|
On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 16:32 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 29 2012 16:19 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 12:18 AcuWill wrote:On January 29 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 05:53 liberal wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is the government isn't able to create jobs, only to transfer jobs, and isn't able to create wealth, only transfer wealth. The jobs that were "created" when they were transferred from somewhere else are always visible, which is why people have the mistaken belief that the government actually is capable of creating jobs. What people don't see are the jobs which have been destroyed to create those new jobs, destroyed in the present through taxation and relative inefficiency, and destroyed in the future through payments on our debt and market corrections of over-investment. When 8.5% of the labor force is unemployed, if the government pays them to build a bridge, then the government has created jobs. Did you not read any of the posts a few further up? Try to read liberal's. Let me start the thought process: From where does the government conjure up the ability to "create" jobs? Ie., where does the money come from? If you follow that throught process you will see how the government doesn't "create" jobs. Then you try to read my posts. $1 spent in investment of a investment banker =/= $1 in job creation or confidence in the economy. If the ultimate goal is to create wealth as a whole, then yea, private sector will probably be the best bet. But you're going to get unemployment (or long term malinvestment) problems. Actually, it's just the opposite.. In a free economy companies who invested poorly would rightfully go bankrupt and their assets liquidated, In todays society we bail out the financial institutions and pass their losses to the taxpayers. Not only do we pass the losses to the taxpayer, but we inadvertently exacerbate the problems with our bleeding heart and the policies that result.. Now we have TBTF and a ridiculous debt that will seriously burden generations to come.. If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know. Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... A "decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points" as you so lightly call it, is a horrible burden that governments are imposing on citizens all over the world. I'm not even 21 and my small business hasn't even made 10k profit and I've already payed 2k in taxes, which has robbed me of the oportunity to further reinvest on other profitable matters because of lack of liquidity. Morever, my real burden is/was all the paper work, incluying 0.5k to start my small company, having to do all the fucking tax declarations every month, the fact that I cannot hire 1 part time employees without having to hire an accountant, etc. All of the above is caused because people think they are entitled to others property, or to force others to transfer property under gun point because they seem it fit. Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively. At least we do not have government debt though. Instead, we burden the poor with a 45% tax on gas and 19% tax on the purchate of every good.
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt.
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem.
|
On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 16:32 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 29 2012 16:19 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 12:18 AcuWill wrote:On January 29 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 05:53 liberal wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is the government isn't able to create jobs, only to transfer jobs, and isn't able to create wealth, only transfer wealth. The jobs that were "created" when they were transferred from somewhere else are always visible, which is why people have the mistaken belief that the government actually is capable of creating jobs. What people don't see are the jobs which have been destroyed to create those new jobs, destroyed in the present through taxation and relative inefficiency, and destroyed in the future through payments on our debt and market corrections of over-investment. When 8.5% of the labor force is unemployed, if the government pays them to build a bridge, then the government has created jobs. Did you not read any of the posts a few further up? Try to read liberal's. Let me start the thought process: From where does the government conjure up the ability to "create" jobs? Ie., where does the money come from? If you follow that throught process you will see how the government doesn't "create" jobs. Then you try to read my posts. $1 spent in investment of a investment banker =/= $1 in job creation or confidence in the economy. If the ultimate goal is to create wealth as a whole, then yea, private sector will probably be the best bet. But you're going to get unemployment (or long term malinvestment) problems. Actually, it's just the opposite.. In a free economy companies who invested poorly would rightfully go bankrupt and their assets liquidated, In todays society we bail out the financial institutions and pass their losses to the taxpayers. Not only do we pass the losses to the taxpayer, but we inadvertently exacerbate the problems with our bleeding heart and the policies that result.. Now we have TBTF and a ridiculous debt that will seriously burden generations to come.. If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know. Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... A "decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points" as you so lightly call it, is a horrible burden that governments are imposing on citizens all over the world. I'm not even 21 and my small business hasn't even made 10k profit and I've already payed 2k in taxes, which has robbed me of the oportunity to further reinvest on other profitable matters because of lack of liquidity. Morever, my real burden is/was all the paper work, incluying 0.5k to start my small company, having to do all the fucking tax declarations every month, the fact that I cannot hire 1 part time employees without having to hire an accountant, etc. All of the above is caused because people think they are entitled to others property, or to force others to transfer property under gun point because they seem it fit. Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively. At least we do not have government debt though. Instead, we burden the poor with a 45% tax on gas and 19% tax on the purchate of every good. I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt.
You also have to take into consideration the rate at which out federal debt has expanded, and how much the interest payments will be when our federal debt is double what is now, on top of an ever declining economy because of taxes to pay for said debt..
In 1971 out debt was .4 Trillion, or 400 Billion..Bush took the debt from $6 trillion to $10.6 trillion, now were at 15.7 Trillion with exponential potential increases as we increase our world policing and what appears to be a serious war with Iran.. At this pace we will be at 22 Trillion by the time Obama leaves office.. no doubt.
|
On January 29 2012 17:19 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 16:32 LaLLsc2 wrote:On January 29 2012 16:19 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2012 12:18 AcuWill wrote:On January 29 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 05:53 liberal wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is the government isn't able to create jobs, only to transfer jobs, and isn't able to create wealth, only transfer wealth. The jobs that were "created" when they were transferred from somewhere else are always visible, which is why people have the mistaken belief that the government actually is capable of creating jobs. What people don't see are the jobs which have been destroyed to create those new jobs, destroyed in the present through taxation and relative inefficiency, and destroyed in the future through payments on our debt and market corrections of over-investment. When 8.5% of the labor force is unemployed, if the government pays them to build a bridge, then the government has created jobs. Did you not read any of the posts a few further up? Try to read liberal's. Let me start the thought process: From where does the government conjure up the ability to "create" jobs? Ie., where does the money come from? If you follow that throught process you will see how the government doesn't "create" jobs. Then you try to read my posts. $1 spent in investment of a investment banker =/= $1 in job creation or confidence in the economy. If the ultimate goal is to create wealth as a whole, then yea, private sector will probably be the best bet. But you're going to get unemployment (or long term malinvestment) problems. Actually, it's just the opposite.. In a free economy companies who invested poorly would rightfully go bankrupt and their assets liquidated, In todays society we bail out the financial institutions and pass their losses to the taxpayers. Not only do we pass the losses to the taxpayer, but we inadvertently exacerbate the problems with our bleeding heart and the policies that result.. Now we have TBTF and a ridiculous debt that will seriously burden generations to come.. If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know. Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... A "decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points" as you so lightly call it, is a horrible burden that governments are imposing on citizens all over the world. I'm not even 21 and my small business hasn't even made 10k profit and I've already payed 2k in taxes, which has robbed me of the oportunity to further reinvest on other profitable matters because of lack of liquidity. Morever, my real burden is/was all the paper work, incluying 0.5k to start my small company, having to do all the fucking tax declarations every month, the fact that I cannot hire 1 part time employees without having to hire an accountant, etc. All of the above is caused because people think they are entitled to others property, or to force others to transfer property under gun point because they seem it fit. Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively. At least we do not have government debt though. Instead, we burden the poor with a 45% tax on gas and 19% tax on the purchate of every good. I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt. You also have to take into consideration the rate at which out federal debt has expanded, and how much the interest payments will be when our federal debt is double what is now, on top of an ever declining economy because of taxes to pay for said debt.. In 1971 out debt was .4 Trillion, or 400 Billion..Bush took the debt from $6 trillion to $10.6 trillion, now were at 15.7 Trillion with exponential potential increases as we increase our world policing and what appears to be a serious war with Iran.. At this pace we will be at 22 Trillion by the time Obama leaves office.. no doubt.
The problem with citing billions and trillions for the amount of the debt the US government has is that people find it hard to put it into context. It's purely for shock value.
If you give US debt by GDP, it's 95%, which isn't that high. For comparison, Germany is at 80%, Greece is at 140%, and Japan is at 220%.
But yes, debt does have to be eventually (i.e. not now) covered by increases to the tax rate or cuts in spending if it cannot already be covered by GDP growth, inflation, and an increase in taxpayers due to population growth. However, failing to spend in a recession will cause a fall in the tax base (government gets less money), a fall in GDP, and a deterioration in long-term prospects, all of which makes it harder to pay back debt.
|
On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:
If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know.
Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill...
What ?
On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt.
... and What ?
Did you know that when people "PAY THEM OFF" (those pesky mortgages that are more than their net worth, they are doing so by spending LESS than what they take in, the excess results in the ability to pay DOWN the debt. The U.S. Government is doing the exact opposite, it's spending more than it takes in. More specifically, the deficit (the annual amount by which spending exceeds receipts) is over $1 TRILLION dollars. It is completely out of control. I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about.
Your comment about 'refinance at today's rates' made me chuckle a bit. This isn't a home mortgage. The debts of the U.S. Government are spread out over many maturities, from very short term to decades. Those long-term debt issues can't be simply 'refinanced at today's lower rates', although it was a charming idea. Now, add in the fact that it's the U.S. Government borrowing money in significant amounts from countries which are, at best, in competition with us. China, for example, owns a LOT of our debt. This gives them significant international bargain power with us, as if we aren't agreeable, they can simply NOT PURCHASE subsequent issuances of our debt. What impact does this have ? When demand goes down, price goes down, resulting in an INCREASE in interest rates. In other words, the U.S. Government has to pay MORE in interest on its debt if China decides to make that move. That's hardly refinancing. That's getting bent over. That's what's going on for the U.S. Government. Still think it's not a big deal ?
edit:
Also,
How in the world do you go from:
On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:
Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively.
To:
On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem.
I'm fairly certain when he says that a significant part of his nation's income come from mining, he means the country is paid for the resources mined, as they are the property of the country. I'm not sure about your level of understanding if you somehow read that to be 'asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden' of the society.
That's like saying the Saudis are getting rich off the back of the oil workers out in the desert. It's beyond consideration to think that, at least I thought it was.
|
On January 29 2012 17:29 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:
If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know.
Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... What ? Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt. ... and What ? Did you know that when people "PAY THEM OFF" (those pesky mortgages that are more than their net worth, they are doing so by spending LESS than what they take in, the excess results in the ability to pay DOWN the debt. The U.S. Government is doing the exact opposite, it's spending more than it takes in. More specifically, the deficit (the annual amount by which spending exceeds receipts) is over $1 TRILLION dollars. It is completely out of control. I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Your comment about 'refinance at today's rates' made me chuckle a bit. This isn't a home mortgage. The debts of the U.S. Government are spread out over many maturities, from very short term to decades. Those long-term debt issues can't be simply 'refinanced at today's lower rates', although it was a charming idea. Now, add in the fact that it's the U.S. Government borrowing money in significant amounts from countries which are, at best, in competition with us. China, for example, owns a LOT of our debt. This gives them significant international bargain power with us, as if we aren't agreeable, they can simply NOT PURCHASE subsequent issuances of our debt. What impact does this have ? When demand goes down, price goes down, resulting in an INCREASE in interest rates. In other words, the U.S. Government has to pay MORE in interest on its debt if China decides to make that move. That's hardly refinancing. That's getting bent over. That's what's going on for the U.S. Government. Still think it's not a big deal ? edit: Also, How in the world do you go from: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:
Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively.
To: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem. I'm fairly certain when he says that a significant part of his nation's income come from mining, he means the country is paid for the resources mined, as they are the property of the country. I'm not sure about your level of understanding if you somehow read that to be 'asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden' of the society. That's like saying the Saudis are getting rich off the back of the oil workers out in the desert. It's beyond consideration to think that, at least I thought it was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?ref=paulkrugman
http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/18/deficit-cut-danger-budget-jobs-leadership-managing-employment.html
|
On January 29 2012 17:29 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:
If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know.
Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... What ? Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt. ... and What ? Did you know that when people "PAY THEM OFF" (those pesky mortgages that are more than their net worth, they are doing so by spending LESS than what they take in, the excess results in the ability to pay DOWN the debt. The U.S. Government is doing the exact opposite, it's spending more than it takes in. More specifically, the deficit (the annual amount by which spending exceeds receipts) is over $1 TRILLION dollars. It is completely out of control. I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Your comment about 'refinance at today's rates' made me chuckle a bit. This isn't a home mortgage. The debts of the U.S. Government are spread out over many maturities, from very short term to decades. Those long-term debt issues can't be simply 'refinanced at today's lower rates', although it was a charming idea. Now, add in the fact that it's the U.S. Government borrowing money in significant amounts from countries which are, at best, in competition with us. China, for example, owns a LOT of our debt. This gives them significant international bargain power with us, as if we aren't agreeable, they can simply NOT PURCHASE subsequent issuances of our debt. What impact does this have ? When demand goes down, price goes down, resulting in an INCREASE in interest rates. In other words, the U.S. Government has to pay MORE in interest on its debt if China decides to make that move. That's hardly refinancing. That's getting bent over. That's what's going on for the U.S. Government. Still think it's not a big deal ? edit: Also, How in the world do you go from: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:
Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively.
To: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem. I'm fairly certain when he says that a significant part of his nation's income come from mining, he means the country is paid for the resources mined, as they are the property of the country. I'm not sure about your level of understanding if you somehow read that to be 'asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden' of the society. That's like saying the Saudis are getting rich off the back of the oil workers out in the desert. It's beyond consideration to think that, at least I thought it was.
When you buy a house, you are spending WAY more than you take in, but it doesn't mean that you aren't continually making payments to pay it down. Instead of the U.S. buying 5 years of unemployment protection etc., they are spreading it out over 5 years (or however long). Doesn't mean it won't get addressed eventually. Really, bro, I expected better from you.
|
On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem.
You do realize that Marx used a similar argument, do you?
|
On January 29 2012 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:29 Kaitlin wrote:On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:
If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know.
Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... What ? On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt. ... and What ? Did you know that when people "PAY THEM OFF" (those pesky mortgages that are more than their net worth, they are doing so by spending LESS than what they take in, the excess results in the ability to pay DOWN the debt. The U.S. Government is doing the exact opposite, it's spending more than it takes in. More specifically, the deficit (the annual amount by which spending exceeds receipts) is over $1 TRILLION dollars. It is completely out of control. I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Your comment about 'refinance at today's rates' made me chuckle a bit. This isn't a home mortgage. The debts of the U.S. Government are spread out over many maturities, from very short term to decades. Those long-term debt issues can't be simply 'refinanced at today's lower rates', although it was a charming idea. Now, add in the fact that it's the U.S. Government borrowing money in significant amounts from countries which are, at best, in competition with us. China, for example, owns a LOT of our debt. This gives them significant international bargain power with us, as if we aren't agreeable, they can simply NOT PURCHASE subsequent issuances of our debt. What impact does this have ? When demand goes down, price goes down, resulting in an INCREASE in interest rates. In other words, the U.S. Government has to pay MORE in interest on its debt if China decides to make that move. That's hardly refinancing. That's getting bent over. That's what's going on for the U.S. Government. Still think it's not a big deal ? edit: Also, How in the world do you go from: On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:
Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively.
To: On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem. I'm fairly certain when he says that a significant part of his nation's income come from mining, he means the country is paid for the resources mined, as they are the property of the country. I'm not sure about your level of understanding if you somehow read that to be 'asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden' of the society. That's like saying the Saudis are getting rich off the back of the oil workers out in the desert. It's beyond consideration to think that, at least I thought it was. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?ref=paulkrugman
I see your krugman article and raise you
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fa-hayek-great-utopia
While it is hardly necessary to provide commentary to one of F.A. Hayek's timeless observations from his book, The Road To Serfdom, rereading the chapter titled The Great Utopia, in this year of what could possibly be the most important election in the history of the United States, in which the US public will be promised nothing short of utopia by virtually every candidate except the one who really knows that fixing America would require pain and sacrifice, is everyone's duty. Courtesy of the Center for Economic Liberty we recreate it below in its entirety, and urge all readers, regardless of political persuasion of economic beliefs to consider what F.A.Hayek was saying some 70 years earlier, and how very applicable it is to our current situation.
The Great Utopia
There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."
|
On January 29 2012 17:51 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 17:29 Kaitlin wrote:On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:
If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know.
Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... What ? On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt. ... and What ? Did you know that when people "PAY THEM OFF" (those pesky mortgages that are more than their net worth, they are doing so by spending LESS than what they take in, the excess results in the ability to pay DOWN the debt. The U.S. Government is doing the exact opposite, it's spending more than it takes in. More specifically, the deficit (the annual amount by which spending exceeds receipts) is over $1 TRILLION dollars. It is completely out of control. I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Your comment about 'refinance at today's rates' made me chuckle a bit. This isn't a home mortgage. The debts of the U.S. Government are spread out over many maturities, from very short term to decades. Those long-term debt issues can't be simply 'refinanced at today's lower rates', although it was a charming idea. Now, add in the fact that it's the U.S. Government borrowing money in significant amounts from countries which are, at best, in competition with us. China, for example, owns a LOT of our debt. This gives them significant international bargain power with us, as if we aren't agreeable, they can simply NOT PURCHASE subsequent issuances of our debt. What impact does this have ? When demand goes down, price goes down, resulting in an INCREASE in interest rates. In other words, the U.S. Government has to pay MORE in interest on its debt if China decides to make that move. That's hardly refinancing. That's getting bent over. That's what's going on for the U.S. Government. Still think it's not a big deal ? edit: Also, How in the world do you go from: On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:
Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively.
To: On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem. I'm fairly certain when he says that a significant part of his nation's income come from mining, he means the country is paid for the resources mined, as they are the property of the country. I'm not sure about your level of understanding if you somehow read that to be 'asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden' of the society. That's like saying the Saudis are getting rich off the back of the oil workers out in the desert. It's beyond consideration to think that, at least I thought it was. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?ref=paulkrugman I see your krugman article and raise you http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fa-hayek-great-utopiaShow nested quote +While it is hardly necessary to provide commentary to one of F.A. Hayek's timeless observations from his book, The Road To Serfdom, rereading the chapter titled The Great Utopia, in this year of what could possibly be the most important election in the history of the United States, in which the US public will be promised nothing short of utopia by virtually every candidate except the one who really knows that fixing America would require pain and sacrifice, is everyone's duty. Courtesy of the Center for Economic Liberty we recreate it below in its entirety, and urge all readers, regardless of political persuasion of economic beliefs to consider what F.A.Hayek was saying some 70 years earlier, and how very applicable it is to our current situation.
The Great Utopia
There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."
What that article has to do with debt, I do not know.
|
On January 29 2012 17:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 17:29 Kaitlin wrote:On January 29 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:
If by "generations," you mean a decade of increased taxes by a few percentage points, then yes. It's not like we have to pay off the debt all at once, you know.
Did you know that people often buy houses that are more than their net worth, and then proceed to PAY THEM OFF?! OMG! By your logic, their grandkids will still be left with the bill... What ? On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
I can't speak for Chile, if that's where you're really from. However, the debt in the U.S. isn't actually that bad. We only have to service it with ~$250 billion in interest, compared to a ~$3.5 trillion budget. As we refinance at today's rates, that will be cut in half, meaning any profit of government above that margin will work towards our debt. ... and What ? Did you know that when people "PAY THEM OFF" (those pesky mortgages that are more than their net worth, they are doing so by spending LESS than what they take in, the excess results in the ability to pay DOWN the debt. The U.S. Government is doing the exact opposite, it's spending more than it takes in. More specifically, the deficit (the annual amount by which spending exceeds receipts) is over $1 TRILLION dollars. It is completely out of control. I'm not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Your comment about 'refinance at today's rates' made me chuckle a bit. This isn't a home mortgage. The debts of the U.S. Government are spread out over many maturities, from very short term to decades. Those long-term debt issues can't be simply 'refinanced at today's lower rates', although it was a charming idea. Now, add in the fact that it's the U.S. Government borrowing money in significant amounts from countries which are, at best, in competition with us. China, for example, owns a LOT of our debt. This gives them significant international bargain power with us, as if we aren't agreeable, they can simply NOT PURCHASE subsequent issuances of our debt. What impact does this have ? When demand goes down, price goes down, resulting in an INCREASE in interest rates. In other words, the U.S. Government has to pay MORE in interest on its debt if China decides to make that move. That's hardly refinancing. That's getting bent over. That's what's going on for the U.S. Government. Still think it's not a big deal ? edit: Also, How in the world do you go from: On January 29 2012 16:51 GoTuNk! wrote:
Btw 40% of my government's income comes from mining, so if people where a bit more reasonable we could not pay taxes all together and protect individuals life, property and life very effectively.
To: On January 29 2012 17:12 aksfjh wrote:
As for your claim about your government revenue. In this case, you're asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden of your society. Sounds like a good deal, but it's hardly a fair one. In the end, though, that's your own countries problem. I'm fairly certain when he says that a significant part of his nation's income come from mining, he means the country is paid for the resources mined, as they are the property of the country. I'm not sure about your level of understanding if you somehow read that to be 'asking miners and mining managers to pay the burden' of the society. That's like saying the Saudis are getting rich off the back of the oil workers out in the desert. It's beyond consideration to think that, at least I thought it was. When you buy a house, you are spending WAY more than you take in, but it doesn't mean that you aren't continually making payments to pay it down. Instead of the U.S. buying 5 years of unemployment protection etc., they are spreading it out over 5 years (or however long). Doesn't mean it won't get addressed eventually. Really, bro, I expected better from you.
I can't argue with that "logic"...
|
It is true that the public debt of the USA is no big deal as long as the interest rates stay as low as they are. The same was true for the Italian debt, however, until the market decided otherwise. And yes, most of the Italian government debt was held by Italians.
Numbers: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5008
|
The "rich" already pay 95% of the tax burden. They are taxed higher than in any other country.
If you cite the whole "15%" thing that is being paraded around by Romney's recently released tax forms and Warren Buffet, you have to concede that is reffering capital gains. Capital gains require risk. There is also capital losses. It is also a tax on ALREADY taxed income. Raising taxes, especially the capital gains tax, DOES NOT generate revenue.
Huge deficit spending has gotten out of hand. Entitlement programs are unsustainable. Government corruption and waste is a huge part of it.
Taxing corportaions more, increasing environmental restrictions, union strangleholds, and corrupt politicians are making it more and more difficult for businesses to turn a proift. Greece, is a great example of what happens when entitlement mentality takes over, the government becomes to large, and the people become misinformed. Europe is running from their past "socialist" policies, and trying to become more like America. Advisors from the UK have consistently stated that universal healthcare would be a huge mistake for the US, and they know, because they have done it. Granted, there are different opinions. Though, one can look at current government run entities, like the post office, medicare, welfare, and social security etc..etc..and see that government does not EVER provide more services, at a lower cost, for more people.
It is what is people. No matter what party your in or who you plan to vote for. Limited government. A better environment for businesses in the US. Limits put on how businesses can influence elected officials. A return to constitutional values. They are all things that HAVE TO HAPPEN if this country will remain the great place it has become.
|
On January 29 2012 18:19 LiquidSlick wrote:
The "rich" already pay 95% of the tax burden. They are taxed higher than in any other country.
If you cite the whole "15%" thing that is being paraded around by Romney's recently released tax forms and Warren Buffet, you have to concede that is reffering capital gains. Capital gains require risk. There is also capital losses. It is also a tax on ALREADY taxed income. Raising taxes, especially the capital gains tax, DOES NOT generate revenue.
Huge deficit spending has gotten out of hand. Entitlement programs are unsustainable. Government corruption and waste is a huge part of it.
Taxing corportaions more, increasing environmental restrictions, union strangleholds, and corrupt politicians are making it more and more difficult for businesses to turn a proift. Greece, is a great example of what happens when entitlement mentality takes over, the government becomes to large, and the people become misinformed. Europe is running from their past "socialist" policies, and trying to become more like America. Advisors from the UK have consistently stated that universal healthcare would be a huge mistake for the US, and they know, because they have done it. Granted, there are different opinions. Though, one can look at current government run entities, like the post office, medicare, welfare, and social security etc..etc..and see that government does not EVER provide more services, at a lower cost, for more people.
It is what is people. No matter what party your in or who you plan to vote for. Limited government. A better environment for businesses in the US. Limits put on how businesses can influence elected officials. A return to constitutional values. They are all things that HAVE TO HAPPEN if this country will remain the great place it has become.
Too bad for corporations then. I don't think they're entitled to be able to poison waters and buy out politicians without any retribution.
|
On January 29 2012 18:35 Roe wrote:
Too bad for corporations then. I don't think they're entitled to be able to poison waters and buy out politicians without any retribution.
Because....laws aren't already in place for that? Enforcing those is not the same as creating new ones and raising taxes. Don't construe the argument.
|
On January 29 2012 18:19 LiquidSlick wrote:
The "rich" already pay 95% of the tax burden. They are taxed higher than in any other country.
If you cite the whole "15%" thing that is being paraded around by Romney's recently released tax forms and Warren Buffet, you have to concede that is reffering capital gains. Capital gains require risk. There is also capital losses. It is also a tax on ALREADY taxed income. Raising taxes, especially the capital gains tax, DOES NOT generate revenue.
Huge deficit spending has gotten out of hand. Entitlement programs are unsustainable. Government corruption and waste is a huge part of it.
Taxing corportaions more, increasing environmental restrictions, union strangleholds, and corrupt politicians are making it more and more difficult for businesses to turn a proift. Greece, is a great example of what happens when entitlement mentality takes over, the government becomes to large, and the people become misinformed. Europe is running from their past "socialist" policies, and trying to become more like America. Advisors from the UK have consistently stated that universal healthcare would be a huge mistake for the US, and they know, because they have done it. Granted, there are different opinions. Though, one can look at current government run entities, like the post office, medicare, welfare, and social security etc..etc..and see that government does not EVER provide more services, at a lower cost, for more people.
It is what is people. No matter what party your in or who you plan to vote for. Limited government. A better environment for businesses in the US. Limits put on how businesses can influence elected officials. A return to constitutional values. They are all things that HAVE TO HAPPEN if this country will remain the great place it has become.
Depending on who you describe as "rich," you'll get different portions of taxes being paid by them.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2433
By that, for all federal taxes, you don't even get into 95% until you get to the 40th percentile (60% of Americans have a higher income).
|
Or you could use the New York Times. They have a different claim, but it paints the same picture.
Top 1% pay more than the bottom 95%.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/
And even if you use that table it shows that the top part of the middle quintile and up, the "rich" because they are upper end of middle to high, pay 95%.
That also leads to the point the the "rich" need to stop being demonized. The definition, as we pointed out here, can change rather easily depending on who is running things.
|
On January 29 2012 19:06 LiquidSlick wrote:Or you could use the New York Times. They have a different claim, but it paints the same picture. Top 1% pay more than the bottom 95%. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/And even if you use that table it shows that the top part of the middle quintile and up, the "rich" because they are upper end of middle to high, pay 95%. That also leads to the point the the "rich" need to stop being demonized. The definition, as we pointed out here, can change rather easily depending on who is running things.
Data I linked is 2009, the NYT is 2007. Get with the "times."
|
On January 29 2012 08:01 liberal wrote:
When people speak of "job creation," which is what I was referring to very specifically in my post.
No you did not.
Your post doesn't quote anything.
It doesn't say "job creation".
It opens with a blanket statement that the simple truth is that government can't create wealth.
Which is wrong, and what I argued against because I hope people aren't stupid enough to believe it.
If that was what you meant, by all means, but as you said - that's a different argument.
|
On January 29 2012 08:02 Hider wrote:
Ok this is a definiton question. While your correct that it doesn't matter where wealth is created, this isn't the point. Liberal argumentation is that private comapnies always will do everything better than what the government would do. So if the companies take money from the government the private comapanies should in fact be more efficient with the money.
Here is an easy example: During one day a private company would produce 10 apples. A government company would only produce 2 apples. In this proces the government has destroyed 2 apples if they decided they were the ones who should produce apples.
This is the stupidity of your argument. And Liberal's argument. Because if the private company just produced 2 apples and the government produced 10 the private sector destroyed 8 apples. WTF you might say? That doesn't make sense? Exactly. You have no proof that that is what would happen. I am reminded of the stupidity of the following story:
+ Show Spoiler +An economics professor at a local college said that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.
To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and those who had previously studied hard, decided they wanted a free ride. So they too studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Couldn't be any simpler than that.
versus:
+ Show Spoiler +An economics professor at a local college said that he usually failed a couple of students, and had a few that got A's. But in a recent class, the entire class got an A - no exceptions.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.
To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a C.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were ridiculed.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied a lot more because of peer pressure and those who had previously studied hard, helped the students that previously hadn't studied much at all. So they too studied a lot.
The second test average was a B!
Everyone was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an A.
The scores increased, and everyone was happy.
To their professors great surprise, so he told them that socialism would also ultimately succeed because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great and when people help each other because they depend on each other, everyone will try and want to succeed.
Couldn't be any simpler than that.
A lot of people would nod and agree with the first story, and repeat it to their friends because they think it proves something. Then they would shake their head at the second story and think "the world doesn't work that way". Guess what? You make up a stupid story that agrees with your point, it doesn't prove anything.
There is no natural law that says that a private company government is more effective at producing everything and anything. You may claim so - but if so, you prove it, because I know for a fact that there is no support for that argument.
http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=20&print=1 <- read the part about Myth 2.
In fact, in Norway, the price per meter of road rose sharply after it became a partly privatized sector. Because the companies had to compete to get the expertise, salaries rose, and there was an additional layer needed for the government needing someone to work to decide which company should get which contracts - and the companies were basically doing the same thing as before, and making a profit.
When it comes to government or private companies doing health care for the elderly, there's no clear answer about which is better overall. Some have found that privatizing it led to increased costs and worse quality - others found the opposite. Same for refuse collection. Same for tons of stuff.
You can claim that the private sector is always more effective than government.
However, this is an area where every opinion is not equal.
Your opinion is not valid, because it's provable wrong.
|
On January 29 2012 21:31 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 08:02 Hider wrote:
Ok this is a definiton question. While your correct that it doesn't matter where wealth is created, this isn't the point. Liberal argumentation is that private comapnies always will do everything better than what the government would do. So if the companies take money from the government the private comapanies should in fact be more efficient with the money.
Here is an easy example: During one day a private company would produce 10 apples. A government company would only produce 2 apples. In this proces the government has destroyed 2 apples if they decided they were the ones who should produce apples. This is the stupidity of your argument. And Liberal's argument. Because if the private company just produced 2 apples and the government produced 10 the private sector destroyed 8 apples. WTF you might say? That doesn't make sense? Exactly. You have no proof that that is what would happen. I am reminded of the stupidity of the following story: + Show Spoiler +An economics professor at a local college said that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.
To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and those who had previously studied hard, decided they wanted a free ride. So they too studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Couldn't be any simpler than that. versus: + Show Spoiler +An economics professor at a local college said that he usually failed a couple of students, and had a few that got A's. But in a recent class, the entire class got an A - no exceptions.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.
To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a C.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were ridiculed.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied a lot more because of peer pressure and those who had previously studied hard, helped the students that previously hadn't studied much at all. So they too studied a lot.
The second test average was a B!
Everyone was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an A.
The scores increased, and everyone was happy.
To their professors great surprise, so he told them that socialism would also ultimately succeed because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great and when people help each other because they depend on each other, everyone will try and want to succeed.
Couldn't be any simpler than that. A lot of people would nod and agree with the first story, and repeat it to their friends because they think it proves something. Then they would shake their head at the second story and think "the world doesn't work that way". Guess what? You make up a stupid story that agrees with your point, it doesn't prove anything. There is no natural law that says that a private company government is more effective at producing everything and anything. You may claim so - but if so, you prove it, because I know for a fact that there is no support for that argument. http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=20&print=1 <- read the part about Myth 2. In fact, in Norway, the price per meter of road rose sharply after it became a partly privatized sector. Because the companies had to compete to get the expertise, salaries rose, and there was an additional layer needed for the government needing someone to work to decide which company should get which contracts - and the companies were basically doing the same thing as before, and making a profit. When it comes to government or private companies doing health care for the elderly, there's no clear answer about which is better overall. Some have found that privatizing it led to increased costs and worse quality - others found the opposite. Same for refuse collection. Same for tons of stuff. You can claim that the private sector is always more effective than government. However, this is an area where every opinion is not equal. Your opinion is not valid, because it's provable wrong.
Eh. I can't be wrong as its a defintion question. And if you used the above definition (as most economist does), then the example is correct.
What you could argue is that the definition isn't relevant. But really why would you use that much time arguing about a definition of something. (Its like arguing about the definition of theft. Why would you argue about that..... oh wait  )
There is nothing wrong about prices rising in it self. The closer the market gets to equlibrium the bertter. And why would you assume that government with its artifical low prices is closer to the equlibrium than the market?
Paraleluniverse:
"Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
