The people want to maintain or increase all of those programs. the people have indicated they would tolerate the increased taxation necessary to do that. I thought this was a democratic republic. Why can't we do what the people want?
Will you address the issue I raised about the common claim that rich people are good for the economy because they create jobs? What do you have to say about my claim that the rich have gotten rich not because they give back to the economy, but because they take more than they give?
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The people want to maintain or increase all of those programs. the people have indicated they would tolerate the increased taxation necessary to do that. I thought this was a democratic republic. Why can't we do what the people want?
To provide all those programs will require 1.69 times current revenue and that wouldn't include any payment on the debt which requires about a billion dollars per day in interest. How will the democratic republic stay afloat? My concern is that people do want the nanny state but don't understand that it isn't sustainable. Neither political party is upfront in addressing the issue, they keep harping about deficit reduction or balanced budgets sometime in the future but neither will solve the problem. A trillion dollars is hard for the voter to even comprehend, and there are no trillionaires to bail us out, and the debt grows daily.
To provide all those programs will require 1.69 times current revenue
"Current revenue" is far lower than it should be due primarily to the weakened economy. The GOP plan to "let it burn" would force increased welfare spending, unemployment spending, health care spending, while further shrinking the economy.
Incidentally, the primary benefit of the GOP plan is from the stimulus effect of increased government spending on those "safety net" programs.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The time to cut spending is when the economy is booming. When it's slumping or crashed, the government should be spending money hand over fist, buying up everything it needs at cut-rate prices. It should be accelerating maintenance and construction schedules while the government is not competing with the private sector for work because the private sector isn't hiring.
For the government, the options when a construction worker can't find a job are to pay him unemployment, or pay him to build a bridge. When a teacher can't find a job, the options are to pay her unemployment, or pay her to teach a class.
When Boeing can't sell commercial airplanes, the options are to pay its laid-off employees unemployment, or buy more F22s and KC46s.
Frankly, I'd rather pay people to work than pay them to look for work while the GOP is hell-bent on torching the entire economy. And if it keeps certain companies in certain industries from being annihilated (GM, Chrysler) I'm strangely OK with that.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I don't especially like Romney but he plans to create jobs in the energy field where we have tremendous resources. It doesn't make sense to push green energy in a time everyone is suffering. If green energy is viable economically it will gain its ground slowly not by mandate. Torching the economy seems to just be a democrat mantra.
We attempted a loose calculation of Coburn?s specific claim (all the money that they earn above $100,000 and you wouldn?t cover our deficit this year.). We looked at adjusted gross income (that?s gross income minus common deductions) for those earning at least $200,000 in 2008 ? the IRS doesn?t break it down by $250,000 ? and we subtracted $100,000 for each filer. We ended up with $2 trillion, enough money to cover the projected deficit. The same calculation for taxable income produces $1.62 trillion, a bit less than the deficit. But, again, Coburn talked about earnings, not taxable income. And we were not able to exclude those who earned more than $200,000 but less than $250,000.
Bottom line: No one is suggesting the government seize everyone?s income above $100,000. These figures are used to show that the government can?t, in a reasonable and realistic manner, only raise taxes to solve the deficit problem. (For the record, Obama has called for $2 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in additional tax revenue over 12 years.) But perhaps there?s a less confusing, and accurate, statistic one could use to make that point.
I don't especially like Romney but he plans to create jobs in the energy field where we have tremendous resources. It doesn't make sense to push green energy in a time everyone is suffering. If green energy is viable economically it will gain its ground slowly not by mandate.
Petroleum producers set their prices based on what the market will bear. There is a petroleum price point where alternative sources are more economical. With additional investment in alternative energy R&D, that pricepoint continues to move lower and lower, and petroleum producers are pressured to match. Alternative energy subsidies are squeezing foreign oil producers.
Consumers directly benefit at the pump from subsidies for petroleum alternatives.
Subsidies for wind, solar, geothermal, and other alternative energy sources do the same thing for coal, natural gas, etc.
Quote:
Torching the economy seems to just be a democrat mantra.
Current federal spending is appropriate based on where the economy should be. Reducing spending puts more people out of work, deepening the hole we're digging.
The primary effect of increased taxation on the rich will be increased tax-deductible deductible expenditure by the rich. The increased demand spurs the economy, increasing the total revenue.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
If a million millionaires would donate, or were taxed, a million dollars each it would not cover the projected 2012 deficit. So, how much would the four million or so earning over $200K have to be taxed to cover the deficit? Or to put it another way, how many new jobs at normal taxation rates would it take to fund just the deficit leave alone the debt?
If a million millionaires would donate, or were taxed, a million dollars each it would not cover the projected 2012 deficit. So, how much would the four million or so earning over $200K have to be taxed to cover the deficit? Or to put it another way, how many new jobs at normal taxation rates would it take to fund just the deficit leave alone the debt?
Homeowners regularly take out 30 year loans for amounts 5 to 10 times their annual income, so when you tell me the debt is a little over our annual GDP, I find it pretty difficult to give a flying ****.
Trying to solve the debt and deficit right now is like spending your 6-months-of-expenses-worth of savings toward your mortgage - right after you've been laid off. It's stupid. You pay extra on your mortgage when you have the money, not when your income is cut.
What you should be worrying about right now is improving the economy, not solving the debt.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
