Obama inherited a fiscal disaster. Now what?

[Ozoned]

DM You help me raise 700 million dollars so I can be next prez, and I promise I will solve the debt problem & the chaos of everyday living.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I really don't see the point in cutting personal income taxes in times like this. The people with jobs should consider themselves lucky, and should be happy to help out their brethren who are out of work by paying their due. Corporate taxes are another matter.

Most people getting a tax break in today's economy will simply pocket the money out of fear.

It's been proven that the best stimulus for the economy is spending on infrastructure. It's fair as well.

We need a big infrastructure project. Let's damn up the Mississippi.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I really don't see the point in cutting personal income taxes in times like this. The people with jobs should consider themselves lucky, and should be happy to help out their brethren who are out of work by paying their due. Corporate taxes are another matter.

Most people getting a tax break in today's economy will simply pocket the money out of fear.

It's been proven that the best stimulus for the economy is spending on infrastructure. It's fair as well.

I consider myself lucky to be able to contribute to the charities I support which actually do help those who need help in a productive way. Instead you want to it be pissed away by politicians and bureaucrats with make-work projects and "aid" for people who will spend it on beer, lottery tickets, and strip clubs (based on the precedent of the debit cards given out post-Katrina).

In an ideal world I don't think anyone should even have to pay tax. In light of what's going on, however, I think it's in the upper class' own self-interest to help out the rest of society right now lest we have total anarchy and a skyrocketing prison population.

I admire the fact that you contribute to charity. Many people with the means to do so do not. What are your thoughts on forcing the rich to donate to charities of their choice instead of paying taxes?

I support charities as well BTW, not that I'm all that well-off.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Fiscal disaster? Yeah, I have an idea on how to fix that... lets F'n sign a 787BILLION dollar pork bill... That'll help our fiscal "disaster" situation.

Uhhhh, care to rephrase that Cad?

:roll:

No, I think my statement works as is. Sure, it's highly sarcastic but so be it.

Yes, but it's factually inaccurate.

What do you think is "inaccurate"?

That it's $787B in pork, whereas there's actually $317.2 Billion in spending. The rest is tax cuts and money for state and local governments. Though I suppose that last item might be viewed as spending. Still $288 B in tax relief... And then even much of the spending might not fall into the "pork" category.

Yes, there is a small portion that is supposedly tax "relief" but really - is $13/wk for less than a year really "stimulating"? I think not. But basically you object to it being called pork - fine - doesn't mean my statement is "factually inaccurate". Ofcourse you'd probably say me calling it a massive spending bill "factually innaccurate" as well... Meh... believe what you wish.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
That's if you buy into the Keynesian bullshit....and also if you consider the biggest spending package in world history merely "deficit spending"...
No one with two licks of sense can say this is merely deficit spending - this is MASSIVE deficit spending.

Also, note that according to that the spending should create markets for business output(this spending does little/none of that) and that it should encourage consumer spending(this spending does little/none of that)

So again, how exactly do you libs reconcile this "fiscal disaster" whining with this MASSIVE spending bill that guarantees even more and worse "fiscal disaster"?

Massive deficit spending is still deficit spending. That's what many economists say is necessary to avert a depression. Some argue that it's not large enough.

Reading comprehension pop-quiz. Q: You note that "market for business output" phrase, but what preceded that? A: Government purchases create that market for business output. Simply by spending the money to make purchases and investments in infrastructure, that market is created.

And what happens if/when the demand is false? That's right, it collapses or needs sustained infusions from the gov't. Hmm... sounds like... hmm...something...

What demand are you talking about? When the government purchases through this spending bill, it is creating the initial demand. They are the ones purchasing from the market, creating business output. That stimulus (and "demand") is guaranteed and cannot be "false".

If the income created by that stimulus actually increases consumer spending, then as a result of that increase in spending the demand for business output might increase. If consumer spending doesn't increase, then we've probably effectively entered into a depressionary spiral. Again, no "false" demand -- it's either there on it's not.

Yes it can be "false". What happens when the small amount(relative to the massive size of this bill) of money for these things stops? Does it really create a market? Or did it temporarily create a market that will be sustained by the public? If there isn't a public demand for it after the gov't cheese runs out - what do you call it? I call it false demand.