No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Printable View
No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That would be me. :o During my watch he asked me to euthanize him, so I honored his request and dispatched him. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by beachgirl
With my auditory capacity slightly diminished, and upon further consideration, I'm starting to have doubts as to what he exactly requested, and now believe it's possible his actual request may have been "exorcize me" :confused:
Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry :devil:
RIP
In a bad economy, human rights get run over in the quest to survive. In a good economy, there is the luxury to share the "wealth" across the spectrum. So, IMO, the economy trumps all. I'll buy your "abandon loonie religious positions" though!Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
I am good with the election as I mentioned I think the republican is in great need of a overhaul. It appears that one needs to take religion and abortion out of the equation.
Women are not going to vote for someone wanting to control their body. Those days are quite over IMO. I am also afraid the capitalism will need to be at least monitored in the future. A pig get fatter and a hog gets slaughtered is really what is happening. We you screw around with the middle class in this country you are asking for it. Class warfare is in play right now and the gov needs to pay close attention. Hopefully we will get a strong 3rd party that will be for the middle class. the congress needs a major gutting and I think only a 3rd party can do that.
Mostly yes, but they indoctrinate their offspringQuote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...95790260_n.jpg
I know. Another wanted to execute naughty children to set an example for the others. I would not vote for such man even if he is the best economist, Starter. I believe that you wouldn't too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
I cut this in two:
Tick :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Then this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Capital, like water and electricity, flows according to the path of least resistance and greatest benefit. If you choose to tax wages, people will choose to take their incomes out of companies out as dividends. If you choose to tax dividends, people will choose to take their incomes out of companies out as wages (replace options with the greatest net taxation benefit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Also, there is a tendancy over the past 70 years (since about WW2), irrespective of whatever taxation policy is employed, for taxation revenues to cycle around a midpoint of about 19.5% of GDP.
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
- William Hauser, Wall Street Journal, 26 Nov 2010.
W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com
If this is statistically true, then the question isn't so much how you raise revenues or even if you do but how you remove taxation loopholes and to be honest, neither the Republicrats or Democrans (hooray-boo - keep yelling at each other, there's no actual difference between the two parties) are prepared to do anything about it because the people who own them, won't let them.
US Taxation Policy is needlessly complicated, mostly because the components of the DJIA demand it.
No. It is a fact that the US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
That is unless you have a magical way to raise $1,200,000,000,000 in new taxes.
I will agree with you that Romney wasn't the best candidate ever. That being said, after 4 years of stagnant at best economics, why vote for the status quo? I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShiftingGears
Because his plan would grow the economy. It wouldn't be a cure all, but better than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Which grows the economy, even if only slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
How's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Every time we have cut taxes in the past it has spurred economic growth. Why would it be different this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Agreed we need to drastically cut spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I don't know enough about the UK situation, but I would suggest they have not cut spending nearly enough, nor cut enough tax burden to really spur the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
If 8% unemployment and 1.x% economic growth with looming inflation is your idea of recovery .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I don't really care what taxes are as a % of GDP. I don't have the time right now to post the numbers, but Federal revenue is up over inflation comparedQuote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
to '99. That "magic" year when we had a "surplus" everyone is so nostalgic about.
Hmmm Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The treasury calculated that for every pound of government spending cut, total economic activity would only drop by 40p.
It turns out that the first round of spending cuts resulted in a 1:1 ratio between spending cuts and drop in economic activity. The private sector was unable to make any headway to make up the loss. This of course has lead to a drop in tax revenue which means we are no longer on course to balance our books. All this despite a massive drop in the value of the Sterling meaning our exports are far more competitive than they used to be, and near-zero rates of interest in an effort to free up cashflow in the economy and encourage investment and growth.
You can learn from other countries' mistakes or decide they magically don't apply to the US.
Didn't Romney gain less votes than McCain as well? Correct me if I am wrong, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That's the trap the Republicans have put themselves in when they became the "Religous Party". To go along with their fiscal ideas, you also have to go along with social ideas. I can't stomache that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
A couple of quotes from an old time conservative Senator from my native state of Arizona.
Quote:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Quote:
["If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Quote:
When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that "every good Christian should be concerned." Replied Goldwater, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
There is no evidence that this happens. It is a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
After Bush's tax cuts in 2003 the rate of growth in the US started to slow down.
Do you have a statistical basis for this? I would like to read your workings. I do not see the above statement as having any real grounding in reality, unless of course you'd like to show otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Robert Frost I approve :up:
Posting from my phone now, so it's a bit tough to post links and stuff. Perhaps someone could prove that tax increases will raise the $1,200,000,000,000 needed to balance the budget, spur economic growth, and reduce unemployment.
Romney and Ryan got 2 million LESS than McCain and Palin. Says a lot, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
The Republican hierarchy is still reeling and hoping to wake up from this nightmare of theirs.
Beck, Rush, Trump and so many more are blabbering incoherently . . . .
They never saw the early knock out punch coming. I'm still smiling.
In Arizona they take politics seriously:
Holly Solomon Blames Husband for Obama's Re-Election, Allegedly Rams Him With Her Car - Phoenix - News - Valley Fever
Quote:
Mesa resident Holly Solomon thinks it's her husband's fault that President Obama was re-elected last week, because he didn't vote.
Not only does Solomon, 28, have a thorough misunderstanding of our nation's electoral system, she also ran over her husband with her car because of this, according to Gilbert police.
In an e-mail to media, Gilbert police Sergeant Jesse Sanger says the argument started in a parking lot Saturday morning over Daniel Solomon's lack of voter participation.
"According to Daniel, Holly believed her family was going to face hardship as a result of President Obama's re-election," Sanger says.
Witnesses told police that there was a lot of yelling before Holly Solomon hopped in her Jeep, and started chasing her husband around the parking lot.
Her husband tried to use a light pole to shield himself, and Solomon drove around the light pole several times as she continued to yell at him.
Eventually, her husband made a run for it, but Solomon hit him, pinning him under the car and on a curb, according to police.
Daniel Solomon's currently in critical condition at a hospital.
Holly Solomon was booked into jail on charges of domestic violence and aggravated assault, and there are no indications she was impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time, according to Sanger.
It should be noted that President Obama won a grand total of zero of Arizona's 11 electoral votes, so it wouldn't have helped if Daniel Solomon had voted for Romney 1,000 times.
Things just got weirder:
In total, more than 20 petitions have been filed. One for Texas has reached the 25,000-signature threshold at which the White House promises a response.
BBC News - US election: Unhappy Americans ask to secede from US
I wonder what would happen if Confederacy II did happen. Places like Texas and the southern states would suddenly find that they'd have all sorts of legal implications like defence, taxation and welfare to work out.
LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
Thanks G'-y
they should just put a national sales deficit tax on. everybody pays. don't take forever to pay this off just get er done.
Don't think you quite understand the scale of the debt/deficit/spending problrm. Our GDP is $15,000,000,000,000, our deficit is $1,200,000,000,000, and our debt is $16,000,000,000,000. That means that to balance the books with some sort of national sales tax, you would have to tax the entire GDP 8%. Do you really think that won't have an impact on the economy?. And that's just the deficit, what about the debt? Well let's pay that off over say 10 years. So all another 10% "sales tax". Now we're up to 18% tax. And that's using static analysis which isn't the right thing to do. And surely we can all agree a tax hike that high wouldn't be too conducive to economic growth?
So you are talking about 18% sales tax? That sounds about normal to me. The UK was at 17.5% now 20%.
That would be 18% on top of all of the already existing taxes (including the hidden ones) we already have. An economy killer for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Oh, wait, we'll just tax the rich people and it'll all go away. :rolleyes:
Leagalize "Herb" on a national level and tax the bejeezus out of it, that would put a dent into it. Of course the "Prisons for Profit" may lose some customers. :crazy:
The entire war on drugs (of which prisons are only a part) is a massive economy all by itself. And of course completely reliant on federal money. Get them and chunk of military spending (particularly Afghanistan) off the budget and things will look a lot better. It's bad enough we're going to be paying for all the veterans these wars have messed up. We need to budget for that for the next 40 years or so.
Ah right. That's always been the thing here, you can't be seen to be putting income tax up, so we have loads of 'stealth taxes' instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
yes we understand the problem - so could you pls bring the solution- I think we all need to pitch in and a national sales tax is the only way I can see to get money from all.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Well tariffs would be nice as well.
well paybacks are a bitch - bring a solutionQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I couldn't agree more. The "War On Drugs" is one of the stupidest things we have ever done on the national level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
There is no easy solution. This problem has been building for many years. You probably won't like some of my solutions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
1) Yes, some tax rates need to be raised. This is tricky as you don't want to squash the economy while doing so.
2) Spending cuts, almost across the board. However, Social Security and Medicare - no changes for those whose ages put them within five years of drawing on the programs.
3) Dramatic reductions in programs. Keep the "have to have" and dump the "nice to have". Lots of room for interpretation here though.
4) Revise the tax code. EVERYBODY pays something. Even those already on government assistance. NO exceptions. My point here is not the money raised because the amount from those now not paying taxes won't amount to much more than the "millionaire" tax will produce. It's to put all those people who now don't care about the subject so long as they get theirs (gov't. payment, tax credit, what ever) into the "I pay taxes and I do give a s**t about how you spend my money" group. In other words, they'll have a dog in the fight. The "me" class becomes the "what the heck are you spending my money on" class.
5) Revise the tax code part two. Keep the current rates (or only adjust them slightly) but eliminate almost all of the deductions for everybody.
6) Slash all government subsidies for various industries, this includes farming. Let the market determine pricing.
7) Slash almost all foreign aid.
I have more too, but this is plenty to get everybody all riled up. :p
Basically I would have to say ditto to Starter. MASSIVE spending cuts across the board coupled with some modest increase in revenue brought about by real tax reform, ie flattening it out.
Perhaps voters determined that Romney's policies represented the same staus quo that helped to land us in the deepest recession since the 1930's. Had Romney articulated a position or a plan on the economy (one plan, not a different one every other week - and not one which was simply parroting the GOP's tired "deregulate and cut taxes" line), perhaps he would have gained more traction with voters. At least under Obama, the bleeding has largely stopped and we do have growth, albeit stagnant. Congress and the Fed also have a hand in this. We need to realize who does what. Monetary policy is determined by the Fed, not by the President and not by Congress - which is why I've always been amused by those who claim that "Reagan whipped inflation." Reagan had as much to do with whipping inflation as I did. Thankfully, the Fed is not quite as political, and not nearly as partisan as Congress and the Executive Branch. I don't agree with everything that Bernanke has done. But he's really about the only one who isn't just sitting on his thumbs and humming.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And yet, he got more votes than Romney. So there's always that. :DQuote:
I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.
I can instantly save $830m from the US Budget and it would cost literally nothing; also save possibly billions in wasted time, thus increasingly productivity.
Kill the penny and nickel.
It costs roughly 2.4c to make a penny and 11c to make a nickel. As far as I can tell, they serve no utilitarian function anymore and are just a hinderance. A Wheat Cent when it came out in 1909 had roughly the same buying power as $1.50 now.
I can see no sensible reason for either the penny or nickel's continued existence.
Same argument can be made about the one dollar bill vs. the one dollar coin. Stop printing the one dollar bill in favour of coins and it would save 5.5 billion dollars over 30 years, or roughly 180 million a year. Do the same for the two dollar bill and you'll save millions again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Sounds about right. I'm no expert on how national economies work, but with my family economy the story is simple. If expenses exceed revenues, we are in trouble and need to cut spending. Or else...Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I used to think this way, also, but now I think it is a mistake. A government is not a household. If it were a household though, why are we worried?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
$16 trillion debt, on a $15 trillion income, my banker would say, go on and get that $45 trillion house you've always dreamed of :p . In real life, I have done just that. Essentially I have only mortgage debt, and I bought a house last month without selling my previous house. I went from my total debt being 1/2 of my annual income to being 2.7 times my annual income in one fell swoop, yet I easily qualify, not to mention my income increases next Sunday when I lease my old house to a renter.
Now, it behooves me as a household to get out of debt because I would eventually like to stop working someday and there is risk involved in debt, but those situations don't apply to government who also can devalue their currency and inflate their way out of crisis by just printing money when all else fails. So unless the US is planning on going out of business anytime soon, I have decided not to worry about the debt.
Sounds familiar. First they inflate, then devalue and leave it to the taxpayers to figure out how to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
We had that situation in Belarus two years ago. The gov't used the model of inflationary growth and kept salaries higher than they should have been. That continued until the incumbent pres won another election in late 2010. Then with his need for votes gone he devalued the national currency by some 2.7 times. Many people instantly became poor.
Given the fact, that politicians are same shameless populists everywhere it can happen in the U.S., too. Get ready, folks. This was Obama's last election. He no longer needs your votes.