TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The new Obama Budget thread
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy This was, by far, the stupidest thing in this budget. So let me get this straight, falling home prices is the problem, so we're going to pull away incentives to buy homes? But we're talking about principal reductions for those in foreclosure (some of which are probably the same people that can't get deductions now, tbh)? Who's fucking brilliant idea was this? And on charities, too?? Aren't they already being pinched enough?

looks like a much more liberal policy stance than i wanted from the obama admin (i thought his admin would be more moderate than his rhetoric). I don't care much for the mortgage interest deduction to begin with, but coupled with principal reductions for stupid people, and this admin has the economic incentives way out of order.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I don't understand how both parties have so little economic sense. There's really no one to support anymore, between the party of NO! and this craziness. I expected the Bush tax cuts to expire, and that was all well and good, but this is sheer lunacy when you're trying to inspire economic growth. It's as though the only plus I can see with the Obama administration in that area is ending the sinkhole that is Iraq, and that's not even looking it'll have as large of a cutback as once thought.

unfortunately, there isn't enough money in government for business people. when you have the option of making $1m working at a bank, or 150K working at the treasury/other government agencies, most intelligent people decide to work in private industry. I'm convinced not too many intelligent people wish to venture into the senate or house. If you look at the bios on some of these senators (and especially the representatives), most prestiguous employers would simply throw out their resumes.

This is heartening.

quote:

The 2% Illusion Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough. President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime." [Review & Outlook] AP This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions. Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income. Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need. The Opinion Journal Widget Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page. But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion. Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006. Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income. The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well. On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation. Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.

I'm just wondering when the vilification of the poor and unemployed is going to subside.

They deserve to be vilified if they feel they are entitled to other people's money.

That goes for corporations too.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 BTW, The17sss may recognize the above author as a sometimes substitute host for the Rush Limbaugh show.

Walter Williams?? Usually Jason Lewis is the main guest host. I've heard Mark Steyn, Mark Davis and Paul Smith on there but never Walter. It's either been a long time or he's a last ditch choice.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Walter Williams?? Usually Jason Lewis is the main guest host. I've heard Mark Steyn, Mark Davis and Paul Smith on there but never Walter. It's either been a long time or he's a last ditch choice.

I dunno, I just found out now from his bio

quote:

He is also occasional substitute host for the "Rush Limbaugh" show. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/vita.html

I found it humorous a conservative economist that has hosted your man's show wrote a book trashing Reaganism. I mean what better evidence the age of Reaganism is gone could there be?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I'm just wondering when the vilification of the poor and unemployed is going to subside.

Is this a joke? The only people being vilified out there are banks and investors. It's actually rather concerning that irresponsible borrowers haven't been vilified more and everyone is making excuses like "there were predatory lenders who gave them money" as though these people aren't responsible enough to understand the details about what is usually the biggest purchase of their lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Is this a joke? The only people being vilified out there are banks and investors. It's actually rather concerning that irresponsible borrowers haven't been vilified more and everyone is making excuses like "there were predatory lenders who gave them money" as though these people aren't responsible enough to understand the details about what is usually the biggest purchase of their lives.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Rush Limbaugh, Shakka's signature, and every other talking head that says we are creating a welfare state in which people who don't work get a free ride.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Rush Limbaugh, Shakka's signature, and every other talking head that says we are creating a welfare state in which people who don't work get a free ride.

I'm all for extending unemployment benefits because the job market's a bitch out there. But this mortgage cramdown/principal reduction issue is a real problem for me. It's stepping over the line drawn between helping out and rewarding stupidity. No one's bailing out my stock portfolio that's lost a greater percentage of value in a year than these people's homes. Granted the numerical loss isn't as high, but that's just because I'm young and was only using income savings. Also, it pisses me off and makes me feel stupid for not putting myself into near financial distress. At least I'd own a home, rather than still renting, but that's what I get for not believing that home ownership is a right.

Also, on your class warfare points in the COR, I'm going to have to disagree. Maybe it's because I'm on more liberal websites, but some of the things that I've been reading in the past few weeks is a problem, and it's all coming from the Left. It's overly emotional, "cutting your nose off to spite your face" sorts of stuff, as I mentioned in that thread about the banker backlash.

Groundhog Boy, this may seem off topic, but what is your favorite type and brand of alcohol?

Back on topic... details of his new tax hikes, which are basically massive, and not so much incrementally small. Revitalizing the economy relies on sucking about a trillion dollars out of it over a ten year period, starting in 2011:

quote:

1) On people making more than $250,000: $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire $179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction $118 billion - capital gains tax hike Total: $636 billion/10 years 2) Businesses: $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes $24 billion - tax carried-interest as income $5 billion - codify �economic substance doctrine� $61 billion - repeal LIFO $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers $882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit Total: $353 billion/10 years

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...s-budget-a.html

Jerez.... you're the tax man... can you comment on the accuracy of this Ed Morrissey commentary on the tax hikes?

quote:

Most of this is vaporware. This is a triumph of static tax analysis, which assumes that increased taxes have no effect on the amount of money available for taxation. For instance, the hike from 15% to 20% on capital-gains taxes assumes that people will invest and cash out in the same manner they do at 15%. They won�t. The fact of increasing the tax will discourage investors and encourage them to shift money out before the hike. Not only will the extra revenue vanish, but investment levels will drop, leading to job losses and less opportunity for American businesses. And what �itemized deduction� will get eliminated? All of them? Some of them? The business tax hikes are even worse. Obama will increase taxes on existing American oil production starting in 2011. Do we have massive amounts of alternative energy capacity ready to replace the energy production and usage that this will discourage? A growing economy has to have a reliable energy supply. Energy producers get hit on several fronts in this plan, and those costs will either result in lower energy production or increased cost to the consumers. Again, the expected revenues will far exceed the reality, once the depressive economic effects of these taxes kick in. The spending, unfortunately, will be all too real, which will mean huge, ballooning deficits. It�s the inevitable result of Obamanomics.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Groundhog Boy, this may seem off topic, but what is your favorite type and brand of alcohol?

Maker's Mark

OMG! Obama drinks!
In front of minors!
U.S.

President Barack Obama, sitting next to 5-year-old Nick Aiello (L), sips his beverage while attending the Washington Wizards NBA basketball game against the Chicago Bulls in Washington February 27, 2009.
REUTERS/Molly Riley (UNITED STATES)

This country is going to hell in a hand basket.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX OMG! Obama drinks! In front of minors! U.S. President Barack Obama, sitting next to 5-year-old Nick Aiello (L), sips his beverage while attending the Washington Wizards NBA basketball game against the Chicago Bulls in Washington February 27, 2009. REUTERS/Molly Riley (UNITED STATES) This country is going to hell in a hand basket.

LOL!! That's gotta be apple juice. No way a sitting US president would drink an adult beverage like that in front of... *gulp*.... the public!

I am highly disappointed with Obama so far. Sure there are many things that Obama is doing correctly- but not forcing some of these derivatives speculators like Citi and Bank of America into Chapter 11 is going to drag the whole country down.

I would suspect the U.S. should cut 50% of military spending within 5 years given our astronomical debt levels, but not under Obama. This is in my view continued military-industrial complex under left cover.

Furthmore Obama alludes we are all responisble and we have to cut our priorities- I say bullshit to that. I will not be responsible for the actions of a few derivatives speculators, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs. Obama's overall theme so far has been payments to bankers- $4.6 trillion so far. In return I get a measly $10 per week in my pay and a crappy $40billion spending in infrastructure? Most of the other money goes to povery pimps like Acorn. We need a national Maglev- public works projects on a grand scale similar to the nature of the New Deal. Obama's theme has been payments to bankers- exactly the policy employed by Herbert Hoover.

Other things I am dissapointed with-
1. $50 billion in cash bribes to mortgage lenders to reduce mortgages for home owners. If you want to stop foreclosures make it a federal crime - no need to subsidize the losses of mortgage lenders.
2. A second $750 billion TARP mainly for 5 large insolvent financial institutions that engaged in risky derivatives speculation. Most banks are fine. Break up the large banks and sell the assets to smaller ones. Decentralization is what the market needs
3. Another $300 billion more in guarantees (announced today) on credit default swaps sold by AIG. AIG should be in Ch 11.
4. $135 billion per year for Afghanistan and Iraq (most troops not coming home anytime soon). $537 billion for the Pentagon which is an increase over Bush.
5. Drastic cuts in social security and medicare (I am 30 and not eligible for social security till I"m 67 as it is- now i have to work till I'm dead??)
6. Carbon taxes that threaten what little industrial production is left (when water vapor is the real greenhouse gas and little of the CO2 emitted comes from industrial production).

I find it ironic the very architects of this crisis (Summers, Rubin, etc) are now the ones to fix the problem?
http://solari.com/blog/?p=2006
And what about Obama's Deputy Secretary of Defense? $3.3 trillion went missing from the Pentagon while he was the CFO. Maybe he could help Obama by getting the money back for us?
http://solari.com/blog/?p=1983

Here is a great site where you can find the most critical analysis of Obama's policies without the garbage and nonsense by the neo-cons on Fox News.
www.globalresearch.ca

^^^^
That is a whole lotta stupid. Let me guess, you like Ron Paul?

BTW, do you even know what "derivative speculation" is, because you used it 3 times like someone who just uses some buzzword that they read on Digg.

I am working on my CFA designation so yes I do know what derivatives are. I use "derivatives speculation" as a catch all for those large financial institutions that created a whole bubble economy by creating paper based on paper. This magnifies the risk in the marketplace as one default or one drop in the price of an asset causes a domino effect of other defaults and a generally downward spiral which is what we are seeing today. Do you really believe that Joe shmoe out in some trailer park in Missouri who can't pay his mortgage is responsible for this? Its the credit default swaps (the insurance products)and the all the collaterized debt out there (some of which may be fraudulent I might add) that is responsible for this. Wall St payed themselves huge fees over the years in this bubble economy and now that it comes crashing down, we the people are responsible? We are supposed to say its OK to give $4.6 trillion dollars to these banks, with trillions more to come?

Of course GM has been the architect of their own demise, but I find it funny we make such a big deal about giving $17 billion to the big 3, yet its OK to give trillions to these banks. The big 3 represent one of the last straws of industrial production in this country, and this administration is seems willing to kill manufacturing but prop up the banks. Haven't we learned our lesson that we can't have an economy that is simply built on paper? Why does Obama's "stimulus" do so little to jumpstart industrial production in this country?
And oh did I mention who stands to benefit the most from Obama's cap and trade policy, which is based on the myth that global warming is caused by humans?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/c.../view/2322/218/
http://www.documentarywire.com/grea...warming-swindle


I said it before and I'll say it again. Obama is a banker's boy. He works for Wall St. The opportunity cost of giving billions and billions to dead zombie banks like Bank of America and Citi is huge- that money could be utilized elsewhere to give a much much higher rate of return.

The links I provided are certainly not hogwash as you called it. I suggest you look at www.solari.com/blog. Catherine Austin Fitts runs that blog- she was assistant secretary of housing under Bush I and Clinton. Just developed software that was exposing wide spread HUD securities fraud which was seized by the DOJ, under orders from none other than Eric Holder himself. Her story can be found at www.dunwalke.com

And oh the things I could write about Summers and Rubin. Here is one interesting article with their names mentioned:
http://www.russians.org/williamson_testimony.htm

The way I see it, the neo-con crooks have been in power for the last 8 years, and now the neo-liberal crooks are at it. People are so foolish to think that people like Holder, Summers, Rubin, Arne Duncan, Geithner, Clinton, and the rest of these clowns have their best interest at heart.

You may also want to check out Max Keiser's most recent commentary at http://karmabanqueradio.com/2009/02...-february-2009/ for a more cynical viewpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by tonybologna I am working on my CFA designation so yes I do know what derivatives are. I use "derivatives speculation" as a catch all for those large financial institutions that created a whole bubble economy by creating paper based on paper. This magnifies the risk in the marketplace as one default or one drop in the price of an asset causes a domino effect of other defaults and a generally downward spiral which is what we are seeing today. Do you really believe that Joe shmoe out in some trailer park in Missouri who can't pay his mortgage is responsible for this? Its the credit default swaps (the insurance products)and the all the collaterized debt out there (some of which may be fraudulent I might add) that is responsible for this. Wall St payed themselves huge fees over the years in this bubble economy and now that it comes crashing down, we the people are responsible? We are supposed to say its OK to give $4.6 trillion dollars to these banks, with trillions more to come? Of course GM has been the architect of their own demise, but I find it funny we make such a big deal about giving $17 billion to the big 3, yet its OK to give trillions to these banks. The big 3 represent one of the last straws of industrial production in this country, and this administration is seems willing to kill manufacturing but prop up the banks. Haven't we learned our lesson that we can't have an economy that is simply built on paper? Why does Obama's "stimulus" do so little to jumpstart industrial production in this country? And oh did I mention who stands to benefit the most from Obama's cap and trade policy, which is based on the myth that global warming is caused by humans? http://www.climatechangefraud.com/c.../view/2322/218/ http://www.documentarywire.com/grea...warming-swindle I said it before and I'll say it again. Obama is a banker's boy. He works for Wall St. The opportunity cost of giving billions and billions to dead zombie banks like Bank of America and Citi is huge- that money could be utilized elsewhere to give a much much higher rate of return. The links I provided are certainly not hogwash as you called it. I suggest you look at www.solari.com/blog. Catherine Austin Fitts runs that blog- she was assistant secretary of housing under Bush I and Clinton. Just developed software that was exposing wide spread HUD securities fraud which was seized by the DOJ, under orders from none other than Eric Holder himself. Her story can be found at www.dunwalke.com And oh the things I could write about Summers and Rubin. Here is one interesting article with their names mentioned: http://www.russians.org/williamson_testimony.htm The way I see it, the neo-con crooks have been in power for the last 8 years, and now the neo-liberal crooks are at it. People are so foolish to think that people like Holder, Summers, Rubin, Arne Duncan, Geithner, Clinton, and the rest of these clowns have their best interest at heart. You may also want to check out Max Keiser's most recent commentary at http://karmabanqueradio.com/2009/02...-february-2009/ for a more cynical viewpoint.

looks like the TA CT's hired a gun. sweet.

quote:

Originally posted by tonybologna I am working on my CFA designation so yes I do know what derivatives are. I use "derivatives speculation" as a catch all for those large financial institutions that created a whole bubble economy by creating paper based on paper. This magnifies the risk in the marketplace as one default or one drop in the price of an asset causes a domino effect of other defaults and a generally downward spiral which is what we are seeing today. Do you really believe that Joe shmoe out in some trailer park in Missouri who can't pay his mortgage is responsible for this? Its the credit default swaps (the insurance products)and the all the collaterized debt out there (some of which may be fraudulent I might add) that is responsible for this. Wall St payed themselves huge fees over the years in this bubble economy and now that it comes crashing down, we the people are responsible? We are supposed to say its OK to give $4.6 trillion dollars to these banks, with trillions more to come? Of course GM has been the architect of their own demise, but I find it funny we make such a big deal about giving $17 billion to the big 3, yet its OK to give trillions to these banks. The big 3 represent one of the last straws of industrial production in this country, and this administration is seems willing to kill manufacturing but prop up the banks. Haven't we learned our lesson that we can't have an economy that is simply built on paper? Why does Obama's "stimulus" do so little to jumpstart industrial production in this country? And oh did I mention who stands to benefit the most from Obama's cap and trade policy, which is based on the myth that global warming is caused by humans? http://www.climatechangefraud.com/c.../view/2322/218/ http://www.documentarywire.com/grea...warming-swindle I said it before and I'll say it again. Obama is a banker's boy. He works for Wall St. The opportunity cost of giving billions and billions to dead zombie banks like Bank of America and Citi is huge- that money could be utilized elsewhere to give a much much higher rate of return. The links I provided are certainly not hogwash as you called it. I suggest you look at www.solari.com/blog. Catherine Austin Fitts runs that blog- she was assistant secretary of housing under Bush I and Clinton. Just developed software that was exposing wide spread HUD securities fraud which was seized by the DOJ, under orders from none other than Eric Holder himself. Her story can be found at www.dunwalke.com And oh the things I could write about Summers and Rubin. Here is one interesting article with their names mentioned: http://www.russians.org/williamson_testimony.htm The way I see it, the neo-con crooks have been in power for the last 8 years, and now the neo-liberal crooks are at it. People are so foolish to think that people like Holder, Summers, Rubin, Arne Duncan, Geithner, Clinton, and the rest of these clowns have their best interest at heart. You may also want to check out Max Keiser's most recent commentary at http://karmabanqueradio.com/2009/02...-february-2009/ for a more cynical viewpoint.

where do you people find these obscure links to the blogs of these unknown people? furthermore, why should we care about the opinions of these unimportant people?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has an official Krypton seal of approval. That is all.

When consumer spending is this bad, the government must be the one to fill the void, at least until market demand picks up again.

quote:

Originally posted by tonybologna In return I get a measly $10 per week in my pay and a crappy $40billion spending in infrastructure? Most of the other money goes to povery pimps like Acorn. We need a national Maglev- public works projects on a grand scale similar to the nature of the New Deal. Obama's theme has been payments to bankers- exactly the policy employed by Herbert Hoover.

why is your hand out? i agree that more money should have been allocated to public works projects, but i would not complain that i don't receive enough. after all, the purpose of this national spending plan is to improve the national economy not your personal situation. with that said, i was opposed to sooooo much of this legislation. namely, the short term tax cuts (i.e., your $10 per week).

btw - maglev is stupid. this country is far too large and the property ownership between major metropolitan areas is too disparate to efficiently create any sort of maglev system. The logistics are too complicated. while the idea of a maglev train from NYC to chicago is a nice idea, think about how many legal battles there will be just on the eminent domain issues. in this age of personal property rights, projects of that magnitude are impossible to accomplish.

quote:

Originally posted by tonybologna 5. Drastic cuts in social security and medicare (I am 30 and not eligible for social security till I"m 67 as it is- now i have to work till I'm dead??)

any intelligent person understands that they can't rely on social security when they retire. the SSI tax is simply a tax imposed on you for the benefit of the elderly living today, and it is not a contribution a pension for your future. understand the tax for what it is and it is easy to deal with.

quote:

Originally posted by tonybologna 6. Carbon taxes that threaten what little industrial production is left (when water vapor is the real greenhouse gas and little of the CO2 emitted comes from industrial production).

how about the fact that 1/5 of all US imports is for energy production. That is 1/5 of our wealth being transferred to the middle east. i would rather have a higher cost of producing energy (with its collateral consequences, i.e., higher cost of goods), than to export 1/5 of our wealth every year.

quote:

Originally posted by tonybologna I find it ironic the very architects of this crisis (Summers, Rubin, etc) are now the ones to fix the problem? http://solari.com/blog/?p=2006 And what about Obama's Deputy Secretary of Defense? $3.3 trillion went missing from the Pentagon while he was the CFO.

the CFO of the pentagon? is that an official title?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has an official Krypton seal of approval. That is all. When consumer spending is this bad, the government must be the one to fill the void, at least until market demand picks up again.

the point is that when consumers decide to stop spending, government does the spending indirectly for the consumers. so, in reality, the consumers are still spending, just not based on individual decisions. when the consumers (viewed as an aggregate) reduce spending, the government should adjust its spending to fill the void since its actions represent the indirect actions of the consumers.

the relevant question is whether we were spending too much in the first place. it is not in the long term interest of the country for the government to sustain spending that is in excess of the capacity of the population (since the government debt is really the debt of the people who pay taxes). it appears that the debt burden of the average consumer was so high that the spending habits were too much in the first place. while i agree on a spending package, it must be narrowly directed for future growth given the massive amount of debt needed to fund the projects. I can't agree that this package is the best or even a good package.

the only thing the package should have focused on were energy, education, infrastructure improvement, and scientific advances. tax cuts and all that other bullshit should have been left out.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the only thing the package should have focused on were energy, education, infrastructure improvement, and scientific advances. tax cuts and all that other bullshit should have been left out.

AKA leave out every single thing that the GOP considers "pork" and take out the only things that they actually wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis AKA leave out every single thing that the GOP considers "pork" and take out the only things that they actually wanted.

for the most part. however, the GOP would considering spending on education (for example) 'pork' because (i) they don't know the definition of pork (appropriations by individual members of congress on projects that benefit a specific constituent), and (ii) they think it is the responsibility of the individual to pay for his own education.

i actually heard a conservative commentator today on some news radio show express disgust that democrats wanted to expand pell grants. i think we should be spending more on public (higher) education so that private educational institutes have more competition for quality education and are forced to reduce tuition to compete. since educational institutions don't pay taxes (property or income), there is no reason students should be paying 30K a year for an education. some basic math reveals that a class of 30 students produces revenue of about 90k (with a 30K tuition). Perhaps schools should eliminate some layers of fat (considering we have all experienced the ineffectiveness of school resources). it seems to me that educational institutions are either hoarding money somewhere, or are ineffectively utilizing their resources. maybe the tax exempt applications shouldn't be given so easily to some of these schools.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the relevant question is whether we were spending too much in the first place. it is not in the long term interest of the country for the government to sustain spending that is in excess of the capacity of the population (since the government debt is really the debt of the people who pay taxes). it appears that the debt burden of the average consumer was so high that the spending habits were too much in the first place.

DING DING DING! Exactly..and this is what the Keynesians fail to realize. They think spending/consumption must always be on an upward trajectory and their policies that encourage this are what create asset bubbles in the first place. They blow up a bubble until it pops and starts to deflate, then rather than considering whether it should have been so big to begin with, they proceed to blow harder than ever and attempt to make it bigger than ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt DING DING DING! Exactly..and this is what the Keynesians fail to realize. They think spending/consumption must always be on an upward trajectory and their policies that encourage this are what create asset bubbles in the first place. They blow up a bubble until it pops and starts to deflate, then rather than considering whether it should have been so big to begin with, they proceed to blow harder than ever and attempt to make it bigger than ever.

the worst definition of keynesian economics on the entire internet.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.