Will debt be the demise of the U.S.?
- Thread starter sickboy
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3080485
lol obama might miss 46.
46. How many states are there in the Union?
Palin would miss that one for sure...
I figured you'd say he'd miss the question about what the legal requirements are for running for President (i.e naturalized citizen)...
http:///forum/post/3080485
lol obama might miss 46.
46. How many states are there in the Union?
Palin would miss that one for sure...
I figured you'd say he'd miss the question about what the legal requirements are for running for President (i.e naturalized citizen)...
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3080477
It starts with our educational system. I asked my daughter (who will be a senior in high school this year) if she knew what the Bill Of Rights and the Second Amendment were, and how old she had to be to vote. She said she hadn't learned that yet.
Can you pass the Citizenship Test?
http://www.us-immigration-attorney.c...izenship26.htm
http://noticias.aol.com/inmigracion/quiz/citizenship
I am a little shocked. I took the first one. Didn't really read the question about What is the US capitol and answered a Suburb of DC and didn't know the name of the mayor of the town I live in. Otherwise aced it. Only guessed on the immigration form and the 7th amendment not pertaining to voting rights. Can't believe I can't think of the dang mayor's name.
http:///forum/post/3080477
It starts with our educational system. I asked my daughter (who will be a senior in high school this year) if she knew what the Bill Of Rights and the Second Amendment were, and how old she had to be to vote. She said she hadn't learned that yet.
Can you pass the Citizenship Test?
http://www.us-immigration-attorney.c...izenship26.htm
http://noticias.aol.com/inmigracion/quiz/citizenship
I am a little shocked. I took the first one. Didn't really read the question about What is the US capitol and answered a Suburb of DC and didn't know the name of the mayor of the town I live in. Otherwise aced it. Only guessed on the immigration form and the 7th amendment not pertaining to voting rights. Can't believe I can't think of the dang mayor's name.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3080594
Palin would miss that one for sure...
I figured you'd say he'd miss the question about what the legal requirements are for running for President (i.e naturalized citizen)...
How could you pass up a chance to remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http:///forum/post/3080594
Palin would miss that one for sure...
I figured you'd say he'd miss the question about what the legal requirements are for running for President (i.e naturalized citizen)...
How could you pass up a chance to remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3080256
Actually there is good evidence tax cuts lead to unchanged or even increased revenue.
See, Republicans keep saying that, but I can find no reliable, non-partisan study that shows this. Please show me!
http:///forum/post/3080256
Actually there is good evidence tax cuts lead to unchanged or even increased revenue.
See, Republicans keep saying that, but I can find no reliable, non-partisan study that shows this. Please show me!
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3080342
Who cares it is all fiat money anyway? There is no real value to it, except what we've agreed to value it as...
That is the justification I give to it so I don't pull my hair out...
This is true, money is not backed by anything and is completely up to market rates, or pegged to the dollar, and therefor at "market rates" (unless you're China).
But, as intriguing as it is to think about, I don't think South Korea would like it if we said the dollar was now worth $.10...
http:///forum/post/3080342
Who cares it is all fiat money anyway? There is no real value to it, except what we've agreed to value it as...
That is the justification I give to it so I don't pull my hair out...
This is true, money is not backed by anything and is completely up to market rates, or pegged to the dollar, and therefor at "market rates" (unless you're China).
But, as intriguing as it is to think about, I don't think South Korea would like it if we said the dollar was now worth $.10...
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3080332
Whatever happened to 'Lead By Example'?
They quit leading by example and became a reflection of the normality of debt in America.
http:///forum/post/3080332
Whatever happened to 'Lead By Example'?
They quit leading by example and became a reflection of the normality of debt in America.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3080713
See, Republicans keep saying that, but I can find no reliable, non-partisan study that shows this. Please show me!
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
http:///forum/post/3080713
See, Republicans keep saying that, but I can find no reliable, non-partisan study that shows this. Please show me!
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3080713
See, Republicans keep saying that, but I can find no reliable, non-partisan study that shows this. Please show me!
With the lower bush tax rates, the IRS experienced record revenues several months during his 2 terms.
All you have to do is look at periods of tax cuts. Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, and then look at IRS revenue.
http:///forum/post/3080713
See, Republicans keep saying that, but I can find no reliable, non-partisan study that shows this. Please show me!
With the lower bush tax rates, the IRS experienced record revenues several months during his 2 terms.
All you have to do is look at periods of tax cuts. Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, and then look at IRS revenue.
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3080362
When a person from a reality tv show such as the hills is more well known that a local congressman to the teenage and under 25 crowd...that is a huge problem.
How many of the young voters that went and voted Obama do you think could tell you who their Luitenant Governor is? When I was 20 I could tell you anything you wanted to know about music and bands, recite line for line many movies, but couldn't tell you who the governor of my state was at any given time. THIS is the demise of our country...apathy. Not money, not war, not taxation, not abortion, not gay marriage, ....apathy and pop culture.
So if there's never been any real difference from then to now, why the need to change? If anything, there should be worry if that under 25 age group does become educated. The country is a greatly different place from what it was in the 1950's, the 1970's, etc. Why is it now that this group, which has always been mostly uneducated during the building of this great country, responsible now?
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3080437
90% of the American public would fail the Citizenship Test if they had to take it today. People are more concerned with Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Cell Phones, Text messaging, and reality shows than they are with how the Federal Govt. is bending us over a table.
No, but back then you think most kids back then could pass the Citizenship test? I bet most of them could tell you who James Dean was, where the best Disco's were, best place to get the latest bell-bottoms, etc, but not exactly ace the same test.
http:///forum/post/3080362
When a person from a reality tv show such as the hills is more well known that a local congressman to the teenage and under 25 crowd...that is a huge problem.
How many of the young voters that went and voted Obama do you think could tell you who their Luitenant Governor is? When I was 20 I could tell you anything you wanted to know about music and bands, recite line for line many movies, but couldn't tell you who the governor of my state was at any given time. THIS is the demise of our country...apathy. Not money, not war, not taxation, not abortion, not gay marriage, ....apathy and pop culture.
So if there's never been any real difference from then to now, why the need to change? If anything, there should be worry if that under 25 age group does become educated. The country is a greatly different place from what it was in the 1950's, the 1970's, etc. Why is it now that this group, which has always been mostly uneducated during the building of this great country, responsible now?
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3080437
90% of the American public would fail the Citizenship Test if they had to take it today. People are more concerned with Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Cell Phones, Text messaging, and reality shows than they are with how the Federal Govt. is bending us over a table.
No, but back then you think most kids back then could pass the Citizenship test? I bet most of them could tell you who James Dean was, where the best Disco's were, best place to get the latest bell-bottoms, etc, but not exactly ace the same test.
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3080898
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
Good job giving me a report from a right wing think tank rather than a non-partisan academic study...
I will give a very brief description of what I think is wrong with this article by myth number:
#1- you can't make assertions like this w/o some kind of mathematical formulas. Without regressions we have no idea what coefficient played a part in the increased revenue. It doesn't take into consideration that as the recession ended, more money was made, that could be the only reason for increased revenue, or any other thing you can think of...
#2- Same as #1. Just b/c you say so doesn't mean that "tax cuts clearly played a significant role" in increase economic activity, again, what role did the business cycle play?
#3 "Theory" & "Assumes" are two key words in this section. As I stated in my first post, there are theories, but no actual proof. The one thing that is proven is that if the rate is high enough to cover your expenses, you have a balanced budget.
#4- I'm pretty sure I am all for decreased taxes on investments...as for its effect on the economy, I agree with the theory that it helps.
#5- Again, raise taxes to cover entitlements, not hope that decrease taxes will.
#6- I agree, it is exactly what I'm saying. And only excessive taxation will kill economic growth, and even then Europe still grows at a rapid pace. Corp taxes have more to do with it than personal tax. Kind of contradict themselves.
The rest are just more of the same. Again, show me something with actual details.
http:///forum/post/3080898
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
Good job giving me a report from a right wing think tank rather than a non-partisan academic study...
I will give a very brief description of what I think is wrong with this article by myth number:
#1- you can't make assertions like this w/o some kind of mathematical formulas. Without regressions we have no idea what coefficient played a part in the increased revenue. It doesn't take into consideration that as the recession ended, more money was made, that could be the only reason for increased revenue, or any other thing you can think of...
#2- Same as #1. Just b/c you say so doesn't mean that "tax cuts clearly played a significant role" in increase economic activity, again, what role did the business cycle play?
#3 "Theory" & "Assumes" are two key words in this section. As I stated in my first post, there are theories, but no actual proof. The one thing that is proven is that if the rate is high enough to cover your expenses, you have a balanced budget.
#4- I'm pretty sure I am all for decreased taxes on investments...as for its effect on the economy, I agree with the theory that it helps.
#5- Again, raise taxes to cover entitlements, not hope that decrease taxes will.
#6- I agree, it is exactly what I'm saying. And only excessive taxation will kill economic growth, and even then Europe still grows at a rapid pace. Corp taxes have more to do with it than personal tax. Kind of contradict themselves.
The rest are just more of the same. Again, show me something with actual details.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3080936
#1- you can't make assertions like this w/o some kind of mathematical formulas. Without regressions we have no idea what coefficient played a part in the increased revenue. It doesn't take into consideration that as the recession ended, more money was made, that could be the only reason for increased revenue, or any other thing you can think of...
#2- Same as #1. Just b/c you say so doesn't mean that "tax cuts clearly played a significant role" in increase economic activity, again, what role did the business cycle play?
#6- I agree, it is exactly what I'm saying. And only excessive taxation will kill economic growth, and even then Europe still grows at a rapid pace. Corp taxes have more to do with it than personal tax. Kind of contradict themselves.
Europe (except for small pockets) hasn't experienced rapid economic growth in the last 20 years. Even in the "good times" the socialist democracies had unemployment rates similar to what we are seeing today.
The idea is that it spurs bullish business cycles. And with the spurred cycles shortened the recession. The argument is that tax cuts have ended or lessened recessions.
http:///forum/post/3080936
#1- you can't make assertions like this w/o some kind of mathematical formulas. Without regressions we have no idea what coefficient played a part in the increased revenue. It doesn't take into consideration that as the recession ended, more money was made, that could be the only reason for increased revenue, or any other thing you can think of...
#2- Same as #1. Just b/c you say so doesn't mean that "tax cuts clearly played a significant role" in increase economic activity, again, what role did the business cycle play?
#6- I agree, it is exactly what I'm saying. And only excessive taxation will kill economic growth, and even then Europe still grows at a rapid pace. Corp taxes have more to do with it than personal tax. Kind of contradict themselves.
Europe (except for small pockets) hasn't experienced rapid economic growth in the last 20 years. Even in the "good times" the socialist democracies had unemployment rates similar to what we are seeing today.
The idea is that it spurs bullish business cycles. And with the spurred cycles shortened the recession. The argument is that tax cuts have ended or lessened recessions.
sickboy
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3081018
Europe (except for small pockets) hasn't experienced rapid economic growth in the last 20 years. Even in the "good times" the socialist democracies had unemployment rates similar to what we are seeing today.
The idea is that it spurs bullish business cycles. And with the spurred cycles shortened the recession. The argument is that tax cuts have ended or lessened recessions.
I know what the argument is, but what happens when the recession ends? People are EXTREMELY resistant to tax raises, but that is what should happen when the tax cut has ended the recession. Proper counter-cyclical fiscal policy would allow for cuts & stimulus during recessions b/c they would be paid for during boom years. But during boom years, tax rates have nothing to do with tax revenue, look at the 90s and their "high" tax rate, which was probably the closest we've been to a "proper" tax rate (thanks Bush 1). Unfortunately neither the public or, especially, our legislators, understand or know this.
http:///forum/post/3081018
Europe (except for small pockets) hasn't experienced rapid economic growth in the last 20 years. Even in the "good times" the socialist democracies had unemployment rates similar to what we are seeing today.
The idea is that it spurs bullish business cycles. And with the spurred cycles shortened the recession. The argument is that tax cuts have ended or lessened recessions.
I know what the argument is, but what happens when the recession ends? People are EXTREMELY resistant to tax raises, but that is what should happen when the tax cut has ended the recession. Proper counter-cyclical fiscal policy would allow for cuts & stimulus during recessions b/c they would be paid for during boom years. But during boom years, tax rates have nothing to do with tax revenue, look at the 90s and their "high" tax rate, which was probably the closest we've been to a "proper" tax rate (thanks Bush 1). Unfortunately neither the public or, especially, our legislators, understand or know this.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3081041
I know what the argument is, but what happens when the recession ends? People are EXTREMELY resistant to tax raises, but that is what should happen when the tax cut has ended the recession. Proper counter-cyclical fiscal policy would allow for cuts & stimulus during recessions b/c they would be paid for during boom years. But during boom years, tax rates have nothing to do with tax revenue, look at the 90s and their "high" tax rate, which was probably the closest we've been to a "proper" tax rate (thanks Bush 1). Unfortunately neither the public or, especially, our legislators, understand or know this.
You aren't looking at this right.
Let me explain it in a simpler term.
Ok I have a job making 75 grand a year, you give me a tax break during a recession (or don't raise my taxes at all) I maintain my job and with the "expendable part of income" I buy things....as I buy things more people get employed as more things are being bought that need replenished and so on. so now the tax break (or unraised taxes) have allowed us to to get our economy rolling by doing what we are suppossed to do. More people have jobs now, thus more taxes are flowing to the federal govt. Now..since we are out of the recession you raise taxes.....This reduces my "disposable income". Thus I spend less as does everyone else since their taxes went up. Thus less things are bought, thus less things are needed, thus less jobs are no longer needed.
If you leave the cuts or taxes where they are at, logic says the economy will remain stable longer and the govt. will receive more money as more people are gainfully employed.
Granted this is a very simplified explanation.
There is a rule, the more money you have, the more money you will spend....Of course there is always a peak then a downturn as certain things will no longer be needed.
The main problem I have seen is every year the government spends more and more...this is the main problem, if it was a steady increase I could understand that as you have to figure in population growth, but then again the increase in tax revenue should cover this. But this is huge leaps and bounds in spending.
An example. The gas tax. The argument is it is taxed because the money is used to build roads and to cover for eenvironmantal costs and rehabitilitation. many are buying more fuel efficient cars. (smaller and less harsh to our roads and environment). However now that they aren't making enough off the gas tax anymore, they want to do a mileage tax....Sorry if are coars are less harsh on the environment and the roads then they shouldn't need the extra revenue....but they need the money to pay for their "pet" projects, such as a new sports stadium or monument to some politician.
http:///forum/post/3081041
I know what the argument is, but what happens when the recession ends? People are EXTREMELY resistant to tax raises, but that is what should happen when the tax cut has ended the recession. Proper counter-cyclical fiscal policy would allow for cuts & stimulus during recessions b/c they would be paid for during boom years. But during boom years, tax rates have nothing to do with tax revenue, look at the 90s and their "high" tax rate, which was probably the closest we've been to a "proper" tax rate (thanks Bush 1). Unfortunately neither the public or, especially, our legislators, understand or know this.
You aren't looking at this right.
Let me explain it in a simpler term.
Ok I have a job making 75 grand a year, you give me a tax break during a recession (or don't raise my taxes at all) I maintain my job and with the "expendable part of income" I buy things....as I buy things more people get employed as more things are being bought that need replenished and so on. so now the tax break (or unraised taxes) have allowed us to to get our economy rolling by doing what we are suppossed to do. More people have jobs now, thus more taxes are flowing to the federal govt. Now..since we are out of the recession you raise taxes.....This reduces my "disposable income". Thus I spend less as does everyone else since their taxes went up. Thus less things are bought, thus less things are needed, thus less jobs are no longer needed.
If you leave the cuts or taxes where they are at, logic says the economy will remain stable longer and the govt. will receive more money as more people are gainfully employed.
Granted this is a very simplified explanation.
There is a rule, the more money you have, the more money you will spend....Of course there is always a peak then a downturn as certain things will no longer be needed.
The main problem I have seen is every year the government spends more and more...this is the main problem, if it was a steady increase I could understand that as you have to figure in population growth, but then again the increase in tax revenue should cover this. But this is huge leaps and bounds in spending.
An example. The gas tax. The argument is it is taxed because the money is used to build roads and to cover for eenvironmantal costs and rehabitilitation. many are buying more fuel efficient cars. (smaller and less harsh to our roads and environment). However now that they aren't making enough off the gas tax anymore, they want to do a mileage tax....Sorry if are coars are less harsh on the environment and the roads then they shouldn't need the extra revenue....but they need the money to pay for their "pet" projects, such as a new sports stadium or monument to some politician.
sickboy
Active Member
Darth, in a world where you didn't have to "bring home the pork" to get re-elected, the "correct" tax rate would be a constant rate, a rate that would depend on how to cover costs.
As for the supply-side theory, I understand, but I disagree. The reason is, if lower taxes always helped the economy, there would be no recessions. This current recession would not have happened, all else held equal, b/c of the Bush tax cuts. I fully agree with the fact that tax cuts will stimulate the economy in hard times, I disagree that it will result in increased revenue. You may gain some of the lost revenue back, but not all of it. Plus, now is a good example, the excess money is being used to pay excessive debts, not buy goods.
Counter cyclical tax changes, changing in a similar fashion to the Fed's interest rate, would take some of the explosion out of the boom, but it would lessen the bust, therefore equalizing the economy. People complain about the rate during the 90s, but they didn't hamper growth...
As for the supply-side theory, I understand, but I disagree. The reason is, if lower taxes always helped the economy, there would be no recessions. This current recession would not have happened, all else held equal, b/c of the Bush tax cuts. I fully agree with the fact that tax cuts will stimulate the economy in hard times, I disagree that it will result in increased revenue. You may gain some of the lost revenue back, but not all of it. Plus, now is a good example, the excess money is being used to pay excessive debts, not buy goods.
Counter cyclical tax changes, changing in a similar fashion to the Fed's interest rate, would take some of the explosion out of the boom, but it would lessen the bust, therefore equalizing the economy. People complain about the rate during the 90s, but they didn't hamper growth...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3081644
Darth, in a world where you didn't have to "bring home the pork" to get re-elected, the "correct" tax rate would be a constant rate, a rate that would depend on how to cover costs.
As for the supply-side theory, I understand, but I disagree. The reason is, if lower taxes always helped the economy, there would be no recessions. This current recession would not have happened, all else held equal, b/c of the Bush tax cuts. I fully agree with the fact that tax cuts will stimulate the economy in hard times, I disagree that it will result in increased revenue. You may gain some of the lost revenue back, but not all of it. Plus, now is a good example, the excess money is being used to pay excessive debts, not buy goods.
Counter cyclical tax changes, changing in a similar fashion to the Fed's interest rate, would take some of the explosion out of the boom, but it would lessen the bust, therefore equalizing the economy. People complain about the rate during the 90s, but they didn't hamper growth...
Are you familiar with consumer response to perceived changes in prices? Why would that be any different with the "price" of living in the United States? If we've reach the point where a business doesn't think they'll have the same return on investment b/c of increased tax rates. (and I don't know a business owner that thinks taxes are going to be lowered by obam)a And sunsetted (remember those Bush tax cuts are going away in 2010) why not wait till more favorable political winds...
Plus the lower (but still oppressive) tax rates are now the baseline for judging their profitability...
Plus you can't say that it didn't hamper growth... In fact it HAD to have, unless you want to assume that the government actually made money on the taxes they collected...
http:///forum/post/3081644
Darth, in a world where you didn't have to "bring home the pork" to get re-elected, the "correct" tax rate would be a constant rate, a rate that would depend on how to cover costs.
As for the supply-side theory, I understand, but I disagree. The reason is, if lower taxes always helped the economy, there would be no recessions. This current recession would not have happened, all else held equal, b/c of the Bush tax cuts. I fully agree with the fact that tax cuts will stimulate the economy in hard times, I disagree that it will result in increased revenue. You may gain some of the lost revenue back, but not all of it. Plus, now is a good example, the excess money is being used to pay excessive debts, not buy goods.
Counter cyclical tax changes, changing in a similar fashion to the Fed's interest rate, would take some of the explosion out of the boom, but it would lessen the bust, therefore equalizing the economy. People complain about the rate during the 90s, but they didn't hamper growth...
Are you familiar with consumer response to perceived changes in prices? Why would that be any different with the "price" of living in the United States? If we've reach the point where a business doesn't think they'll have the same return on investment b/c of increased tax rates. (and I don't know a business owner that thinks taxes are going to be lowered by obam)a And sunsetted (remember those Bush tax cuts are going away in 2010) why not wait till more favorable political winds...
Plus the lower (but still oppressive) tax rates are now the baseline for judging their profitability...
Plus you can't say that it didn't hamper growth... In fact it HAD to have, unless you want to assume that the government actually made money on the taxes they collected...
jennythebugg
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3080125
What do you think?
It seems to me that (very simplified) Democrats want to expand Federal social programs & Republicans want tax cuts. The dems think this will eventually increase tax revenue by helping the lower classes "raise themselves up" to a "better life." The Reps think that tax cuts will eventually lead to solving all our problems b/c people will have more money. NEITHER of these theories has any factual base, in fact there are more instances of these ideas doing more harm than good.
If the U.S. gov't, U.S. corporations, & U.S. citizens were all required to pay back their debt immediately, only a few would not be bankrupt...
So, why is nobody talking about our debt? How to fix it? We can't cut taxes, we need to raise them to balance the budget. We can't increase social programs, we need to trim them to balance the budget. If we don't, our great- great- great- great- great- .... grandchildren are going to be buried in our debt. How are they suppose to have small gov't & liberties that we enjoy if all of their money goes to paying South Korea, China, etc.?
So, do you think debt will be our demise? Why are none of the media outlets or citizens concerned with our debt?
yes
http:///forum/post/3080125
What do you think?
It seems to me that (very simplified) Democrats want to expand Federal social programs & Republicans want tax cuts. The dems think this will eventually increase tax revenue by helping the lower classes "raise themselves up" to a "better life." The Reps think that tax cuts will eventually lead to solving all our problems b/c people will have more money. NEITHER of these theories has any factual base, in fact there are more instances of these ideas doing more harm than good.
If the U.S. gov't, U.S. corporations, & U.S. citizens were all required to pay back their debt immediately, only a few would not be bankrupt...
So, why is nobody talking about our debt? How to fix it? We can't cut taxes, we need to raise them to balance the budget. We can't increase social programs, we need to trim them to balance the budget. If we don't, our great- great- great- great- great- .... grandchildren are going to be buried in our debt. How are they suppose to have small gov't & liberties that we enjoy if all of their money goes to paying South Korea, China, etc.?
So, do you think debt will be our demise? Why are none of the media outlets or citizens concerned with our debt?
yes