U.S. Politics - Page 608 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6071  
Old 01-03-13, 21:16
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Actually I've read its been estimated at 600 billion annually, with however a deficit of 4 trillion to contain. At any rate, "first things first." Thus if it's neither tax, nor cut, then what is the solution? Evidently it hasn't been working for Greece either. What will thus transform a flat economy into a a booming business haven at this point. Bomb Iran? Occupy South America? World War III?

Because "happy downsizing" doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda.
Haven't you been listening? Scott has explained this at length. All we have to do is stop wasting the rich folks money on education and infrastructure and welfare and healthcare for their poor underpaid employees and they (those rich people) will gladly invest it back into creating more jobs.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #6072  
Old 01-03-13, 22:21
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Actually I've read its been estimated at 600 billion annually, with however a deficit of 4 trillion to contain. At any rate, "first things first." Thus if it's neither tax, nor cut, then what is the solution? Evidently it hasn't been working for Greece either. What will thus transform a flat economy into a a booming business haven at this point. Bomb Iran? Occupy South America? World War III?

Because "happy downsizing" doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda.
Quote:
Actually I've read its been estimated at 600 billion annually, with however a deficit of 4 trillion to contain.
Those are 10 year projections.

Quote:
Thus if it's neither tax, nor cut, then what is the solution?
Reduce spending as a percentage of GDP. It's that simple. Either grow the economy while restraining new spending or cut spending. New taxes will not encourage economic growth. New taxes will result in new spending. Take money out and put money in. That's not growth, that's redistribution.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6073  
Old 01-03-13, 22:38
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
Haven't you been listening? Scott has explained this at length. All we have to do is stop wasting the rich folks money on education and infrastructure and welfare and healthcare for their poor underpaid employees and they (those rich people) will gladly invest it back into creating more jobs.
That would be an excellent start.

Quote:
Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday.

Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011, and state spending on those programs brought the total to $1.03 trillion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Budget Committee.

That makes welfare the single biggest chunk of federal spending — topping Social Security and basic defense spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ears/?page=all

That's not to say all welfare programs are a waste, but do we need 80? Unemployment bene's are lumped in with welfare. How about BO slow down with the crap like the Medical Device tax on gross revenues? Maybe spend as much time on ways to grow this economy versus time spent on winning PR battles? BO could have received revenue to the treasury equal to the bill he signed with tax reform, not rate increases. He chose rate increase to fracture the Republican party and for no other reason. Rates won't generate much more revenue... but this isn't about that. Tax reform likely would have put the economy on a growth path. Higher rates have the opposite effect. But, higher rates do far more damage to your political opponent if you are a Democrat.

Screw what's in the interest of resolving the problem. This is about winning.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6074  
Old 01-03-13, 23:03
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
While technically true, we are in trouble with debt as a percentage of GDP and cumulative total. The debt service is starting to hurt and that's with historically low interest rates. As an example, our annual interest expense is something around $225 Billion. The new tax increases will only generate about $85 Billion annually AND we will add another Trillion to the debt this year. And next year. And the year after that.

Again, more revenue needs to be generated from falling unemployment and economic growth. A flat economy with rising tax rates will create nothing more than an extended flat economy. It's stupid, but Obama is hell -bent on doing it anyways.
No, it's not technically true, it is actually true, and it is nowhere near an historic high. Period. You can try to toss it in and throw it around and show it to me again with a different spin, but the fact is that we have seen percentages like this before, and we ended up fine then as we will now also.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight
Reply With Quote
  #6075  
Old 01-03-13, 23:35
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Those are 10 year projections.
Sorry forgot to mention that.

Quote:
Reduce spending as a percentage of GDP. It's that simple. Either grow the economy while restraining new spending or cut spending. New taxes will not encourage economic growth. New taxes will result in new spending. Take money out and put money in. That's not growth, that's redistribution.
Ok, but which spending will be reduced? I've got no problem with "redistribution," which is really social spending, as opposed to the corporate welfare that's all the rage these days. Beginning with the defense budget and ending with the recapitalization of Wall Street.

Ergo I say it isn't a question of “growth,” but a horrendous mismanagement and allocation of the funds. Growth for whom? And for whose benefit? For decades now this has meant the privileged top wage earners, wage earners who have largely profited from capital gains (they weren't being taxed much on), in a virtual economy that's had little to do with the real one of substance, of subsistence and ultimately of survival. That's the truth.

Consequently everything is so off balanced, so out of whack as they say, for which, from time to time, some "redistribution" is absolutely necessary to achieve more equilibrium. Naturally this doesn't mean being antagonistic to a fortuitous entrepreneurship, but redirect that which is not to where it's most needed, in times when a consumer deficit from the bottom can no longer justify the excesses of the top. The US has reached this point where more taxes for the rich are necessary, military spending needs to be reduced, in favor of economically stimulating initiatives in education, industry and infrastructure renewal. Only the state can provide the adequate impetus for that, because the bill isn’t going to be footed by corporate America. It’s not going to happen.

Last edited by rhubroma; 01-03-13 at 23:38.
Reply With Quote
  #6076  
Old 01-04-13, 00:06
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
No, it's not technically true, it is actually true, and it is nowhere near an historic high. Period. You can try to toss it in and throw it around and show it to me again with a different spin, but the fact is that we have seen percentages like this before, and we ended up fine then as we will now also.

The two spikes were all out world wars. Those are historic highs. It's not spin. Spending went down nearly as fast as it went up. Except notice after WWII how much higher spending 'normalized.'



Federal Spending
State Spending
Local Spending
Block Grants to States

Quote:
Government Spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 6.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As you can see from Chart 2.21, the federal share of that spending was modest. Spending got a big kick in World War I and ended up at about 12 percent of GDP in the 1920s.

Then came the Great Depression, in which President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked up federal spending, and total government spending rose up to 20 percent of GDP. World War II really showed how the United States could commandeer its national resources for all out war. Government spending peaked at just under 53 percent of GDP in 1945.

President Clinton said, in 1995, that the era of big government was over. But he was wrong. The post World War II era has been a golden age of government spending, and it shows no sign of ending. Although spending dropped back to 21 percent of GDP immediately after WWII, it steadily climbed thereafter until it hit a peak of 36 percent of GDP in the bottom of the recession of 1980-82. Thereafter government spending chugged along in the mid 30s until the mortgage meltdown of 2008. In the aftermath of bank and auto bailouts, government spending surged to wartime levels at 45 percent of GDP. The mortgage emergency seems to have ratcheted out-year spending up a notch. Near term government spending in the future is pegging at 40 percent of GDP.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6077  
Old 01-04-13, 00:17
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
.... but the fact is that we have seen percentages like this before, and we ended up fine then as we will now also.
Well lookey here, the Wookie took a wrong turn somewhere between Alderaan and Tatooine and wound up in here! Hi, Chewey.

Indeed, we are not facing the end of the world as we know it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
So you support very few spending cuts and increasing debt by trillions of dollars just to potentially put off something for a couple of months?
That's an unnecessarily belligerent question, Carol. I merely 'supported' avoiding the potential, unknown, consequences to the US and all other western economies of the US in effect defaulting on payments by going over that cliff. No more, no less. I'm under no illusions.

I'd like to see Obama set Congress an absolute timetable for the required further negotiations so that we all never have to go through this last minute, media-hyped, fiscal cliff paranoia again.

I'm sure that substantial debt reduction could be achieved by cutting spending. I just fundamentally disagree with the right wing about where these cuts should bite first, or deepest. I'd like to see what we laughingly call 'defense' spending reduced substantially. I would not like to see 'safety net' programs like unemployment benefits, Social Security or Medicare slashed, though there are no doubt plenty of areas of inefficiency or overspend where savings could be achieved. Clear?

I would also like to see the many loopholes for corporations and the very rich closed, as well as churches being taxed. This would raise gazillions, or in any event, a very large amount. Americans believe that they have some sort of divine birthright to enjoy more 'breaks', and pay less taxes than anyone else, while at the same throwing insane amounts of money at things like foreign wars, and maintaining 250k military personnel around the globe.

Alpe, please elaborate on this -
Quote:
"Tax increase on those over $400k? I would have liked it to have been over $1m, and maybe an addition 1% on those over $10m".
Why on earth would you object to these tax increases on the wealthy? How do you justify exempting people up to 1m? And please don't tell me that the very rich need to be helped to stay that rich so that they can create jobs.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #6078  
Old 01-04-13, 00:28
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Sorry forgot to mention that.



Ok, but which spending will be reduced? I've got no problem with "redistribution," which is really social spending, as opposed to the corporate welfare that's all the rage these days. Beginning with the defense budget and ending with the recapitalization of Wall Street.

Ergo I say it isn't a question of “growth,” but a horrendous mismanagement and allocation of the funds. Growth for whom? And for whose benefit? For decades now this has meant the privileged top wage earners, wage earners who have largely profited from capital gains (they weren't being taxed much on), in a virtual economy that's had little to do with the real one of substance, of subsistence and ultimately of survival. That's the truth.

Consequently everything is so off balanced, so out of whack as they say, for which, from time to time, some "redistribution" is absolutely necessary to achieve more equilibrium. Naturally this doesn't mean being antagonistic to a fortuitous entrepreneurship, but redirect that which is not to where it's most needed, in times when a consumer deficit from the bottom can no longer justify the excesses of the top. The US has reached this point where more taxes for the rich are necessary, military spending needs to be reduced, in favor of economically stimulating initiatives in education, industry and infrastructure renewal. Only the state can provide the adequate impetus for that, because the bill isn’t going to be footed by corporate America. It’s not going to happen.
Quote:
Ok, but which spending will be reduced?
Everything. Something like the Mack Penny Plan;

Quote:
The Mack Penny Plan would balance the federal budget in eight years by cutting one penny out of every federal dollar spent for six years and capping spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year. If Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps.
And here is why the Dems won't do it:

Quote:
Rep. Mack cuts federal spending by 1 percent each year until it is down to 18 percent of gross domestic product by 2018. He then keeps it at that level for the indefinite future. That sounds so easy that one might ask, “Why doesn’t he cut federal spending to 10 percent of GDP, which would allow us to cut federal taxes by one-third and still have a balanced budget?” The obvious answer is that we rely too heavily on an array of federal services to tolerate such a reduction. The same is true of Rep. Mack’s 18 percent.

Let me explain. The Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending will total 22.5 percent of GDP 10 years from now, in 2022. That means that Rep. Mack’s plan would require a 4.4 percent of GDP cut, which, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s economic projections, would mean $1.1 trillion or about 20 percent less in federal spending than the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting we will have under current policy. Where would that money come from?
And there you have it. Americans like all their free ****.

Quote:
Growth for whom?
Private sector.

Quote:
And for whose benefit?
Every American.

Quote:
some "redistribution" is absolutely necessary to achieve more equilibrium.
Okay. That does nothing to spur the economy. Take money out of the economy only to put it back in to the economy (in different hands).

Quote:
stimulating initiatives in education
We just raised taxes in Cali. It went straight to shore up teachers pensions. the quality of our education system has not increased at all. It has just become more expensive.

Quote:
Only the state can provide the adequate impetus for that
And that is a crutch.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6079  
Old 01-04-13, 00:30
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,406
Default

__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #6080  
Old 01-04-13, 00:33
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
The two spikes were all out world wars. Those are historic highs. It's not spin. Spending went down nearly as fast as it went up. Except notice after WWII how much higher spending 'normalized.'



Federal Spending
State Spending
Local Spending
Block Grants to States



http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
Here's a little chart for you that focus in on the most relevant period. After looking at it, compare the years of increase and decrease to who was in the White House during that time, then go vote Democrat in the next election.



Also, notice the most recent trend...it slants down. Hmmm...all we needed to do is get the Republicans out of office and things changed. Who's a thought?\

Also note that the real numbers reflect the fact that it is about 10% below your 45% number.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.