120 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

Tiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

I'm not sure that that's what I agreed with.

What I agreed with was that the economy needs to at least grow inline with population, or things get worse over time. Luckily - in the US, aside from recessions - it generally does.

As to there being an end to it:



The green chart is what happens if we go over the cliff and the Bush tax cuts are repealed in their entirety, and the various sequestration cuts are made. The yellow line is what happens if we just kick the can down the road and do nothing.

Basically - the Bush tax cuts need to be repealed - for everyone, as well as the other cuts that are currently part of the sequestration. The only real question is whether to do it all at once (and throw the economy back into a recession) or lower the US down the cliff gently.

I basically agree with Tiggs here, but...

The problem I see is basically, despite attacking the Rich and Corporations on taxes in the Court of Public Opinion, Obama is heading almost exactly along that orange part of the graph. There is no way the Dems are going to be able to compensate for not ending the Bush cuts on the middle class. Even with higher and higher Rich and corporate taxes. So I am curious on how the Dems plan to make that up, or just kick everything down the road. I can see them kicking it, because really no one will be able to see how bad it will get till 4 to 6 years goes by.

Edited by DieChecker, 17 December 2012 - 08:30 PM.

[Tiggs]

DieChecker, on 17 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I basically agree with Tiggs here, but...

The problem I see is basically, despite attacking the Rich and Corporations on taxes in the Court of Public Opinion, Obama is heading almost exactly along that orange part of the graph. There is no way the Dems are going to be able to compensate for not ending the Bush cuts on the middle class. Even with higher and higher Rich and corporate taxes. So I am curious on how the Dems plan to make that up, or just kick everything down the road. I can see them kicking it, because really no one will be able to see how bad it will get till 4 to 6 years goes by.

Possibly, though I hope not. Kicking the can down the road with no intention of fixing it - of all the possible outcomes - that one would be the worst.

If you were planning on repealing the tax cuts slowly, then undoing the tax cuts on the richest first is the best way to do that, as it will have the smallest impact on the overall economy.

As such - I suspect that there's an undisclosed mid-term plan to repeal them for everyone at the point that it becomes politically viable to do so - 2014'ish, I'd imagine, since the Senate bill only extends them for another year. It's not the kind of thing that you campaign for during the run for Presidency, especially when the other guy is trying to lure voters with the exact opposite.

Alternately - I guess that being able to blame the Republicans for it all, would also work, from the Democrat's viewpoint. The recession would be fairly rough again, but the US would pull through it, eventually, in a much stronger financial position and with enough blame for the bumpy ride going in the Republican direction to stand a decent chance of the Dem's winning the Presidency again in 2016.

[DieChecker]

Tiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Possibly, though I hope not. Kicking the can down the road with no intention of fixing it - of all the possible outcomes - that one would be the worst.

If you were planning on repealing the tax cuts slowly, then undoing the tax cuts on the richest first is the best way to do that, as it will have the smallest impact on the overall economy.

As such - I suspect that there's an undisclosed mid-term plan to repeal them for everyone at the point that it becomes politically viable to do so - 2014'ish, I'd imagine, since the Senate bill only extends them for another year. It's not the kind of thing that you campaign for during the run for Presidency, especially when the other guy is trying to lure voters with the exact opposite.

Alternately - I guess that being able to blame the Republicans for it all, would also work, from the Democrat's viewpoint. The recession would be fairly rough again, but the US would pull through it, eventually, in a much stronger financial position and with enough blame for the bumpy ride going in the Republican direction to stand a decent chance of the Dem's winning the Presidency again in 2016.

Many have suggested a third option, where the Bush cuts get ended, and the Congress pulls together a new, partial tax cut for the middle class.

But, do you also agree that in order to get that graph to edge back toward 0% GDP, we would need some cuts somewhere? Whether in the military or entitlements, something somewhere will need to be cut back some. The cuts could be as simple as re-evaluating the yearly increases or the benefit requirements for the various programs.

[Tiggs]

DieChecker, on 17 December 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Many have suggested a third option, where the Bush cuts get ended, and the Congress pulls together a new, partial tax cut for the middle class.

But, do you also agree that in order to get that graph to edge back toward 0% GDP, we would need some cuts somewhere? Whether in the military or entitlements, something somewhere will need to be cut back some. The cuts could be as simple as re-evaluating the yearly increases or the benefit requirements for the various programs.

If I understand it correctly - that green line is showing a yearly surplus, so it would naturally edge down to 0%. Bear in mind, however, that the green line already includes the sequestration cuts to military and entitlements going into effect.

I'm sure that there are probably many different ways to make that happen faster. I suspect, however, that if the budget gets back to running at an annual surplus, it would be a difficult sell to convince the public that they needed to cut further services.

[Yamato]

Kicking the can down the road with no intention of fixing it isn't some hypothetical future scenario, it's not only the worst possible outcome, it's the reality we're facing already.   When Congress is calling spending increases "spending cuts" how are we supposed to take them seriously about the debt?   There is no chance of paying down this debt because no bureaucrat has the first clue let alone the first genuine interest in paying it.   They only have interest in paying interest (but keeping interest rates as low as possible while they borrow and spend more).   We have the bar set so low to define what progress is on this issue, they'll take credit for fixing the problem even if they make the problem a lot worse.

Congress has one of the most abysmal favorable ratings of all time; little wonder why.

Tiggs own chart incriminates the problem.  There is no madman trying to take over the world that we need to save democracy from.  These debt levels are completely insane.

[DieChecker]

Tiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

If I understand it correctly - that green line is showing a yearly surplus, so it would naturally edge down to 0%. Bear in mind, however, that the green line already includes the sequestration cuts to military and entitlements going into effect.

I'm sure that there are probably many different ways to make that happen faster. I suspect, however, that if the budget gets back to running at an annual surplus, it would be a difficult sell to convince the public that they needed to cut further services.

I thought it showed just the total Public Debt as a percentage of that years GDP. The green line is simply the better option.

If it showed surplus, then everything before 2010 would be surpluses, which they weren't.

The Debt could even keep going up and this chart head down, if the growth of the Debt was less then the growth of the GDP.

[ninjadude]

RavenHawk, on 17 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

It sure is.  It assures that people that may not necessarily be as qualified as others to get a job solely on the color of their skin.

It's sad that you post a subtly racist comment while not understanding the reason for what you whine about. And it has nothing to do with government spending. As usual, something more to whine about.

[F3SS]

ninjadude, on 18 December 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

And it has nothing to do with government spending.

Not even when it comes to eligibility for gov assistance? What about federal school loans? Ethnicity is an important box to check when applying for school loans and probably other federal loans too. The box was useless to me though, a white guy. I definitely didn't get a deal. Whatever the price was I paid full price and then some.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 18 December 2012 - 03:41 AM.

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 17 December 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

No it did not. What most of those who are constantly complaining about welfare don't get is that:

I think it did – in fact I know it did.  Cheaper than wealth redistribution that causes everyone to be poor?  The idea is for every one to find their way to the top on their own (to have the opportunity).  Many don’t make it but with a work ethic that is passed on from one generation to the next, the descendants are suppose to end up better off than those that came before.  There may be set backs but everyone is different.  That is the whole concept.  Not everyone is equal but as long as one is fulfilling their own self interest, it will help those below them rise up.  That may not give you instant gratification but it does build a solid foundation.  That is what made America great and what establishes American Exceptionalism.

Quote

A] We have no sensible job for most on Welfare anyway and

And ‘sensible’ seems to be very subjective on your part.  What do you call sensible?  To pay for internet and cable?  Or those Air Jordans for the kiddies?  If you find your self in that position, you need to worry about the very basics (pretty much food, clothing, and a roof and probably substandard at that).  Jobs are available, they may be below your station but then you need to decide to change stations for awhile.  If you need internet, then get a library card.  If you need a phone, get a roll of quarters.  Don’t expect to live the lifestyle you once were use to.  All of that changes.  But at the same time this is not a permanent situation.  I should know.  I lost my job twice, under Clinton’s second term due to corporate downsizing and corporate bankruptcy.  For almost a year, I lived in a condemned shack.  The winters were brutal but I survived.  I worked on a week to week basis; many times it was day to day depending on what was available.  I would stock shelves with product for about $6 bucks an hour or I had a friend in construction, whenever he need unskilled labor to knock down a wall or hang insulation or whatever, he’d hire me for $10 bucks an hour (a side effect of that is that I can do repairs around the house today).  And during all of that, I never sought government aid.  Today, I’m married, own a house, and make about $30 bucks an hour.  I’m not going to get that rich, but I can take care of my self and to Hell with the government!  I’ll be glad to pay taxes so that it can maintain infrastructure and fight wars but that is it.  So don’t tell me about what sensible is.  From what I see, you have no right!

Quote

B] It is cheaper to keep a welfare recipient on booze than to keep him in jail.

That’s right, keep them in a perpetual state of dependency.  Just feed him a gramme of soma.  What’s the saying about that it is better to show a man how to fish rather than to continually waste your time and resources to feed him?  

Now here is where I see government involvement with the people, using Gore’s lockbox.  I can see raising taxes temporarily to fill this lockbox with some gawd awful amount, say $1 trillion with the proviso that Congress can not get to it.  Then when that level is met, then stop taxation.  This would be the 31st Amendment (I already had established 3 other needed Amendments).  Now some of this lockbox would be invested back into the market.  But the rest would be a safety net for those that need it.  Some of it could be used for retraining (teaching a man how to fish) or unemployment insurance.  The difference here is that as soon as the person is back on their feet, they are obligated to replenish the lockbox at no or very little interest.  And if they pass away then their descendants become responsible for paying it off.  Now instead of paying it back, they could pay-it-forward (fulfill their obligation) to the next one in need but then that person becomes obligated.  Now something like that would be the only kind of involvement in our lives, I would accept from the government and no other strings attached.  That would be the cheapest solution for the government.  Now due to attrition, there may need to be temporary taxes to replenish losses in the lockbox but the hope is that the part being used for investment will keep that level up.  Welfare as we know it would disappear.  Socialists would lose power.  And we would return to the Republic that our Founding Fathers had given us.  That’s a win-win situation for all, but Socialists.  I don’t thing that will break my heart.

Quote

Therefore having it is less burdening for the tax payer than not having it (as 16 past centuries have shown).

The last 16 Centuries?  Are there any nations today that have been around that long?  Not really.  Even China has gone through invasions, revolutions, and changes in dynasties due to what welfare does to people that it is not the same nation.  The fact is that Socialism breeds instability and revolt.  Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why they gave us the Constitution.

Quote

If someone decides to do something with himself we should support that, if not we should support that they don't overduely burden us.

The best thing to do is get out of their way.  We have laws already on the books.  That is why we have law enforcement and is one of the five charges of this government.  If you think housing a prisoner is expensive and an overduly burden then how much do you think it costs to support someone from cradle to grave?

Quote

And the best way to do that is to keep them at a subsistence level where they don't have to resort to stealing. Because it is the cheapest thing to do.

Why do you think that someone below subsistence level always resorts to stealing?  I didn’t.  Of course, I had a good work ethic.  I wasn’t raised that the government was there to give me handouts.  I did what work was available.  If I can do it without stealing, so can others.

[RavenHawk]

Tiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

No. I don't find your brand of propaganda comedic, at all.

It’s not my brand of propaganda.  It’s called the United States Constitution.

Quote

Actually - Article 1,  Section 8 says Provide. Even if it didn't, there is no legal difference between promote or provide - and general welfare can mean a variety of things, which, according to the Supreme Court, includes the provision of social safety nets.

There is a legal difference between the two.  The charge says to Promote the General Welfare. I.8 lists the things Congress can Provide to accomplish this.  And none of the items on this list is to Provide dole to the people and no Safety net either.  And safety net is certainly a very generic term.  Taking the nature of the Constitution, one has to conclude that it does not mean cradle to grave care, but perhaps more in line to the example I made in the previous post.

Quote

That providing those social safety nets run contrary to your personal political beliefs is another issue, entirely.

Really?  I consider it closer to the Constitution than your personal political beliefs.  I think I’ve explained my position quite clearly.  I would like to see what you reference as the Supreme Court’s provision of social safety nets.  I have a feeling that one would be able to make a wide range of interpretations to that?  But only one will fall in line with the essence of the Constitution.  What most people, including Socialists seem to forget is that the Constitution is structured to describe how this government runs and the use and maintenance of the inanimate possessions of this government.  It purposely stays clear of infringing on the Rights of the living human being.

[RavenHawk]

ninjadude, on 18 December 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

It's sad that you post a subtly racist comment while not understanding the reason for what you whine about. And it has nothing to do with government spending. As usual, something more to whine about.

Affirmative Action *IS* racism.  Grant you, on the surface, it is a noble idea, but in practice, it is just government trying to regulate humans.  Your kind never seems to look ahead and consider the implications.  So Affirmative Action turns out to be state sponsored racism.  Yet another form of control or infringement on the American people.

You better believe it is more to whine about.  I don’t just roll over and accept everything this government conveys upon us or feeds us.  It is not the roll of this government to do so.  Yet you and your ilk are readily manipulated.

[F3SS]

Raven,
It's give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
And that's exactly what happened with your construction experience. Maybe you can't build a house but you can fix a few things which is a piece of mind and a money saver.

[RavenHawk]

-Mr_Fess-, on 18 December 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Raven,
It's give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
And that's exactly what happened with your construction experience. Maybe you can't build a house but you can fix a few things which is a piece of mind and a money saver.

Thanks for the correction, but because of my inaccuracy of the analogy, the Socialists here would argue that I was wrong just to distract from the points of my posts.  That way they don’t have to deal with or face the facts.

[F3SS]

That's ok. I'm just here to help.

[Tiggs]

RavenHawk, on 18 December 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

It's not my brand of propaganda.  It's called the United States Constitution.

No. It's McCarthyism.

Quote

There is a legal difference between the two.

In your opinion.

Quote

Really?  I consider it closer to the Constitution than your personal political beliefs.

In your opinion.