Reply With Quote
exactly, and that's why were in a bind. to get out of the recession, we need expansionary policy. but we're between a rock and a hard spot because the debt is approaching dangerous levels. soon there won't be any options left to turn to.
exactly, and that's why were in a bind. to get out of the recession, we need expansionary policy. but we're between a rock and a hard spot because the debt is approaching dangerous levels. soon there won't be any options left to turn to.
exactly, and that's why were in a bind. to get out of the recession, we need expansionary policy. but we're between a rock and a hard spot because the debt is approaching dangerous levels. soon there won't be any options left to turn to.
It's frustrating that change takes a long time. I can't stand that the government continues to spend on things that are so unnecessary. Spend away if you're running a surplus, but it's disturbing to see year after year of massive deficits with no end in site.
Ok, then why are you saying we need massive austerity?
A load of debt is obviously not a great thing, but the market determines how much debt is "too much" debt. Right now, the U.S., despite an imperfect credit ratings, can borrow at ridiculously low interest rates, so it makes sense to borrow and spend now while it's cheap to do so. If you want to spark the economy, then now is the time because it's only going to cost more in the future to borrow for necessary projects like national infrastructure rebuilding.
The empirical evidence supports Keynesian economics -- not austerity.
It's like the massive US of A works just like a Goldman or JP Morgan. The government seems to think we're too big to fail, just like the investment banks that are levered at insane ratios. Spend away, throw billions, annually, towards projects that have basically zero return, and everything will be fine. This country has already peaked in standard of living, for those of us in our 20s or so we'll be the first generation in who knows how many to not see our standard of living improve in this country. A portion of that is not directly attributable to the government, but the gov is definitely contributing.
I also don't affiliate myself with either party, both like to throw away money but only focused in different areas. There's just no end in site, not one realistic president for the next 2 terms will move us in the right direction.
There are two elements of a deficit. You've been conditioned by the right-wing to think that only spending contributes to a deficit. They "starve the beast", then tell you we need to privatize social security and medicare in addition to slashing any other welfare program conceivable.
Of course. Given the cir stances I think the uber-rich should pay higher taxes than the rest. I give props to those groups of millionaires that lobby for this and actually want to pay higher taxes.
I wonder what the quality of life difference is between Millionaire A, $850m net worth, and Millionaire B, $800m net worth.
Restore the old provisions of the estate tax as well.
This is not the answer. we could confiscate all the wealth from the rich, and it wouldn't do much. the government needs to stop spending so much money on social programs. The government needs to be made smaller. We have too many bureaucrats, who are nothing more than peanut counters, finding new ways to count peanuts and justify expansions of their roles.
I say taxes don't need to go up. we need more people paying taxes and less people using government assistance.
Yeah you do.
lol @ "expand the base"
Who is it that's not paying federal income taxes that's going to "do much" to fix the deficit if they do start paying taxes?
"we could confiscate all the wealth from the rich, and it wouldn't do much"
You Lie
the estate tax cuts (aka tax expenditures) alone are well past $1T+ and continuing.
Corporate income taxes paid are at all time low as %age of national income.
The concentration of wealth (15% tax rate paid, just for the income they haven't been able to hide, like Gecko's offshore tricks) in the 1% with the concomitant restriction on the incomes of the 99% means the 99% have less to spend. The 1% don't spend all their wealth like the 99% does, so consumption is down, and the US economy is rigged to be a consumer economy.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-13-2012 at 09:35 AM.
We have no choice but to tax the rich at this point, because they have such a large portion of the wealth in this country. I'm not one of those people who hate the successful, but I am disgusted by the way the wealth in this country has been stolen from those that helped contribute. There is no good reason that CEO pay should have skyrocketed the way it has compared to ordinary workers. They have not gotten better or more efficient that regular workers. The imbalance is far worse in this country than it is in other industrialized nations. The only people I see defending this heist are those that are executives themselves, or are delusional enough to believe they will be one day.
I don't think WC is delusional enough to believe that he will be a CEO or even wealthy enough to be affected by Obama's proposed tax increase on the top 2%. He's just been brainwashed into doing the bidding for the people it will affect in the name of liberty.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 07-13-2012 at 08:55 AM.
It's certainly absurd.
Y'all realize that "taxing the rich" isn't enough don't you?. The middle class is where the big money is and that's who will end up paying for this gluttony one way or another.
Yep. Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people making over $250k still leaves us with a $trillion dollar defecit.
If you've read any of my previous posts, you would see that I have constantly mentioned en lement reform. Unlike Republicans though, I stress the word reform, and not cuts. I believe our en lement system can provide benefits and promote upward mobility if run correctly. I envision a system that invests in human capital, helping in the development of citizens that can become productive members of society. The current system promotes dependability, which is neither cost effective nor sustainable.
Okay, that sounds all warm and fuzzy, but can you be more specific as to what that's going to look like? How would you "reform" the system to reconcile the projected $100 trillion differential between SS & Medicare promised benefits and expected revenues without cuts? Just make all that up on the tax side?
Yes, I realize that, but I'm concerned increasing taxes on the middle class right now will send us into the same austerity trap we are seeing in Europe right now. People making 250k (although I may raise that number to $500k) can afford the tax increase right now whereas the middle class cannot. Once the economy is back on track we can talk about raising taxes on the middle class. This all needs to be in conjunction with en lement reform. En lement reform and increased taxes should all be on the table.
I hate how the right cries and moans about giving tax breaks to the rich....these pieces of lobby for tax breaks, and then when they get them instead of passing it down to their employees/hiring more they pocket the extra money....
As mercos mentioned the difficult issue is paying for medical care for our seniors. Ultimately we have to decrease the cost of healthcare to address this issue. I have little faith that the ACA will do that. Ultimately we need to move away from the fee for service system. Too many entrenched finacial interests to see any reform there so I would address the core issue, which in my opinion is money in politics. I think Lawrence Lessig has some good thoughts on how to reform this issue he outlines in Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop it
Lol, nothing warm and fuzzy about it. It is simply the most logical way to tackle the problem. As for specifics, Social Security is an easy fix. The growth in wealth at the top margin has taken a lot of money out of the reach of Social Security. Remove the cap at which Social Security fees are collected, and the problem is solved. Means tests should be implemented as well, as there is no point in giving money to those that don't need it. Millionaires should not be collecting Social Security checks. Once the baby boom generation has passed, Social Security will be in much better shape.
Medicare is a tricky problem, as I've stated in previous posts. This is another problem that is going to be exacerbated by the baby boom generation. You ultimately have to attack the cost of health care itself, which is to high. Scrapping the fee for service system is a good start. Reforming the medical patent system could lower the cost of prescription drugs. Medicare is the biggest problem we face because of the fact that seniors need the most medical care and they are the group that can least afford it. Ultimately, no matter how many reforms we do this program is going to be costly. Broadening the tax base through true en lement reform that creates tax paying citizens would be my broad goal to help cover those costs.
So many ing geniuses running this nation.
I still cant understand how you can run not one but two 'wars' and not come up with some way to ing pay for them.
This all ing started when this war mongering started and at the same time someone figured it would be an incredibly smart idea to also lower the money coming into the federal government by enacting various tax cuts.
Made perfect sense then, makes perfect sense now to not raise the tax rate for all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions