Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
America doesn't have a spending problem. It has a depressed economy problem. If the economy was returned to normal growth revenues would increase and wipe out the deficit. Since 2008 there's been an almost trillion dollar a year drop in demand caused by the 2008 bursting of the housing bubble. Replace that demand and you end the deficit toat least a level that is infinitely sustainable.
And that's why Obama's soon-to-be-revealed plan to keep all current spending unchanged and to spend an extra few trillion dollars over the next four years is such a good thing. The private sector aren't going to invest as there's already massiver existing overcapacity in the economy so they don't need to. The only thing that can return the exconmy to normal growth and end the deficit problem is massive extra government sdpending.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't "bubble" suggest an artificial/unsastainable level? Wasn't the burst a market correction of tons of sub-prime loans being packaged into investments and then fast and loose work in the derivatives market? Even if I agreed that large deficit spening was the answer it would seem unwise to try to boost the economy back to a level it couldn't sustain before, especially to try to do it in a short timeframe. I don't think there is a fast or easy way back to 2007 revenues or debt/deficit reduction.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Raise taxes on the 1% go right ahead....it won't help anything. That might raise billions of dollars but at the end of the day we'll have another TRILLION dollar deficet. And yet @
Kirkland Laing will still be here saying America isn't taxing the wealthy enough but he'll make 0 mention of the spending. When you spend more than you make and you make a great deal of money then you don't have a revenue problem you have a SPENDING problem.
But whatever, the Democrats won everything I'll sit back and wait for them to screw shit up....and they will
Raising taxes on the extremely wealthy does not solve the whole problem, but it's a start. Everyone agrees it has to be coupled with decreased spending. And reducing the deficit is going to be a slow, painful process. There's no magic wand that will make it go away entirely and quickly. Some of us just think that the belt-tightening ought to start at the very top of the wealth chain, that's all.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
America doesn't have a spending problem. It has a depressed economy problem. If the economy was returned to normal growth revenues would increase and wipe out the deficit. Since 2008 there's been an almost trillion dollar a year drop in demand caused by the 2008 bursting of the housing bubble. Replace that demand and you end the deficit toat least a level that is infinitely sustainable.
And that's why Obama's soon-to-be-revealed plan to keep all current spending unchanged and to spend an extra few trillion dollars over the next four years is such a good thing. The private sector aren't going to invest as there's already massiver existing overcapacity in the economy so they don't need to. The only thing that can return the exconmy to normal growth and end the deficit problem is massive extra government sdpending.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't "bubble" suggest an artificial/unsastainable level? Wasn't the burst a market correction of tons of sub-prime loans being packaged into investments and then fast and loose work in the derivatives market? Even if I agreed that large deficit spening was the answer it would seem unwise to try to boost the economy back to a level it couldn't sustain before, especially to try to do it in a short timeframe. I don't think there is a fast or easy way back to 2007 revenues or debt/deficit reduction.
Subprime was only a small part of it. It was prime and everything else as well. Basically the Fed stopped all oversight of the mortgage industry and the derivatives markets and the people who run them pulled off the biggest fraud/bank robbery in history.
Yes, it was an artificial level. But the only way to get out of the current situation is via economic growth. Tax increases and spending cuts aren't going to help at all, see how well it's working in Europe.
So America needs to spend a few trillion dollars over the next few years to boost economic growth. While the government is spending, people will continue to pay down the debt that they're in and in a few years will start spending again which is when the government can stop spending.
Of course the second thing that needs to happen is a large redistribution of income from corporations and top earners down to low/middle income people. If this doesn't happen it doesn't matter what economic policies you have, the economy isn't going to work very well.
Reshore some jobs, stop giving corporations tax breaks to outsource jobs and get decent paying jobs back to America. Say bollocks to the "free trade" stuff and globalisation and let wealthy economies protect themselves from having their peoples' living standards arbitraged down to Asian levels. And financial regulation to stop the financial industry robbing the system.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
The Obama Administration says it will gain $1.6 Trillion in new revenue from their plan. Well if the ONLY part of their plan is raising taxes on the top 2% it won't even come close to that figure annually it might bring in $34 Billion according to Investor's Business Daily. An Ernst & Young study says such a tax increase will cost 700,000 jobs. What has been released about the Obama plan seems to offer little to no meaningful entitlement spending cuts and so we will once again have a $1 Trillion+ deficet.
This begs some questions #1 Where does the Obama Administration figure on getting the rest of that $1.6 Trillion and #2 Is this tax increase worth the trouble because it certainly doesn't seem to solve anything.
Do the math for me Kirkland, turn $34 Billion into $1.6 Trillion....I'm betting a carbon tax is in the works...how "progressive" :rolleyes:
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Top level taxation should be 50% and up and loopholes and corporate tax avoidance be stamped out. There needs to be a global concensus on corporate taxation. Offshore tax avoidance schemes need be classed as terrorist activities.
If you earn 25,000 pounds and pay 20 percent tax, then what is the problem with earning 5 million pounds and paying 50%? Are you short of change?
You are taking home a shitload and really the lower income man is paying a lot more than you as he has far less to play around with. No fancy car, no fancy home, nothing. Rich people are often too greedy and need to be forced to play the game.
Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand the concept of moderation and contribution.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Personally I would hike the rate to 80% on the super rich. I would pay it.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
When the Federal Income Tax was put into effect (by the Teetotaler Progressives :mad: ) it was 3%. It was supposed to allow for the banning of alcohol and keep federal revenue level.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...me_Earners.jpg
....and I still pay taxes on my booze too, so I've no urge to see that tax rate rise whatsoever. The Feds are double dipping in my pocket as it is
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
I see the tax hike for top earners as a red herring. If it happens it won't personally affect me but it irritates me that it is the center piece of the conversation, particularly b/c it is a drop in the bucket. It raises 80 billion. Great, now where does the other 900 billion come from to balance the budget? Even discretionary spending is a pointless discussion. Until there is a serious discussion on mandatory spending then the whole discussion of debt/deficit reduction is a farce.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
The Obama Administration says it will gain $1.6 Trillion in new revenue from their plan. Well if the ONLY part of their plan is raising taxes on the top 2% it won't even come close to that figure annually it might bring in $34 Billion according to Investor's Business Daily. An Ernst & Young study says such a tax increase will cost 700,000 jobs. What has been released about the Obama plan seems to offer little to no meaningful entitlement spending cuts and so we will once again have a $1 Trillion+ deficet.
This begs some questions #1 Where does the Obama Administration figure on getting the rest of that $1.6 Trillion and #2 Is this tax increase worth the trouble because it certainly doesn't seem to solve anything.
Do the math for me Kirkland, turn $34 Billion into $1.6 Trillion....I'm betting a carbon tax is in the works...how "progressive" :rolleyes:
Show me where the Obama admin says they'll get 1.6 trillion and how they'll get it. IBD is a conservative rag. Credible estimates for the top 2% tax increases show a lot more than that. Show me this study that says it'll cost 700 000 jobs. The CBO issued a study that said it would have no effect and the GOP made the CBO retract the study.
Basically none of this maters anyway Lele. The Bush tax cuts will eventually all go and spending will eventually increase. What will solve the debt/deficit problem is new economic growth, taxing and spending in the short/medium term are irrelevant.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I see the tax hike for top earners as a red herring. If it happens it won't personally affect me but it irritates me that it is the center piece of the conversation, particularly b/c it is a drop in the bucket. It raises 80 billion. Great, now where does the other 900 billion come from to balance the budget? Even discretionary spending is a pointless discussion. Until there is a serious discussion on mandatory spending then the whole discussion of debt/deficit reduction is a farce.
It's symbolic more than anything else. Where we get the other 900 billion is new economic growth. Most of that 900 billion is depressed revenues from a depressed economy. The rest is spending on unemployment/poverty caused by the crap economy. Reverse the crap economy and the deficit fucks off or becomes sustainable. Unfortunately nobody is suggesting this.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Good chart. It shows you that when taxes are high the economy works better for middle class earners. Real incomes have declined for 40 years, it is no coincidence that this starts with taxes for the rich being depleted. Austerity started 40 years ago and still they are waging the lunatic war.
Tax cuts on the rich don't help the ordinary man. It is in insane logic to assume that it does.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I see the tax hike for top earners as a red herring. If it happens it won't personally affect me but it irritates me that it is the center piece of the conversation, particularly b/c it is a drop in the bucket. It raises 80 billion. Great, now where does the other 900 billion come from to balance the budget? Even discretionary spending is a pointless discussion. Until there is a serious discussion on mandatory spending then the whole discussion of debt/deficit reduction is a farce.
Taxing the rich and military spending reduction. It is insane that people say entitlements need to be reduced when military spending is more than pretty much the combined forces of the entire galaxy. Certain issues are just never put on the table.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I see the tax hike for top earners as a red herring. If it happens it won't personally affect me but it irritates me that it is the center piece of the conversation, particularly b/c it is a drop in the bucket. It raises 80 billion. Great, now where does the other 900 billion come from to balance the budget? Even discretionary spending is a pointless discussion. Until there is a serious discussion on mandatory spending then the whole discussion of debt/deficit reduction is a farce.
Taxing the rich and military spending reduction. It is insane that people say entitlements need to be reduced when military spending is more than pretty much the combined forces of the entire galaxy. Certain issues are just never put on the table.
Miles, you are factually wrong here. We have a 1 trillion dollar deficit. The proposed tax hikes would possibly create 80 billion annually. The bulk (2.5 trillion/60% of budget give or take) of our spending is mandatory spending (entitlements and interest on the debt). Defense (700 billion) falls in discretionary spending (1.3 trillion give or take). So if you got rid of the entire DoD and raised the top marginal rates to 40% w/o no other changes to the tax system you would still have a deficit. In fact even if you got rid of ALL disrectionary spending you would still only be in the break even department. So again if you are not having a discussion about entitlement spending then you are not having an intellectualy honest discussion about reducing debt/deficit. The fact that you have no problem empowering the state to take 80% of another persons income b/c you think they make too much really just confirms your own bigotry. Now Kirk's take is grow the economy to raise the appropriate revenue and he believes it will happen relatively fast with the right amount of focused deficit spending. I'm not personally a fan of keynesian economics but more importantly I'm not as optimistic as Kirk. Let's get the spending pegged at 18% GDP (our historical average of revenue to GDP) and then hope for a miraculous economic boom. I can agree to large defense cuts because they are needed and could compromise to tax hikes but only if entitlements are on the table. W/o them the conversation is pointless. Well unless you think we are about to see some pretty historic economic growth.
Re: Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread
You know what...fuck taxes, I'm just going to go up to Warren Buffet shoot him in the head and then redistribute his money evenly throughout the land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyMA3pxRWBA
.....oh wait you mean the people I'll be giving money to will blow and end up back where they were before they had the money?!?!?
