Is $900Billion new debt fiscally responsible?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Biggest thing you're missing is Capitalism moves wealth from the labor that creates it to the owners who accumulate it. Simple as that. Any millionaire will tell you the first million was the hardest after which it's easier due to what you control not how hard you work. I work 2 hours a day I have employees open & close my store but still make more. Over time control of capital enables them to control politics, banking, and job creation and pay nothing to workers because there's more workers than capital. Owners have succeeded in getting it all many many times and spawned a revolution because all of a society's productive assets and policies are controlled by a small elite.

You can control this natural shift w/o bloodshed with mechanisms to move wealth from the top back to the bottom. e.g. labor unions...SBA loans..SBA grants....progressive taxation etc... This capitalism with socialist undertones is why America was just amazingly prosperous from 1945-1975 almost to the bottom of society. But we're into the "low tax" or "no tax" minimalist government off-shoring mindset. I expect Wall Street is training Indians as we speak to take over banking and accounting too. Americans cost too much in a 100% capitalist mindset.

The worst part is a guy like me depends on having a large middle class to make any money. I perform a service and without demand I go broke. I suspect even the biggest business is the same. So it's not a zero sum game having a well paid and educated workforce we all bring each other up.

I'm sure when Eisenhower was taxing 92% on millionaires to build HWYS they were furious - then they figured out how to make trillions in tourism, cars, auto shops, agriculture gas stations etc those roads provided.

I'm sure when Bill Gates dad who owned 3 banks was taxed high he was furious. But then Billy III fiqured out how to use 100,000 college educated and build the largest software company world has ever seen he was pretty happy. Go try and open a Microsoft in haiti I dare ya.

Not zero sum game.
 
Last edited:

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I mean the other thing to acknowledge is we aren't actually a truly capitalist society. We may have once been, and that led to the Great Depression. We are, at best, a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.

Other thing I forgot to hit on is that wealth concentration in the upper tiers actually leads to that wealth flowing our of our country. That is the real problem with Reaganomics: there is, too a limited extent, a trickle down effect. The problem is our country forgot to install gutters on the borders.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Never have been. What do you call taking land from rich Indians and giving it for free to impoverished masses of Europe (impoverished coincidentally by similar policies right wingers want here)? Or the socialist Land Grant Act of 1862 that gave us State Universities and Colleges? Or the Transcontinental Railroad Act of 1862..(I could go on but you get the point - at no time was USA 100% capitalist) In fact we were a model for Europe's socialist revolutions.
 
Last edited:

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Is this one of those "$900 billion over ten years" BS type of figures??

The Obama stimulus added more to the deficit in one year than this will add in 10 years? Seems like a good deal.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
i wish

120B added each year with SS reduction
60B added each year for extending UE
220B added each year by extending Bush Tax cuts
~80-100B for 100% write off of capital expenses
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
Never have been. What do you call taking land from rich Indians and giving it for free to impoverished masses of Europe (impoverished coincidentally by similar policies right wingers want here)? Or the socialist Land Grant Act of 1862 that gave us State Universities and Colleges? Or the Transcontinental Railroad Act of 1862..(I could go on but you get the point - at no time was USA 100% capitalist) In fact we were a model for Europe's socialist revolutions.

It's called a modern civil society, which by definintion must incorporate socialist facets for it to function properly. That's why libertopianism will never work, and laisse faire capitalists policies always lead to financial colapse a some point because there is no such thing as magic.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Tax cuts for the 'rich' are only $32 billion of that total.... hmmmm thought extending cuts to them was the end of the world, guess not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/347856;...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2hhdHdpbGxkZWFs

Thats only incomes over 250K

The big one is not that. Rich don't get thier money from regular income unless they are stupid or a basketball player.

They get it from cap gains and dividends. Dividends are currently taxed at 15% w/o this cut they go to regular marginal rates.

Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Folks, the system cannot be saved in its current form. Who is in power and what decisions they make mean little at this point. It is like changing captains as the Titanic goes down. That being said, there are soft landings and their are full blown crashes. It looks to me that the political task masters are going for the full blown crash scenario.

I was wondering where you'd gone, Dissipate.

Anyway, I think you're right on this. Short-sighted Americans will continue to elect leaders who favor the short-term ("More entitlements!! Less taxes!!") over the long-term, and we're well on our way toward becoming another Greece. The only question left is how fast we get there.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
What I have said, and no one else that I know of has, is that it's better for us as a nation to leave our oil in the ground until it's worth more.
My point is that some say that is exactly what the oil companies are doing. Drilling the oil and then leaving it in the ground until its worth more. So why not use your idea but collect rent from now until whenever that time is? Its like someone paying you rent on a house you haven't built yet just so that you don't rent it to someone else. WIN
Not better for oil companies. They are competing with each other to drill oil, and waiting puts them at risk of drilling less oil. Another risk is that a huge oil spill happens and drilling oil here gets completely banned in response to public opinion. Of course that didn't happen this time.

Do a little research. Figure out how many wells, test wells, capped wells and non producing wells have been made off the coast of the US, hell just US waters in the Gulf and tell me what the odds are of a catastrophic incident like the BP spill happening. The Deep Water Horizon was one of those one in a million accidents and there are common sense things we can do to further reduce the risk. Modern day oil drilling is extremely safe, about as safe as moving and offloading a ton of tankers in the same waters.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
He's not a fool. He's right wing. I've been telling you guys this since day 1 with builders bailouts and not bailing out people, with health insurance and pharma subsidy. What's funny to me these past couple years is y'all defended him and right wing thinks he's some muslim commie. And yes Republicans are sharpening daggers, not right enough and not white enough.

Ding ding ding.

New boss same as the old boss.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
Biggest thing you're missing is Capitalism moves wealth from the labor that creates it to the owners who accumulate it. Simple as that. Any millionaire will tell you the first million was the hardest after which it's easier due to what you control not how hard you work. I work 2 hours a day I have employees open & close my store but still make more. Over time control of capital enables them to control politics, banking, and job creation and pay nothing to workers because there's more workers than capital. Owners have succeeded in getting it all many many times and spawned a revolution because all of a society's productive assets and policies are controlled by a small elite.

You can control this natural shift w/o bloodshed with mechanisms to move wealth from the top back to the bottom. e.g. labor unions...SBA loans..SBA grants....progressive taxation etc... This capitalism with socialist undertones is why America was just amazingly prosperous from 1945-1975 almost to the bottom of society. But we're into the "low tax" or "no tax" minimalist government off-shoring mindset. I expect Wall Street is training Indians as we speak to take over banking and accounting too. Americans cost too much in a 100% capitalist mindset.

The worst part is a guy like me depends on having a large middle class to make any money. I perform a service and without demand I go broke. I suspect even the biggest business is the same. So it's not a zero sum game having a well paid and educated workforce we all bring each other up.

I'm sure when Eisenhower was taxing 92% on millionaires to build HWYS they were furious - then they figured out how to make trillions in tourism, cars, auto shops, agriculture gas stations etc those roads provided.

I'm sure when Bill Gates dad who owned 3 banks was taxed high he was furious. But then Billy III fiqured out how to use 100,000 college educated and build the largest software company world has ever seen he was pretty happy. Go try and open a Microsoft in haiti I dare ya.

Not zero sum game.

Very good post.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I appreciate the response. A couple thoughts.

One is that an inherent assumption in your view is that wealth is a motivator for societal progression. Wealth may be a motivator, but I do not believe it to be the only motivator. Frankly, we've already seen the what happens when uses wealth as a motivator for progress is taken too far: we end up with greed. We have incentivized some truly disgusting behavior that has caused harms to millions. I don't necessarily blame the individual perpetrators, because they are simply the product of a flawed environment where there is no such thing as actual success. When the bar is constantly raised on you and your very way of existence is threatened if you eventually fail (and you will eventually fail if that bar keeps going higher), it opens up a whole can of worms. Ultimately we will do what we need to do to survive.

Secondly, there is little inherent freedom difference between being manipulated by a government and manipulated by a powerful individual or corporation. Lack of freedom is a lack of freedom, they are one in the same. The person being oppressed cares little if his oppressor is the President of the United States or the President of IBM. The typical argument is that a corporation could never accrue as much power as a government can, but I think we can see in our world today that this is simply factually incorrect. Or that a person could simply leave a job where they are being treated poorly, but in this type of economy that isn't the case.

I do hold the belief that wealth concentration is inherently harmful to society. With wealth comes power, and with power comes the ability to control others. Many of us on this board rail against the 2 party system, but the fact is that wealthy interests on both sides keep those parties funded because they are interested in maintaining a status quo. They have successfully convinced the majority of the American people that the only choices are actually two of the same thing: both Democrats and Republicans are on the authoritarian right when compared to politics on a global scale. Each believes government is the way to solve problems, despite what rhetoric we might here from them. For the record, socialism is on the authoritarian left. I'm talking about a something completely different.

In counseling, we are always worried when a client exhibits signs of dichotomous thinking (things are either black or white, good or bad, ect). The same holds true for politics: liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, these are all dichotomies...and they frankly oversimplify what are very complicated issues. These labels also dehumanize people and attempt to lump them together, which is why our political rhetoric is so heated.

The problem is that this causes us to jump to conclusions, and lack of understanding makes it very easy to jump to base human emotions like anger, which is really a surface emotion hiding something deeper (typically, fear, powerlessness, lack of control). It makes discussing a topic like this impossible because people automatically start screaming SOCIALIST!!!11!!1!! when they haven't actually considered that perspective might not actually be about government controlled industry (which is what socialism is.)

That wealth concentration causes a disincentive for the little guy. If the vast majority of money is frozen in the hands of 1 in 5 people, he has extremely limited resources from which he can implement his idea. If he can't convince those "investors" that his idea has some merit, he never gets anywhere. I'm sure this is as just as destructive for societal progress as a government that takes too much in taxes as you suggest.

When I think of wealth concentration, what "makes" sense to me is more a bell curve. Arguing that we have a robust and strong "middle class", when in reality the middle class holds so little wealth as to have no real power. We can vote, but there is a reason our campaigns cost so much money: with the right rhetoric, those votes can be bought...and in reality, most people won't vote anyway, so they capitulate what little power they actually had.

There would still be some extremely wealth people in the ideal situation I foresee, but they as a group would not have a disproportionate amount of power. It's about getting the vast sums (and these numbers are truly vast) of money that sitting idly, collecting interest and dividends, moving in our free market system again. It isn't about a power grab by the government taking it and deciding who gets the benefit the most from that money. I want that no more than you do. Rather, it's about creating policies that unfreeze wealth and keep it moving about the system (i.e., constantly being redistributed)...and ultimately lead to a more robust middle class. It's also about preventing the creation of an "American Aristocracy," which is a very real fear the founders had.

In a capitalist economy there will always be winners and losers. That doesn't mean we have to have accept quite so many losers and quite so few winners. I also completely reject the notion that wealth is the sole motivator for societal progression. Money is important, and to a certain level it can by you security and stability. Past a certain point, it really just doesn't matter anymore. I can tell you I'm surrounded every day by people doing important work who know they aren't going to be rich at the end of their lives. We obtain a different type of satisfaction from what we do.
You're spot-on that the left and the right are both in love with using the armed might of government to shape others' behavior. Personally I think government should be behavior-neutral except for behavior that direct harms, or reasonably threatens to harm, others. (As an example, there is a reasonable expectation that someone high on grass will harm someone if he is driving, not so much if he's home playing Nintendo.) This includes tax code too; if owning homes is a desirable thing then we will already be attempting to do so, and government programs often do more harm than good.

You're also right that wealth is not the sole reason for societal progress, but it's probably the best and most common motivator. Besides wealth there is power - I think you'd agree that is not one to be embraced - and genuine altruism. The latter is the most pure, but most people do not have enough altruism to sacrifice their money, energy and free time purely for the benefit of others. As Communist nations show, there are damn few Mother Teresas out there. Most people are motivated to go beyond a good day's work by the prospect of a good return on that money, energy and free time, meaning a better life for themselves and, just as importantly, for their children and grandchildren.

Beyond that, it's a given that wealth will be concentrated; that's inherent in any higher order society of specialized labor. Just as importantly, concentration of wealth is required for society to progress. Besides the reward motivation, many new ideas require wealth (to support the innovator, to provide materials and specialized labor, and to spread the innovation) beyond that available to anyone in a truly egalitarian society. Thus it comes down to whom you trust to control this money - those who made it (and seek to make more) or government. This is purely ideology, there is no inherently good or evil answer. There are of course good or evil policies to implement that ideology . . .

And thanks guys for the kind words.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Biggest thing you're missing is Capitalism moves wealth from the labor that creates it to the owners who accumulate it. Simple as that. Any millionaire will tell you the first million was the hardest after which it's easier due to what you control not how hard you work. I work 2 hours a day I have employees open & close my store but still make more. Over time control of capital enables them to control politics, banking, and job creation and pay nothing to workers because there's more workers than capital. Owners have succeeded in getting it all many many times and spawned a revolution because all of a society's productive assets and policies are controlled by a small elite.

You can control this natural shift w/o bloodshed with mechanisms to move wealth from the top back to the bottom. e.g. labor unions...SBA loans..SBA grants....progressive taxation etc... This capitalism with socialist undertones is why America was just amazingly prosperous from 1945-1975 almost to the bottom of society. But we're into the "low tax" or "no tax" minimalist government off-shoring mindset. I expect Wall Street is training Indians as we speak to take over banking and accounting too. Americans cost too much in a 100% capitalist mindset.

The worst part is a guy like me depends on having a large middle class to make any money. I perform a service and without demand I go broke. I suspect even the biggest business is the same. So it's not a zero sum game having a well paid and educated workforce we all bring each other up.

I'm sure when Eisenhower was taxing 92% on millionaires to build HWYS they were furious - then they figured out how to make trillions in tourism, cars, auto shops, agriculture gas stations etc those roads provided.

I'm sure when Bill Gates dad who owned 3 banks was taxed high he was furious. But then Billy III fiqured out how to use 100,000 college educated and build the largest software company world has ever seen he was pretty happy. Go try and open a Microsoft in haiti I dare ya.

Not zero sum game.

Excellent post. My only comment is that we should be looking for ways to boost the middle class which enrich our society as a whole. Having government seize wealth and re-distribute it is always a net drain on society's wealth because inevitably the seizing and the redistributing themselves consume wealth whilst creating none.

You and Carmen are also correct that the USA is not and has never been a purely capitalist society. Nor should it be. In a purely capitalist society, boom and bust cycles would be extreme, especially in an economy the size of America's. Wealth will always tend to concentrate, and wealth will always eventually be redistributed by some mechanism, if only by the starving peasants taking up improvised weapons. And a purely capitalist society would be a horrid place, with the highest New World conspicuous consumption right next to the worst Third World poverty, and eventually the greater wealth production of the middle class would be driven into the lesser wealth production of the lower class. The trick I think is to implement as little socialism as necessary, economically and morally, to minimize the boom-bust cycle while damaging the wealth-producing engine of capitalism as little as possible - as far as possible, implementing such socialist measures in such a way as to increase society's wealth rather than merely punishing those who accumulate wealth. Manufacturers willingly paying more to workers because those workers are better qualified and thus more productive is always better than manufacturers being forced to pay more for workers because they banded together (whether through government or union) to demand more, and both are infinitely better than manufacturers simply having their profits redistributed among the workers. The first redistributes as well as grows net wealth, the second redistributes wealth while making the manufacturer less competitive with foreign competitors (and his goods less attractive compared to other possible uses of money), and the last redistributes wealth while consuming part of it AND makes the manufacturer less competitive and his goods less attractive.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Just reduce the wages of all fed employees making over $80,000, Including Congress and FBI, CIA, etc. Just get rid of all the federal exemptions and deductions, and maybe people will pay some tax. Make single parents pay the same as 2 parent families. Everyone should pay the same tax. Cut out all business exemptions. Make congress pay to use the gym and for all their other free-bees like free parking.

This concept that 50% of the population not paying any tax is a lie. If you drive a car you have taxes and title fees, plus you have to pay federal and state tax for gasoline. You pay tax on everything you purchase. Cigarrettes is most taxes. Drink Alcohol and tax tax tax. Have a mortgage and tax some more. Have a telephone and tax tax tax. Buy clothes and pay taxes. So this is all bogus.

It would make sense to have something like a 5% federal sales tax to keep from letting people get off from paying federal tax. Just exclude autos and houses and items that already have a federal tax from the tax. Make the states collect the fed tax and send it in every month or quarter depending on the type of business. This way if you dont have money to buy things you dont pay taxes on it.

There comes a point when the government can no longer pay the interest on the deficiet. That is called defaulting on your debt.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Q: Why weren't these tax cuts made permanent when they were created?
A: Because even many conservatives voted against them and it had to be passed via reconciliation, and eventually passed by Dick Cheney's tie breaking vote (at least with regards to the 03 cuts).

The bill passed June 7, 2001. (Oops, looks like sign date)

Know which party held the majority in the Senate then?

Yup, it was the Dems.

In any case control of the Senate went back and forth at that time; no party held but a 1 vote majority.

If many conservatives voted against it, even more Democrtas voted for it.

Scroll down to the June 2001 period and see who controled the Senate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

Edit: Here's the Senate vote count. All 49 Repub Senators voted "Yes".

Edit #2: Hmmm. Noticed that the Senate had 62 "yes". Looks like there was no need for reconcilliation (and where do you get your info that Cheney had to vote to break a tie?)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-165

Fern
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Excellent post. My only comment is that we should be looking for ways to boost the middle class which enrich our society as a whole. Having government seize wealth and re-distribute it is always a net drain on society's wealth because inevitably the seizing and the redistributing themselves consume wealth whilst creating none.

You and Carmen are also correct that the USA is not and has never been a purely capitalist society. Nor should it be. In a purely capitalist society, boom and bust cycles would be extreme, especially in an economy the size of America's. Wealth will always tend to concentrate, and wealth will always eventually be redistributed by some mechanism, if only by the starving peasants taking up improvised weapons. And a purely capitalist society would be a horrid place, with the highest New World conspicuous consumption right next to the worst Third World poverty, and eventually the greater wealth production of the middle class would be driven into the lesser wealth production of the lower class. The trick I think is to implement as little socialism as necessary, economically and morally, to minimize the boom-bust cycle while damaging the wealth-producing engine of capitalism as little as possible - as far as possible, implementing such socialist measures in such a way as to increase society's wealth rather than merely punishing those who accumulate wealth. Manufacturers willingly paying more to workers because those workers are better qualified and thus more productive is always better than manufacturers being forced to pay more for workers because they banded together (whether through government or union) to demand more, and both are infinitely better than manufacturers simply having their profits redistributed among the workers. The first redistributes as well as grows net wealth, the second redistributes wealth while making the manufacturer less competitive with foreign competitors (and his goods less attractive compared to other possible uses of money), and the last redistributes wealth while consuming part of it AND makes the manufacturer less competitive and his goods less attractive.

Biggest thing i think that has corrupted us is free anything which encourages sloth, mediocrity, graft, fraud and generally dragging nation down so everyone want to be a crook.

Student loans you should have to perform at 3.0 or above to obtain
welfare should have to work, anything -sweep streets baby sit scrub graffiti
unemployment should have to work
Even the blind can do something if still able bodied.
Big business and banks who fail need to be taken into receivership and sold off in bankruptcy court. Not bailed out and bonused which is a huge moral hazard. fraud prosecuted. etc

This does so many things both economically and culturally it's not even funny.

Redistribution but earned basically is how Eisenhower went about it. To me greatest president ever..results speak for themselves. and he paid off a similar debt to what we have now and still kicked ass economically.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Biggest thing i think that has corrupted us is free anything which encourages sloth, mediocrity, graft, fraud and generally dragging nation down so everyone want to be a crook.

Student loans you should have to perform at 3.0 or above to obtain
welfare should have to work, anything -sweep streets baby sit scrub graffiti
unemployment should have to work
Even the blind can do something if still able bodied.
Big business and banks who fail need to be taken into receivership and sold off in bankruptcy court. Not bailed out and bonused which is a huge moral hazard. fraud prosecuted. etc

This does so many things both economically and culturally it's not even funny.

Redistribution but earned basically is how Eisenhower went about it. To me greatest president ever..results speak for themselves. and he paid off a similar debt to what we have now and still kicked ass economically.
Agreed. Being a fundamentally kind people it is hard for us to be harsh to those who simply will not strike a lick at anything, but free stuff has built a culture of entitlement. Just look at our adverts - almost everything on sale for more than $19.95 offers something "free". As a culture we're addicted to the free lunch, even when we should know there is no such thing.

If we as a society must give out something for free, then we should demand something in return from those honestly able to do so. This is more expensive, and can be hard to do - at some point government's "free" labor begins competing with the private sector - but it needs to be done to break this culture of entitlement.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
The bill passed June 7, 2001. (Oops, looks like sign date)

Know which party held the majority in the Senate then?

Yup, it was the Dems.

In any case control of the Senate went back and forth at that time; no party held but a 1 vote majority.

If many conservatives voted against it, even more Democrtas voted for it.

Scroll down to the June 2001 period and see who controled the Senate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

Edit: Here's the Senate vote count. All 49 Repub Senators voted "Yes".

Edit #2: Hmmm. Noticed that the Senate had 62 "yes". Looks like there was no need for reconcilliation (and where do you get your info that Cheney had to vote to break a tie?)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-165

Fern

You missed the part where I said "at least with regard to the 03 cuts." Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire this year. The 2003 act made major amendments to the 2001 tax cuts, changes that a few conservatives opposed, and it passed the Senate 51-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie breaking vote. Their objection was that the cuts were not coupled with spending reductions, and that the tax cuts were unsustainable long term without spending reductions. The bill came no where close to the needed 60 votes to overcome cloture, thus reconciliation was used. The 2003 act focused on capital gains reductions, and accelerated some provisions from the 2001 act that helped middle class families. Accelerating those cuts and slashing capital gains taxes threw all the careful budget analysis used to analyze the 2001 act out the window, so most Democrats flipped to oppose the act.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Werepossum,
I agree with the vast majority of what you said. I think perhaps our only disagreement is with regards to whether or not wealth concentration is reaching a crisis point, but that's really ultimately just opinion. Excellent posts :)
 
Last edited:

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Biggest thing i think that has corrupted us is free anything which encourages sloth, mediocrity, graft, fraud and generally dragging nation down so everyone want to be a crook.

Student loans you should have to perform at 3.0 or above to obtain
welfare should have to work, anything -sweep streets baby sit scrub graffiti
unemployment should have to work
Even the blind can do something if still able bodied.
Big business and banks who fail need to be taken into receivership and sold off in bankruptcy court. Not bailed out and bonused which is a huge moral hazard. fraud prosecuted. etc

This does so many things both economically and culturally it's not even funny.

Redistribution but earned basically is how Eisenhower went about it. To me greatest president ever..results speak for themselves. and he paid off a similar debt to what we have now and still kicked ass economically.

While I understand where you are coming from, you are speaking from a position of privilege. I'll leave it at that.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You missed the part where I said "at least with regard to the 03 cuts." Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire this year. The 2003 act made major amendments to the 2001 tax cuts, changes that a few conservatives opposed, and it passed the Senate 51-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie breaking vote. Their objection was that the cuts were not coupled with spending reductions, and that the tax cuts were unsustainable long term without spending reductions. The bill came no where close to the needed 60 votes to overcome cloture, thus reconciliation was used. The 2003 act focused on capital gains reductions, and accelerated some provisions from the 2001 act that helped middle class families. Accelerating those cuts and slashing capital gains taxes threw all the careful budget analysis used to analyze the 2001 act out the window, so most Democrats flipped to oppose the act.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Werepossum,
I agree with the vast majority of what you said. I think perhaps our only disagreement is with regards to whether or not wealth concentration is reaching a crisis point, but that's really ultimately just opinion. Excellent posts :)
Thanks! I always enjoy your posts as well. I actually agree that wealth concentration is reaching a crisis point; I just don't like using government to redistribute it, for reasons stated. We really need a way to provide broad-based wealth producing middle class jobs again. We need a way to make lower and middle class jobs actually worth more. Unfortunately I don't have an answer as to how to do that. Government can make them pay more, but unless they become worth more we just get fewer jobs and then inflation to rebalance the wealth value of the remaining jobs. The twin forces of automation and immigration argue against protectionism as the answer, although frankly I think protectionism and isolationism might well be better than what we have now. Perhaps if we could build a really first class education system, we could at least retain our innovative base. But one of America's historically great points (in my never-to-be-humble opinion anyway) was that a person who was not above average intelligence and with no outstanding education or inventiveness could, through hard work and perseverance, earn a pretty good middle class living. I'd really, really like to recapture that.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
It's pretty easy to bring back the middle class, werepossum.

Get rid of government's regulations, taxation, and police force. Get rid of the minimum wage.

The middle class will be back in force.

-John
 
Last edited:

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
OK not this is becoming a joke, see what they have done to the bill in the last day...

" Legislation aimed at avoiding sweeping tax increases Jan. 1 appears headed for approval in the Senate after negotiators added a few sweeteners to promote ethanol "

and

" the package would cost about $855 billion"

Where are all the teabaggers now? Oh I guess its OK since republicans want it?
That and of course its even got ethanol support in it now. :mad:


Everybody that thinks this is bad need to write their congressman and senators NOW.