ShcShc11 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Less money spent by government plus less money spent by private (because
>government seized more private money) is not a way to stimulate an economy.
Agreed. The best way to stimulate an economy is less taxation and more spending. Unfortunately we want to do that all the time, not just during recessions. Which is how we got where we are today.
>government seized more private money) is not a way to stimulate an economy.
Agreed. The best way to stimulate an economy is less taxation and more spending. Unfortunately we want to do that all the time, not just during recessions. Which is how we got where we are today.
Quote>Not related
Neither will solve the problem. We have to cut spending - which means actually having fewer wars, actually cutting Social Security, veteran's benefits, new roads, new jets etc. You can't just say "cut the money and they will starve." They will keep borrowing as they always do.
We also have to increase taxes - which means increasing taxes on most people, not just the rich.
The democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.
billvon 2,991
>The democrats are against both of what you just said.
And so are republicans. Republicans don't want more taxes and they don't want defense spending cuts; their version of "class warfare" is to go after the middle class and poor while protecting the rich.
Which is how we got here. Neither side will budge.
And so are republicans. Republicans don't want more taxes and they don't want defense spending cuts; their version of "class warfare" is to go after the middle class and poor while protecting the rich.
Which is how we got here. Neither side will budge.
quade 4
QuoteThe believe in class warfare by taxing the rich...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way wealth has been rigged over the last 30 years, they're pretty much the only ones you can tax. They're the only ones with money. Trying to get additional revenue out of minimum wage workers at Taco Bell certainly isn't going to work.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Quoteno,, belay that - sorry to be a smart ass.
Bolas' note is a good one.
this is all common sense stuff though and the idea that our leadership is so inept, so opportunistic, and so crooked, that this is kind of thing people talk about has really pushed the cynicism button
so back to Bolas' noteQuoteHow about instead of a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap indexed to inflation? This way during bubble years the extra could be used for paying down the debt.
However, in the down years, I don't think you take out a loan to cover it (analogous to paying off the principle in good years, then this would imply to could take more debt in bad years), you still have to reduce spending. This would drive us to the most efficient government over time. If you start playing balancing act between good and bad years, we just return to today's state where politicians just claim that EVERY year is a bad year and thus increasing debt becomes the norm for us frogs being boiled.
How about the fed can not spend more tthen it took in the previous year and that spending has to include some principle on the debt.
Bolas 5
Quoteno,, belay that - sorry to be a smart ass.
Bolas' note is a good one.
this is all common sense stuff though and the idea that our leadership is so inept, so opportunistic, and so crooked, that this is kind of thing people talk about has really pushed the cynicism button
so back to Bolas' noteQuoteHow about instead of a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap indexed to inflation? This way during bubble years the extra could be used for paying down the debt.
However, in the down years, I don't think you take out a loan to cover it (analogous to paying off the principle in good years, then this would imply to could take more debt in bad years), you still have to reduce spending. This would drive us to the most efficient government over time. If you start playing balancing act between good and bad years, we just return to today's state where politicians just claim that EVERY year is a bad year and thus increasing debt becomes the norm for us frogs being boiled.
It doesn't matter if it's a "good" or "bad" year, they're capped on total budgetary spending.
The intial cap would be based off a percentage (85% maybe) of a "bad" year GDP and then indexed to inflation after that.
For ease of numbers let's say the initial cap is $1 trillion. That's the most they can budget that amount includes emergency funds.
If inflation does not rise, that number stays stagnant. If the GDP goes up, the excess is applied to paying down the debt.
Added benefits of this would be any tax increases would go towards paying down the debt and agencies/programs would start looking for alternative budget sources besides the general fund.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Quote
If inflation does not rise, that number stays stagnant. If the GDP goes up, the excess is applied to paying down the debt.
Sounds like you have created a tremendous incentive to increase inflation.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
winsor 236
QuoteQuoteQuote
So a balanced budget amendment?
Yes, this and limiting the size and power of the government to identified Constitutional levels
Counting on the government to act with restraint, absent adult supervision, is pointless.
This piece came from last year, but the basics still apply:
"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey
The core issue is that our government has behaved like a teenager with a no-limit credit card; it is not possible to make enough to keep up with their expenditures.
The problem is that we have been spending money we don't have for the past half century, and we are beyond the tipping point. It is no longer a question of 'if' so much as 'when, and how bad.'
It was fun while it lasted.
BSBD,
Winsor
That example is not very accurate. The spending cuts are not cutting what US Gov is currently spending. It's instead cutting the increase to what they are currently spending. So instead of cutting the $75,000 a year budget, the budget is increasing by $5,000 a year to $80,000 and that is being cut to $78,000 a year.
It was posted in August of 2011, and it seemed appropriate in light of whatever our enlightened leadership proposed at the time. I did not bother to modify it to fit current conditions.
My personal analogy is one being a few hundred grand in debt, spending, say, $1,500 a month more than being deposited. If one then spoke to their banker (with annoyance at being expected to slow down on the Very Important expenditures), and said "okay, I'll only spend $1,400 more than I deposit per month - are you satisfied?," I expect they would have Bernie Madoff as a roommate.
I think there should be a Math - or at least basic Arithmetic - requirement for any office where handling of finances is involved. Our elected officials are truly innumerate.
BSBD,
Winsor
Andy9o8 2
QuoteThe democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.
Doctors don't really care about patients, they only care about getting rich, playing golf and screwing nurses on the side. If a patient gets better, it's just a happy accident.
billvon 2,991
>Sounds like you have created a tremendous incentive to increase inflation.
We already have an even bigger one - the debt. The only way we can hope to pay it off is to rely on inflation to slowly reduce it. I would guess that the relief provided by debt reduction would be the larger factor.
We already have an even bigger one - the debt. The only way we can hope to pay it off is to rely on inflation to slowly reduce it. I would guess that the relief provided by debt reduction would be the larger factor.
Both.
It's the same problem that was underlying mortgage derivatives. The system is built around perpetual growth. It's a house of cards just waiting to be knocked down.
If welfare, healthcare and military spending were not such sacred cows we could actually address the spending problem with ease.
Military 14% of budget
Healthcare 19% of budget
Pensions 18% of budget.
Bring troops home. Put them to work along with others in need of work on large infrastructure projects.
Make it possible for tax payers to "opt out" of social security and medicare. If you opt out you receive a reimbursement for what you've paid in to-date, less 10%. If you want to opt back in you payback what you received + 10%.
Fix the tax code. For people that make less than 113,700 in 2013 that's an effective tax cut of 15.3%. Beyond that, look at a "progressive" flat tax system, wrap your head around that oxymoron
,10% if your made up to 100K, 15% if you made between 100K and 250K 25% if you made more than 250K. No deductions. No credits.
In all fairness, this will probably result in higher taxes on the "rich". However, those are the same people that will be the primary beneficiaries of a mass amount of dollars entering the private market (see opt out of SS and medicare) and the massive investment in the infrastructure.
I've got nothing on fixing the desire of those in congress to spend every penny they get their hands on and then another nickle on credit....find a way to put the fear of god in them?
Anyone know how to get the CBO to take a look at this proposal?
QuoteQuoteThe democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.
Doctors don't really care about patients, they only care about getting rich, playing golf and screwing nurses on the side. If a patient gets better, it's just a happy accident.
I'm not making wild accusations about the dems policies. They propose taxation of the top 2%. They also want to increase spending. I just observed that it was contrary to the previous posts solution.
As for me, I don't play golf. I am happily married and don't cheat , and I can bet that I have provided more charitable care than 99% of the lawyers out there. Sure there are probably some bad apples.
QuoteQuoteThe believe in class warfare by taxing the rich...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way wealth has been rigged over the last 30 years, they're pretty much the only ones you can tax. They're the only ones with money. Trying to get additional revenue out of minimum wage workers at Taco Bell certainly isn't going to work.
Just curious: to balance our budget, what % of income tax should the top 10% or 2% or whatever pay in your opinion?
QuoteLawrocket, not to be rude, but you're making very basic economics mistakes (misconceptions) with these sort of statements.
Not being rude by pointing out I'm making mistakes. Just not tops in the helpful department by just saying what the misconceptions are and pointing me to an IMF working paper that I need to pay to get.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe believe in class warfare by taxing the rich...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way wealth has been rigged over the last 30 years, they're pretty much the only ones you can tax. They're the only ones with money. Trying to get additional revenue out of minimum wage workers at Taco Bell certainly isn't going to work.
Just curious: to balance our budget, what % of income tax should the top 10% or 2% or whatever pay in your opinion?
It can't be done by looking at ONE tax rate. It has to be looked at in terms of a combination of individual, corporate and investment income taxes. Right now, the mix is screwed up because of loopholes created and perpetuated by the 1986 reforms.
So why not just roll back to the rates and policies pre-1986? The world has changed. It wouldn't work.
What are the exact rates? I dunno, but clearly what we have now is too little. You can cut spending all you want on the "optional" parts of government, but what's left over you still can't pay for everything with the tax rates the way they currently are. You could reclassify some things we currently consider mandatory and cut those too, but it's a Catch 22 because those things employ people and if they're out of a job then the economy is even worse.
There HAS to be compromise. We have to cut some spending and increase some taxes. The only place you can increase taxes are on the very wealthy.
Sorry. That's just the way it is.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.
Doctors don't really care about patients, they only care about getting rich, playing golf and screwing nurses on the side. If a patient gets better, it's just a happy accident.
I'm not making wild accusations about the dems policies. They propose taxation of the top 2%. They also want to increase spending. I just observed that it was contrary to the previous posts solution.
As for me, I don't play golf. I am happily married and don't cheat , and I can bet that I have provided more charitable care than 99% of the lawyers out there. Sure there are probably some bad apples.
Oh, I didn't really mean any of that stuff. I was making a certain point: don't demonize an ideological "opponent" by purporting to speak for what he believes, for you're probably the last person qualified to do so.
"They believe in class warfare"? Seriously? With your brains and ability to articulate, you actually said that? Save that for FoxNews when they're feeding histrionic slogans to the simpletons that comprise their audience; but it's beneath you to emulate that.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.
Doctors don't really care about patients, they only care about getting rich, playing golf and screwing nurses on the side. If a patient gets better, it's just a happy accident.
I'm not making wild accusations about the dems policies. They propose taxation of the top 2%. They also want to increase spending. I just observed that it was contrary to the previous posts solution.
As for me, I don't play golf. I am happily married and don't cheat , and I can bet that I have provided more charitable care than 99% of the lawyers out there. Sure there are probably some bad apples.
Oh, I didn't really mean any of that stuff. I was making a certain point: don't demonize an ideological "opponent" by purporting to speak for what he believes, for you're probably the last person qualified to do so.
"They believe in class warfare"? Seriously? With your brains and ability to articulate, you actually said that? Save that for FoxNews when they're feeding histrionic slogans to the simpletons that comprise their audience; but it's beneath you to emulate that.
Sorry, I watch the nightly news. I listen Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I can pretty easily come to the conclusion they are interested in class warfare. Watch the news tonight listening for it; I bet you could hear it too.
champu 1
QuoteBeyond that, look at a "progressive" flat tax system, wrap your head around that oxymoron
,10% if your made up to 100K, 15% if you made between 100K and 250K 25% if you made more than 250K. No deductions. No credits.
You do realize this would create ridiculous situations with a 5000% marginal tax rate at $100K and a 25000% marginal tax rate at $250K yes?
Quote
I worry more about the DD's of the world that ONLY think more taxes is the solution
Need some help here...
What does DD stand for?
Dumb Democrat?
...It's just a question...
We are all engines of karma
Quote
So a balanced budget amendment?
I've heard persuasive arguments against this. The concern being that budget issues end up being decided by a judge. That's the last place it belongs.
It's time for voters to stop putting people who don't understand budget math in office.
We are all engines of karma
Quote
Everything you think you know about me is wrong.
kallend, nobody cares. Get over it.
We are all engines of karma
chutem 0
QuoteQuote
I worry more about the DD's of the world that ONLY think more taxes is the solution
Need some help here...
What does DD stand for?
Dumb Democrat?
...It's just a question...
I think he was refering to DreamDancer aka Freefalldolphin.
Lawrocket, not to be rude, but you're making very basic economics mistakes (misconceptions) with these sort of statements.
see IMF report concerning austerity experiences 2007-2012 and its corresponding multipliers.
Cheers!
Shc
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites