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.
Why do we need a tax cut since taxes are relatively low. All in favor of tax simplification and creating a fair system but taxes aren't the problem with our economy.
Middle class and small businesses could have used one, but this one kicks them in the teeth, increasing taxes as opposed to lowering. This is aimed at the wealthy and corporations (which are owned mostly by the wealthy). You always have to consider if a bill is good for the nation as whole, and this bill does not meet that criteria.
the military needs to be expanded...we cut the military in half during the 90's, now we are short handed
Please provide numbers which INCLUDE everything....
VA
Dept of Energy (nukes)
Debt Service
Homeland Security
Extra funds to FBI, CIA and even local law enforcement....
Of course, we had the Gulf War in the late 80's - which cost a quick bundle (we did get paid back for some of it)....
Short of that, under the Republican Congress in the 1990's, it looks like an average of 300 Million - which is certainly too low for today.......
But we are well over a trillion when you figure in all the "Security State" which IS the military (defense of these united states)....the VA, the interest on the money we borrowed (we didn't borrow as much back when) and everything else.
You'd have a point if most ALL of the money we are using wasn't borrowed. So if you are up to raising taxes substantially, let's talk about it. But first we have to pay down some of that money we already borrowed for "Security".
This is a few years old....as you can see we exceed 700 Billion with that - and it clearly says it doesn't include MANY budget like DOE, VA, Interest on debt and many others....
The basics are that we spend a TRILLION per year. The "cost" to our economy is probably larger because of lost productivity of injured and war-affected populations.
A 2nd outdated chart (add 80% or so to what we spend) shows our spending compared to the rest of the world....
Sure, none of these figures are set in stone. But a careful study of our security expenditures since the 60's might show that we are the ones costing ourselves so much extra money and suffering. That is, we are making trouble that often takes decades of MORE spending to tamp down.
Simple question - do we want to control the entire planet or not? My view is no. We should protect ourselves - defense - using the min. amount of force needed.
we do...1989/90 home prices fell sharply...the economy was doing pretty well
I was there. The housing and S&L Bubble created by McCain (Keating Five) and Reagan/Bush (remember Neal Bush took a BILLION from the government!) started in 1988 and it took 10 years....10 YEARS....for Real Estate to recover. The reason is simple - 10's of thousands of properties were underwater/foreclosed/unfinished and it took that long for the market to integrate them. The rise in the late 90's was probably due to the dot-com boom (more money=higher property prices)......this continued through the 2000's as the GW Bush Admin ripped away the protected and lessons learned from the S&L thing and had a big party.....
Of course, we all know what happened then. To quote GW "We're gonna lost this sucker" (the entire US Economy)....
PS. I knew bankers involved.....during the S&L crisis they were forced to go to jail, file bankruptcy or/and give up ALL their pension(s) and other rights.
In the Bush crash.....well, as we all know, the banksters got to have fun splitting up the trillion dollars the government gave them to "fix" things.
Why do we need a tax cut since taxes are relatively low. All in favor of tax simplification and creating a fair system but taxes aren't the problem with our economy.
This looks more and more like posturing for the 2018 election, they weren't able to deliver on any of their other promises like infrastructure and the ACA replacement so they need to show something.
I agree - someday when all is settled down and the country isn't about to fall apart or ready to be owned and run by Russia, we can do some common sense simplification. But as it stands this is a true "nothing burger" - in fact, it is a vomit burger since most of us will be ripped off from money we already have (or have the national debt increased - same thing).
and what happened to economy is 07-09 during period of falling home prices?
the economy fell not because of the Clinton housing bust...but because of a combination of the housing bust, with loss of jobs to overseas, mixed with a few other things
housing is already getting out of hand again.... can a workingclass person making 40-80k afford a 500k basic house in NY....no.... proves the point that housing NEEDS to get lowered
I was there. The housing and S&L Bubble created by McCain (Keating Five) and Reagan/Bush (remember Neal Bush took a BILLION from the government!) started in 1988 and it took 10 years....10 YEARS....for Real Estate to recover. The reason is simple - 10's of thousands of properties were underwater/foreclosed/unfinished and it took that long for the market to integrate them. The rise in the late 90's was probably due to the dot-com boom (more money=higher property prices)......this continued through the 2000's as the GW Bush Admin ripped away the protected and lessons learned from the S&L thing and had a big party.....
Of course, we all know what happened then. To quote GW "We're gonna lost this sucker" (the entire US Economy)....
PS. I knew bankers involved.....during the S&L crisis they were forced to go to jail, file bankruptcy or/and give up ALL their pension(s) and other rights.
In the Bush crash.....well, as we all know, the banksters got to have fun splitting up the trillion dollars the government gave them to "fix" things.
the rise (bubble) started in 1995, when Clinton directed his chief of hud, Henry Cisneros to change the lending requirements
the economy fell not because of the Clinton housing bust...but because of a combination of the housing bust, with loss of jobs to overseas, mixed with a few other things
housing is already getting out of hand again.... can a workingclass person making 40-80k afford a 500k basic house in NY....no.... proves the point that housing NEEDS to get lowered
please list those "few other things" b/c the economy today is much stronger than 07-09 and jobs are still going overseas....so what's different today? Hmmm.....
your argument is basically we need another near depression for people to buy houses. Why does someone making 40K need a 500K home which is in NY with very few exceptions going to be a SFH. Perhaps they can buy a condo instead and then look to buy a SFH once they have increased household income either through marriage or furthering their career. Perhaps instead of calling for a new great depression we can focus on how to increase wages. Which brings us to back to an argument we had previously I believe that you sidestepped. Housing prices have increase dramatically while wages have not kept pace (Which you just agreed with). Those selling houses today who bought prior to 1995 are sitting on lotto tickets. Maybe coupled with looking for ways to increase real wages relative to housing prices we could look to build more affordable homes, they have them near me, townhomes selling for 200K with income limits to middle class families starting out in a development where others go for 500K. That seems like a more reasonable solution than calling for another economic collapse perhaps?
the rise (bubble) started in 1995, when Clinton directed his chief of hud, Henry Cisneros to change the lending requirements
also had a little to do with Greenspan's loose fiscal policy and lack of regulation on Wall St which lead to an increased appetite for crappy paper to feed the CDO machine.
please list those "few other things" b/c the economy today is much stronger than 07-09 and jobs are still going overseas....so what's different today? Hmmm.....
your argument is basically we need another near depression for people to buy houses. Why does someone making 40K need a 500K home which is in NY with very few exceptions going to be a SFH. Perhaps they can buy a condo instead and then look to buy a SFH once they have increased household income either through marriage or furthering their career. Perhaps instead of calling for a new great depression we can focus on how to increase wages. Which brings us to back to an argument we had previously I believe that you sidestepped. Housing prices have increase dramatically while wages have not kept pace (Which you just agreed with). Those selling houses today who bought prior to 1995 are sitting on lotto tickets. Maybe coupled with looking for ways to increase real wages relative to housing prices we could look to build more affordable homes, they have them near me, townhomes selling for 200K with income limits to middle class families starting out in a development where others go for 500K. That seems like a more reasonable solution than calling for another economic collapse perhaps?
the economy is NOT much stronger than in 05
the point is a house that cost 5k to build and sell in 1950...(ie your standard 1400sf levit house)...should not be costing 500k today....(or back in 05)
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.
