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.
No, not negotiated by Obama. He took credit for the auto bailout, but the wall street bailout was all on Bush's shoulders.
That's not what Obama himself said of the wall street bailout...
Quote:
"For two weeks, I was on the phone every day with [Treasury] Secretary Paulson and the congressional leadersmaking sure that the principles that have ultimately been adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said.
I really don't expect you to understand macroeconomics. Needless to say, what I was discussing has historical success while what you proposed does not.
Sure- spending to oblivion is just perfect.
You do understand, don't you, that if we had Clinton era spending levels, adjusted for inflation, with today's revenues, we would have a $200 billion annual SURPLUS.
We have a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a revenue problem.
When, in the course, of US history, has the US government ever taken "increased revenues" and used them wisely? The feds can't control themselves and need the constraints of a balanced budget amendment.
MTA- don't pi*s down our necks and tell us it is raining. Despite current low inflation levels, the US dollar as the world reserve currency, and low interest bond payments, this whole scheme will unravel eventually. Tell me- what debt level is not okay? $50 trillion? $100 trillion? $200 trillion?
To you it may be wisdom. To me, it is only a matter of being in touch with the realities rather spending an eternity bickering over assumptions and speaking for others. But, I certainly can still appreciate your reluctant admittance (for now, anyway).
No, that is not what I meant. I don't consider it wisdom. Insane people don't think that the only way out of the fiscal mess is taxation or cutting. However, those who constantly who have to pay more for a diminishing ROI are skeptical of this administration to make any meaningful cuts. Look, all I hear about is higher rates, capped deductions, additional fees, more spending (titled investment), and a lack of serious approach to the US fiscal problem. No one in DC will even entertain looking at the biggest social programs that cost the most.
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
General welfare of the United States. States. The welfare of citizens is not mentioned.
No he doesn't. But he is a politician and telling half truths and lies in an election is par for the course with Dems and Republicans. Its why I didn't vote for either of them.
If you have a sensible argument on why taxes shouldn't go up on the super rich who are making a million dollars a year and paying 14% in taxes at the same time massive cuts are instituted elsewhere, please put it forward.
No, that is not what I meant. I don't consider it wisdom.
And we agreed. It isn't. You shouldn't even have to make it sound like it is.
Quote:
Insane people don't think that the only way out of the fiscal mess is taxation or cutting.
Insane people don't think. Period. They simply regurgitate talking points that have no basis in reality.
Quote:
However, those who constantly who have to pay more for a diminishing ROI are skeptical of this administration to make any meaningful cuts.
Being skeptical is healthy. Assuming that your idea of cuts is meaningful, based entirely on rhetoric, isn't. What would be worse, however, is if you're selectively skeptical, as such usage as "this administration" implies. Every time that was uttered out of Romney's mouth, I thought of millions of idiots who would be sold on it.
Quote:
Look, all I hear about is higher rates, capped deductions, additional fees, more spending (titled investment), and a lack of serious approach to the US fiscal problem. No one in DC will even entertain looking at the biggest social programs that cost the most.
To understand a problem, you have to start looking at it objectively. Emotions don't make for the best approach. Let us take a look at an overview of deficit reduction plan "this administration" put forth OVER A YEAR ago, and is sticking with it:
1- Spending cuts in the Budget Control Act (i.e. debt ceiling agreement) - $1.2 trillion
2- Spending cuts to "mandatory" programs as Medicare and Medicaid - $580 billion
3- Drawdown of U.S troops in Afghanistan and Iraq - $1.1 trillion
4- Income tax reform, largely via expiration of Bush tax cuts - $1.5 trillion
5- Interest savings from paydown of federal debt - $430 billion
#1 is already put in place.
#2 is a part of ObamaCare, and also used as a tool to scare old people by his political opposition.
#3 and #5 are more debatable, and perhaps a plan either way.
#4 is the only one the insane think is a part of the plan.
A yearly deficit greater than one trillion dollar bills is not resolved by taxing your way out of it.
Especially, when the interest due is being paid with borrowed funds.
In fact, any deficit is unacceptable in a sane society - but we're insane - let's pass on that issue.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
- - - Elmer T. Peterson *(Misattributed to De Tocqueville)
As long as the "Takers" can outvote the "Makers", the end result is collapse.
Most of the people in this country work quite hard for what we have. We work more hours and have fewer days off than any other industrialized nation on the planet. We get far fewer programs and benefits from our government than most other first world nations. Europeans work 36 hours a week, get 6 weeks of vacation and enjoy superior low cost- and no cost- health care and get to retire at age 60. The same for Austrailans and Scandanavians. Eeven the "industrious" Koreans and Japanese work less hours and get more from their government than we Americans do. So we are not "takers". We just want what we pay for. Nothing wrong with that.
If you have a sensible argument on why taxes shouldn't go up on the super rich who are making a million dollars a year
That's not the premise. Taxes would go up on those earning $250,000 per year.
Quote:
...paying 14% in taxes
The average effective federal income tax rate of those earning $1 million per year is roughly 23%. The average effective federal income tax rate of those in the middle class (top 25-50%) is 6.01%. Why should one group be paying a tax rate that is nearly 4 times that of the other when the latter group actually earns more of the income? Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data
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.
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.
