficient and districts that cannot cover their own spending by revenue they create, need to be looked over and adjusted. Yes, this may mean job cuts and that is bad for the economy, but more productivity and less pencil pushing is how we become worth more as a nation.
The new health care bill is actually really bad for the economy. It's not so much that insurance is required, which is debatable in itself, but rather that businesses must provide insurance options for their employees. This will hit small businesses the hardest and prevent many of them from making it. If we want to stimulate the economy we want to be creating more jobs, and that means making it as easy as possible for solid businesses to get started. Sadly this is a step in the wrong direction.
How do we fix it all? Well, not all of it can be fixed and not all of it needs to be fixed. Debt is a good thing, but mass spending is a bad thing. We need to figure out ways to cut spending where it can be and redesign the systems that simply don't work.
Dropping our space program was probably one of the worst things that we have done. While it did cut costs initially we lost thousands of jobs and the opportunity to be the leading edge in technology. Many solid inventions such as microwaves and space heaters came from the space program. Any opportunity to bring in more resources should not be overlooked.
As for taxing the rich, I'm against it. What made the USA powerful today is the "American Dream". Increasing the burden towards the rich shifts away from this ideology. It is a myth that the rich don't contribute. The money they have are invested heavily back into the economy. What made them rich is their ability to wisely make decisions on how to use their capital. In general, govts don't make these good decisions.
It could also be argued that the Government provides a framework and a healthy environment for these people to flourish. On that basis they owe more taxes. Do you think Bill Gates would have become a billionaire living the North Korean dream?
... and such an argument would be silly. The only thing government does is impose itself upon businesses, making it more difficult for them to succeed. North Korea's government is more restrictive than the U.S. government, it's silly to think that NK just "helps less". When the government passes business friendly legislation, it is actually just backing off to a lesser imposing position, such as reduced taxes, regulation, etc.
In support of Azzur's point:
It is a myth that the rich don't contribute.
The richest 1% contribute more income taxes to the federal government than 95% of the country, combined. To say they don't pay their fair share is pretty ignorant.
On August 06 2011 13:49 slytown wrote: If we had the fastest internet in the world and it was free,
... and how would we go about getting something for nothing ? It won't be free.
On August 06 2011 19:20 Kaitlin wrote: The richest 1% contribute more income taxes to the federal government than 95% of the country, combined. To say they don't pay their fair share is pretty ignorant.
Where is a source for this number? And who actually gets to determine what their 'fair share' is?
Loved the Coburn video. It's absurd to think that we can keep spending like we do while dealing with the problems we have. I would argue that it's also absurd to think we shouldn't have to expect to pay a little bit more to remedy this situation. Hopefully we finally start trying to combat it instead of just pushing it further into the future in the name of political posturing.
The above sources show the %'s. Some years the top 1% drop slightly below the amount paid by 95%, but it's perennially very close. Also, these numbers show the income levels of as far down as under $400,000 AGI / year put you in the top 1%. These are the small business owners and job creators, not the people flying around in their private planes for luxury reasons.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.caseyresearch.com/sites/default/files/resize/USGovernmentExpendituresWillHardlyBeAffected-490x358.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.caseyresearch.com/sites/default/files/image1_44.jpg)
