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.
China doesn't want to buy from America anymore..now it's all up to Uncle Ben and the Fed and his trusty printing press.
When people talk about the Fed “printing money” now they mainly mean (whether they know it or not) the large increase in excess reserves.
But to assert that China doesn't want to buy U.S. debt, that's just denying that the demand for U.S. debt is high, as evident by the 3.11% interest rate.
Did anyone suggest that upper income taxes should be 100%? Clinton was able to produce government surpluses four years in a row with a modest 39.5% tax-rate. 39.5% is hardly confiscatory.
Please also cite where you figures come from because they appear to be out of thin air.
1. There was no "Clinton Surplus". He added to the debt every single year of his presidency.
2. Again, if we taxed at 100% for the rich, it would only generate $9 billion, therefore the "pawltry" increases you talk about would generate very little in additional revenues.
3. Have you read Stiglitz? I have. As a matter of fact I just read his book "Freefall" about a month ago. He is a left wing liberal economist and his views are from that perspective. If you read Stiglitz, he clearly states that Keynesian economic theories are quite good and fine until debt and deficits reach an unsustainable level. As a good leftist economist, he fails to say exactly what should be done at that time. It is hilarious. Read his books.
There seems to be a universal sentiment among liberals that no entitlements should be cut, despite our debt and deficit problems. In fact nearly every liberal is emphatic that medicare, social security, and medicaid should not be cut at all and simply blame George Bush for fiscal problems. Blame- but no answers.
Should we just keep all entitlements the way they are and let anarchy eventualy unfold? Keep in mind that we could balance the budget if we taxed the rich at 100% (slavery) and we cut the military 100%, which some liberals have actually suggested.
Any solutions, or just blame?
There is no money so we can't keep anything going the way it has been.
The end of the road is nearly here and many voters who want the easiest path electing those that tell them the lies they want to hear are going to get a rude awakening.
There is no money so we can't keep anything going the way it has been.
The end of the road is nearly here and many voters who want the easiest path electing those that tell them the lies they want to hear are going to get a rude awakening.
No..the lies will continue ..we have 2012 elections.
I was not able to find anything in that pdf that concluded "if you taxed the rich 100% (slavery) it would only generate between $900 billion and $1.1 trillion."
Since the top 1% earn a quarter of all income you numbers can't possibly be accurate because 25% of GDP would be .25 * 14 trillion = 3.5 trillion.
That link only provided where your Clinton "surpluses" came from.
I find it odd democrats continue to use money taken from SS as a surplus and I would be interested to see if they'd think the same if it was republicans claiming a surplus which in fact was money left over from SS. Of course democrats wouldn't, they'd demagogue the hell out of that.
Is that worse than stealing the retirement fund of old people and claiming it was your "surplus" and you should get to spend it whatever way you want?
Bush and Company stole 60% of my retrement fund. As the years pass and more is known about his involvement with Wall Street, I think that the Bush years will be remembered for the biggest theft in the history of the world.
1. There was no "Clinton Surplus". He added to the debt every single year of his presidency.
One can have their own opinion. One cannot have their own facts. You are stating something that just is not true. This debunks your assertion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. Again, if we taxed at 100% for the rich, it would only generate $9 billion, therefore the "pawltry" increases you talk about would generate very little in additional revenues.
Nobody is suggesting that the top tax-rate should be 100%. Thus, you argument is moot.
However, just for fun, I'll debunk your assertion. The top 400 taxpayers earned in 2007 earned $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes at a 16.6% average rate— the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992. If we raised that rate from 16.6% to 33% (forget 100%) that will increase revenue by $23 billion -- which I roughly calculate as more than $9 billion.
Your assertions don't even withstand the most rudimentary scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. Have you read Stiglitz? I have. As a matter of fact I just read his book "Freefall" about a month ago. He is a left wing liberal economist and his views are from that perspective. If you read Stiglitz, he clearly states that Keynesian economic theories are quite good and fine until debt and deficits reach an unsustainable level. As a good leftist economist, he fails to say exactly what should be done at that time. It is hilarious. Read his books.
So,? Stiglitz is also correct. If you have any facts that are contrary to Stiglitz's analysis, please state it. One cannot dismiss someone's analysis because you don't like his point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Here is the 100% tax link:
100% Tax on Rich Raises Only 2/3 of the Current Year Deficit | Confounded Interest (http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/100-tax-on-rich-raises-only-13-of-the-current-year-deficit/ - broken link)
This is from your link:
Quote:
Look at the IRS numbers for 2009. There were 717,932 filings for $500,000 and over. This amounts to $1,029,256,075.
That is saying that in 2009, the amount of taxes received, under current tax-rates, from those earning $500,000 more was $1,029,256,075. That's not the same thing as asserting that if we tax the rich 100%, we'll only receive $1,029,256,075.
Let's figure out a way to tax all that cash corporations are sitting on or using to buy back stock rather than hiring workers.
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.
