|
State of the Union (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| WittyHandle |
| I wasn't talking about the spending freeze. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
In business terms maybe this will make more sense Kevin: "You have to spend money to make money." That goes for the feds to. |
But businesses would fail miserably (as they should) if they just constantly borrowed and spent, but didn't show a profit or make the required changes in efficiency to be able to operate. Gov't doesn't have to show a profit, and they sure as don't run efficiently; they just suck more from the private sector.
| quote: | | Of course if the economy does recover and we have a booming economy we'd still be ed by the Republican parties economic policies because we can't tax any of that wealth. Nope, no money for the government ever. |
Dude... what? Republican economic policies? We have the world's highest corporat tax rate now. Taxes alone from Exxon (a record $30 billion last year) to the government were equal to 50% of all taxes received (or, from 65 million individual filers). Almost half of the population doesn't even pay income taxes... all the social programs and entitlements are funded by those with money; 5% of earners are paying about 63% of all taxes.
| quote: | Like I said, we are ed. Its just how much can we salvage when we do hit rock bottom.
Sorry for being totally depressing but if you have a better way of describing the path that we are on then by all means explain. |
I agree... we are ed and it's depressing. A better way at acheiving an economic turnaround, in a nut shell, should obviously include financial incentives and tax reductions plus our government shrinking, not growing. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
But businesses would fail miserably (as they should) if they just constantly borrowed and spent, but didn't show a profit or make the required changes in efficiency to be able to operate. Gov't doesn't have to show a profit, and they sure as don't run efficiently; they just suck more from the private sector. |
Look at governments that implement social policy like the Scandinavian countries. All of them, including Finland, have a budget surpluses and they have very large governments and an incredibly high standard of living. Governments don't suck, just ours.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Dude... what? Republican economic policies? We have the world's highest corporat tax rate now. Taxes alone from Exxon (a record $30 billion last year) to the government were equal to 50% of all taxes received (or, from 65 million individual filers). Almost half of the population doesn't even pay income taxes... all the social programs and entitlements are funded by those with money; 5% of earners are paying about 63% of all taxes. |
But thats too much in the eyes of your party, right? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
A better way at acheiving an economic turnaround, in a nut shell, should obviously include financial incentives and tax reductions plus our government shrinking, not growing. |
how do you plan to reduce the deficit with even more tax cuts? |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
But thats too much in the eyes of your party, right? |
I was thinking just that haha. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how to you plan to reduce the deficit with even more tax cuts? |
Isn't it obvious? If we cut taxes we'll make more money. Duh. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Look at governments that implement social policy like the Scandinavian countries. All of them, including Finland, have a budget surpluses and they have very large governments and an incredibly high standard of living. Governments don't suck, just ours. |
Finland doesn't have a population of 300 million people and a huge military sucking up the government's resources. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Finland doesn't have a population of 300 million people and a huge military sucking up the government's resources. |
That is true. The US does have certain military obligations under treaty and by understandings with other countries. That is a roll that we took after WW2 and it has for the most part served us well in gaining influence and stature on the world stage.
Unfortunately it is not something we can actively maintain for much longer. European nations share their defense burden through NATO and EU treaties and in turn are able to spend considerably less of their GDP on their military forces.
The US is stuck between a rock and a hard place. China has a large military and its growing more modern and capable every year. Russia is flexing its muscles again.
The US still has to compete on the global stage but we do not have the domestic resources to cover the burden and its hard to garner international support for military operations now because of the failed diplomatic policies of the Bush administration (the world likes when the US does stuff for them, just now when they don't ask).
Once again, as I said we are ed. We are being crushed under the weight of our international obligations, our past policy decisions in support of different nations, and our general view that the world sees of us. There is no easy way out of this besides wrapping up our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, stepping out of the international policy circle (that means no longer putting ourselves in positions where our military can be relied on) and drastically scaling back the cost of our military. The size doesn't really have to come down, but the logistical nightmare that is our international basing and deployments has to be scaled back, at least to within the north-western hemisphere (as in within the US territories). This puts us in a significantly weaker position, and since we do not have the multitude of nations to support ourselves like the EU we will again be drastically under cut on the world stage.
It is a very sad state of affairs. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Look at governments that implement social policy like the Scandinavian countries. All of them, including Finland, have a budget surpluses and they have very large governments and an incredibly high standard of living. Governments don't suck, just ours.
But thats too much in the eyes of your party, right? |
Yeah... and what? You think they pay $2.40/gallon of gas there? The cost of living in Stockholm or Oslo or Helsinki is a lot higher than most places here. Why do you think that we can get all you dream of without it costing more to the individual citizen?
Well, yes I do think it's too much... and it has nothing to do with the eyes of my party. Most people (and companies) should pay their fair share (and I stress the word 'fair'); instead, an increasingly larger percentage of the overall tax burden gets saddled on the achievers. I'm sorry but it's the acheivers and risk takers who provide the climate for almost 80% of employment. Economics 101: the more you raise the tax burden, the more you depress the activity that's being taxed. If you make life more difficult for them, you'll see what you're seeing now: no incentive to invest, laying off workers, picking up stakes and moving operations to other countries, and less revenue going to government by both individuals and companies.
| quote: | | pkcRAISTLIN: how to you plan to reduce the deficit with even more tax cuts? |
I'm no economist, but it's a stone cold fact that tax cuts spur economic activity, which lead to more money going to the government. Bush's tax cuts sent more tax dollars to the federal government than EVER. Unfortunately, much of that was grossly mismanaged. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Yeah... and what? You think they pay $2.40/gallon of gas there? The cost of living in Stockholm or Oslo or Helsinki is a lot higher than most places here. Why do you think that we can get all you dream of without it costing more to the individual citizen? |
Yet they have a higher standard of living. Who care what it costs compared to us. They can afford it and they are happy.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Well, yes I do think it's too much... and it has nothing to do with the eyes of my party. Most people (and companies) should pay their fair share (and I stress the word 'fair'); instead, an increasingly larger percentage of the overall tax burden gets saddled on the achievers. I'm sorry but it's the acheivers and risk takers who provide the climate for almost 80% of employment. Economics 101: the more you raise the tax burden, the more you depress the activity that's being taxed. If you make life more difficult for them, you'll see what you're seeing now: no incentive to invest, laying off workers, picking up stakes and moving operations to other countries, and less revenue going to government by both individuals and companies. |
Thats a problem with the heritage of this country. Most of its population base are the rejects of Europe from the 14th to 19th century. We have those that are achievers, but most of them are crooks on some level. The countries ideals have always been a somewhat all for one attitude. There is no incentive to help one another because we feel that we are some how above everyone else on a human level. Which is simply not true. The bum on the street and the CEO in the glass tower above him are both people and they deserve the same fundamental rights of health and freedom. Thats an obligation people should have towards one another and one that is totally lost on people in the United States. Even the most free-market countries in Europe have these ideals in a much, much stronger way than here in the US.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I'm no economist, but it's a stone cold fact that tax cuts spur economic activity, which lead to more money going to the government. Bush's tax cuts sent more tax dollars to the federal government than EVER. Unfortunately, much of that was grossly mismanaged. |
The government will still owe money, you keep cutting taxes and you will have a government that will no longer be able to exist. Republican tax policy is an endorsement of anarchy. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
the only reason he was elected is cause he looks good and talks well. He's a pure orator and nothing else.
it's ing annoying, and pkc, he's not that right wing, the really anoying thing is that he just does NOTHING.
at least bush made things worse... that gives some kind of perspective... obama is just pure lies.
i'm not saying nobel prizes were ever true signifiers of merit, but obama winning one has made them entirely valueless. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Yet they have a higher standard of living. Who care what it costs compared to us. They can afford it and they are happy. |
A higher standard of living than here? If so, the differences are neglegible; we aren't comparing Uganda and Dubai here. Have you spent time living there to compare? I would be willing to bet that they'd appreciate the same standard of living for the comparitive US costs.
| quote: | | Thats a problem with the heritage of this country. Most of its population base are the rejects of Europe from the 14th to 19th century. We have those that are achievers, but most of them are crooks on some level. The countries ideals have always been a somewhat all for one attitude. There is no incentive to help one another because we feel that we are some how above everyone else on a human level. Which is simply not true. The bum on the street and the CEO in the glass tower above him are both people and they deserve the same fundamental rights of health and freedom. Thats an obligation people should have towards one another and one that is totally lost on people in the United States. Even the most free-market countries in Europe have these ideals in a much, much stronger way than here in the US. |
Enough generations have passed now that the "rejects" of the 14th to 19th century don't have any bearing on business today. Where are you getting that from? I would actually argue the opposite- 1st and 2nd generation people who came here are harder workers than the American's who have 4+ generations living here. The majority of business owners and people here who achieve are NOT "crooks on some level"... Jesus man this isn't Russia. I've met some scandelous people in my 8 years of private sector business, but for the most part the people I've crossed paths with are pretty solid. I'm not saying this as an insult, but you obviously have no real experience in the business world because to say that the ethics of business is totally lost on people in the U.S. is crazy. Reading about AIG executives or Bernie Madoff, etc., speaks for a rather small percentage of business owners and operators. You need to spend some time in the real world man. Just sayin'
| quote: | | The government will still owe money, you keep cutting taxes and you will have a government that will no longer be able to exist. Republican tax policy is an endorsement of anarchy. |
:stongue: |
|
|
|
|
