Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: With the economy on the edge of collapse, should we cut?
Yes, we should cut 2.5 trillion, it will help the economy 21 16.54%
We should cut 6 trillion 28 22.05%
Not good enough, we need to cut 9 trillion, that will definitely help our economy 49 38.58%
Actually we need a 3 trillion dollar stimulus 29 22.83%
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,984 posts, read 13,418,437 times
Reputation: 3371

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
And those taxing levels did wonders for the economy under FDR and Carter, right?
The economy was much better than it is today. FDR's fiscal plans set the stage for the post-war economic boom, one of the most prosperous times in American history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,538,276 times
Reputation: 8075
It scares me how many people here believe government spending money it doesn't have is good for the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:27 PM
 
Location: SC
9,101 posts, read 16,460,850 times
Reputation: 3620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Hard right conservatives, do you think it's really a good idea to cut 2.5 trillion out of the economy? Or do you think its not good enough, that we should cut even more, and that will help the economy?
We should cut a LOT more. 9 Trillion would be a good start. If we cut 9 Trillion dollars each year over the next 7 years we'd still be in twice as much debt as we were after Reagan left office but we'd have reduced the debt by around 90%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,538,276 times
Reputation: 8075
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
The economy was much better than it is today. FDR's fiscal plans set the stage for the post-war economic boom, one of the most prosperous times in American history.
Even though economist say it prolonged the depression and point to the previous depression in which the president did nothing and the economy recovered into the roaring 20s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
1,768 posts, read 3,414,092 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Hard right conservatives, do you think it's really a good idea to cut 2.5 trillion out of the economy? Or do you think its not good enough, that we should cut even more, and that will help the economy?
I confess that I am not a hard right conservative, I'm a Libertarian individualist.

It is my opinion, however, that people who would willfully vote themselves a free ride by voting for left wing pond scum should have their incomes taxed at 95% and placed into concentration camps where their women would serve to breed more automatons to serve the pleasure of the Washington elite — including the farce that currently masquerades as POTUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,391 posts, read 5,169,562 times
Reputation: 2283
Default wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
Instead of cutting spending, there IS another option. Raise taxes. Significantly. Going back to pre-Reagan income tax levels -- even without cutting a dime in spending -- would go a long way to solve the debt crisis. Reverting to FDR income tax levels (top marginal tax rate of 79%), raising the capital gains tax and taxing luxury items at a higher rate -- even without cutting spending -- would balance the budget and allow us to start chipping away at the national debt. Cutting the military budget to $200B and closing foreign bases would free up revenue to use on projects here at home, like universal single-payer healthcare and economic stimulus infrastructure projects.
The top marginal tax rate while on paper may have APPEARED to be 79% does not take into account all the shelters and deductions that were available at that time. Unless you bring them back, your 79% tax would absolutely cripple society and create a recession that would hands down beat everything America has ever seen.

BTW, the Military is actually a requirement of the constitution, Federal Education, planned parenthood, welfare, etc, are not. Why not drop everything that the federal government has no business throwing money into, which would include money being given to foreign governments and nations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,545 posts, read 8,329,379 times
Reputation: 2889
A good start would be to actually make spending cuts. Not cuts to future spending increases, which are STILL increases!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 02:17 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,128,317 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
The repeal Glass-Steagall is major reason that banks consolidated in the late 1990's and early 2000's. It is also removed restrictions from banks are far as leverage and that in large part encouraged banks and other financial institutions to take on riskier investments like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps, which led to the financial crisis in 2008.
Actually thats not correct.

Bank leveraging was not removed, and they remained far above the 6% rate considered safe by regulators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,984 posts, read 13,418,437 times
Reputation: 3371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
The top marginal tax rate while on paper may have APPEARED to be 79% does not take into account all the shelters and deductions that were available at that time. Unless you bring them back, your 79% tax would absolutely cripple society and create a recession that would hands down beat everything America has ever seen.
In my opinion, the 79% tax should be a true 79% tax, without all the breaks and shelters. Close the loopholes. No, it wouldn't create a recession. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany have taxes near U.S. levels under FDR, and they are among the most prosperous nations on Earth.

Quote:
BTW, the Military is actually a requirement of the constitution, Federal Education, planned parenthood, welfare, etc, are not. Why not drop everything that the federal government has no business throwing money into, which would include money being given to foreign governments and nations.
I never said to abolish the military, I said to scale it back. The only legitimate purpose of the Armed Forces is to defend the United States, not start preemptive wars or get involved in foreign civil wars that have nothing to do with us. We could successfully defend this country with a much smaller military force.

Healthcare is a human right, and it is something that the U.S. government should provide for all its citizens. Education is also a human right, and federal standards are necessary to keep this country competitive with China, India, Japan, Sweden and other nations with advanced educational systems. I'm pro-life, so I don't support abortion at all, but Planned Parenthood provides several essential and beneficial non-abortive services to women. Foreign aid may not benefit this country, but it helps people around the world and I'm all for that (yes, I know some of it ends up in the hands of corrupt governments). If cutting off aid means more people have to starve in places like Somalia, then I would oppose that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2011, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Sarasota FL
6,864 posts, read 12,082,060 times
Reputation: 6744
Stop using the word 'CUT' there are no cuts, there will not be any cuts.
There will be a reduction of the increases.
If Obama suggested that spending be 'frozen' at todays level, he would be accused of a $9 trillion draconian cut of the next 10 years.
Washington speak- Not getting as much increase as you thought you were getting is a 'cut'. [budgets, spending, debt will increase every year for the rest of your life and your kids lives]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top