"We The People" have spoken -- will the Congress listen?

[ericlp]

what we need to do is reject the 2 party system flat out.


Tho, it will never happen. Not in my lifetime.

 

[drebo]

I wonder if people still remember that the expiring tax cuts on the "rich" would have generated only $70B per year. When the debt increased by $1T in the last nine months, I'm not really sure how you can say that would have been the end-all-be-all fix for the government.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is not enough taxable money in the US to pay for social services for everyone. Period. You cannot tax a population sufficiently to pay for everything that population needs. Economics doesn't work that way.

There are two ways to fix this: cut spending drastically (by which I mean cut EVERYTHING) or reduce the trade deficit (which means increasing production and decreasing debt). We need to stop bleeding wealth from the country. You can't do that with protective tariffs, but you can do that by encouraging manufacturing to return to the US with tax benefits to companies. You can also do that by increasing production in general. That means that we explore new industries that the US has traditionally not exploited...like extensive drilling of domestic oil (not to solve the "energy crisis" but to provide jobs).

We can't just sit here and say "he's got money, take his" because that doesn't work forever. You could tap every single 401K and IRA in the country, every brokerage account, you could seize every single asset in the country, and it still wouldn't pay down the debt enough to continue spending at our current clip. Taxing is not the answer. Taxing is not even part of the answer. You can't ask people to pay more and get less...it's one or the other, and the plain answer is that people need to get less. From the top to the bottom...everything needs to be less.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

We don't need new taxes we need tax payers not liabilities. Getting people working again is the only thing that will fix our situation.

Granted I don't think it's right working income pays more in taxes than investment income and the hedge fund manager exemption where they are taxed at investment rates for regular income but that is all a drop in the bucket to the real issue.

No one is serious about getting people working again other than make work project which generate no wealth and exacerbate our problems.

I agree, but the only way that can happen is turn around the offshoring of production jobs, and that would require some protectionist measures like import tariffs on cheap imported goods and eliminations of offshore corporate tax breaks. Measures which the corporatists and free trade advocates will fight tooth and nail.


Realistically we need to make these changes AND increase taxes on the investment class AND cut spending to the bone, especially military spending. I'm fully on board with closing hundreds of foriegn bases and expiditing the withdrawls from Iraq and Afghanistan. And on top of that we will eventually be forced to adopt a single payer healthcare system.

1. Balance trade and tax cheap imports, and structure corporate taxes to de-incentivize offshoring
2. Drastically cut military and non esential domestic spending
3. Increase taxes on investment income, and increase marginal tax rates for the highest earners
4. Move to single payer healthcare

Unless we make progress in all those areas we're pissin in the wind

 

[drebo]

Protectionist tariffs will destroy our economy. Period.

Additionally, the vast majority of product made by off-shore production is destined for off-shore markets. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Protectionist tariffs will destroy our economy. Period.

Wrong! period. two can play at your game

Additionally, the vast majority of product made by off-shore production is destined for off-shore markets. There is nothing wrong with that.

That second part just makes you sound dumb

 

[dank69]

I wonder if people still remember that the expiring tax cuts on the "rich" would have generated only $70B per year. When the debt increased by $1T in the last nine months, I'm not really sure how you can say that would have been the end-all-be-all fix for the government.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is not enough taxable money in the US to pay for social services for everyone. Period. You cannot tax a population sufficiently to pay for everything that population needs. Economics doesn't work that way.

There are two ways to fix this: cut spending drastically (by which I mean cut EVERYTHING) or reduce the trade deficit (which means increasing production and decreasing debt). We need to stop bleeding wealth from the country. You can't do that with protective tariffs, but you can do that by encouraging manufacturing to return to the US with tax benefits to companies. You can also do that by increasing production in general. That means that we explore new industries that the US has traditionally not exploited...like extensive drilling of domestic oil (not to solve the "energy crisis" but to provide jobs).

We can't just sit here and say "he's got money, take his" because that doesn't work forever. You could tap every single 401K and IRA in the country, every brokerage account, you could seize every single asset in the country, and it still wouldn't pay down the debt enough to continue spending at our current clip. Taxing is not the answer. Taxing is not even part of the answer. You can't ask people to pay more and get less...it's one or the other, and the plain answer is that people need to get less. From the top to the bottom...everything needs to be less.

There is no possible tax incentive that can compete with cheap offshore labor.

 

[drebo]

That second part just makes you sound dumb

Er, what?

Let's take Caterpiller, for instance. Caterpiller recently came under fire for hiring 15k people in off-shore markets. Caterpiller doesn't sell hardly any new equipment in the US anymore. Those 15k people are building equipment for use outside the US.

This is the norm for off-shore labor by American companies.

Or, are you talking about forcing foreign companies like Philips or Panasonic to do their production in the US for US markets? Because that would be disasterous for the economy.

Protectionist tariffs do one thing and one thing only: cause prices to increase. The last thing we need right now is more inflation.

 

[Darwin333]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010...75226_page8.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"In order to balance the budget, 61 percent of Americans would rather start by taxing the rich more and 20 percent would cut defense spending. Very few people would mess with Medicare (four percent) or cut Social Security (three percent)."


Before the election and during the healthcare reform debate, I heard the Republicans proclaim many many many times that the Dems were ignoring the opinions and the wishes of the Americans. So, will they practice what they preached for two years? In the face of this overwhelming majority's wishes, will the newly elected Republicans work with Obama and the Democrats to raise taxes on the very rich, you know, to do as "we the people" want? Or will they ignore the voice of :"we the people" and shove down our throats legislation "we the people" do not want, like cut social security or medicare?

Great, we add an insignificant $70B/year in revenue to what the Dems are calling the Repubs insignificant $50-100B a year cut in revenue to our $1.4trillionish deficit.

Gee, we are really making progress now.

 

[matt0611]

Great, we add an insignificant $70B/year in revenue to what the Dems are calling the Repubs insignificant $50-100B a year cut in revenue to our $1.4trillionish deficit.

Gee, we are really making progress now.

Lol yup, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Darwin333]

keep looking at the hard data (e.g., check out: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html) SS, MD, and MA all have their own funding sources, so separate their revenue and disbursements from discretionary and defense expenses. SS trust fund will have enough funds at least until 2037. Lifting the cap on taxable income for SS will make it solvent forever. MD Hospital Insurance fund is now solvent through 2029 (thanks to the Affordable Care Act). And ask people whether they would prefer to collect some more taxes or reduce benefits on SS, MD, and MA.

Then ask people whether the government should collect more taxes to fund the discretionary and defense expenses, or cut the spending on those items

Putting SS, MD, and MA in the same basket as defense and discretionary expenses simply blurs the picture and enables people who want to tear down these social programs b/c they can't stand social programs. If this is a true democracy, ask people what they value and they do not, and cut accordingly.

Look at the numbers again. The ENTIRE Federal revenue in 2010 only covered mandatory expenditures which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt. Thats it, no discretionary spending and Obama even admitted this. We would have had to cut something like ALL .mil/DOD, almost every Federal office and department, almost all Federal employees, and just about everything else the Federal government does besides the mandatory spending items. Raise taxes on the rich you say? Ok, pick out which department or two you want to save with the $70b/year but we still gotta mothball the entire military.

Out of curiosity, how much non-IOU money is in the SS trust fund?

 

[Throckmorton]

This is a web poll....

 

[bamacre]

Out of curiosity, how much non-IOU money is in the SS trust fund?

Zero?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Er, what?

Let's take Caterpiller, for instance. Caterpiller recently came under fire for hiring 15k people in off-shore markets. Caterpiller doesn't sell hardly any new equipment in the US anymore. Those 15k people are building equipment for use outside the US.

This is the norm for off-shore labor by American companies.

Or, are you talking about forcing foreign companies like Philips or Panasonic to do their production in the US for US markets? Because that would be disasterous for the economy.

Protectionist tariffs do one thing and one thing only: cause prices to increase. The last thing we need right now is more inflation.

Typical corporatist talking points. Anything that impedes corporate profits will ruin our economy, right ? I guess you missed the part where our "free trade" policies of the last decade have already ruined our economy and sent all our jobs overseas.

And why is it that durring the most prosperous times in our country's history did we happen to have heavy tariffs and protectionist policies? And why is it that China's economy has boomed while they enforce the staunchest protectist policies on the planet?

That old song and dance about "whats good for corporate america, is good for the citizens" is so hollow and busted that only those that overdosed on the koolaid still believe it.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is a web poll....

No, it was a telephone poll, random selection of phone numbers, claimed 3% margin of error. The web poll is separate and currently shows 72% in favor of increasing taxes on the rich.

 

[Bowfinger]

My point is, the shit that you're talking about, the democrats do the same bullshit, don't act like the democrats of innocent of it either. They just did it. Both sides do it and its pretty dumb.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment the Dems don't do it at all. I've just seen nowhere near the same level of hysterical stridency we saw from some on the right, principally the tea party crowd. Non-stop screeching about how "We, the People" were going to "take back America," waving the latest opinion polls and suggesting all sorts of nasty things for Obama for ignoring the "will of the people." (See almost any of Spidey07's posts for examples, though he was hardly alone.) Then, when public opinion starts to turn against them, they become strangely silent about the Will of We, the People.

This thread is just the latest example. Many of the same people who chanted "will of the people" now want to change the subject when "the people" take aim at one of their most sacred of cows, tax breaks for the rich. It's predictable hypocrisy.

 

[Throckmorton]

No, it was a telephone poll, random selection of phone numbers, claimed 3% margin of error. The web poll is separate and currently shows 72% in favor of increasing taxes on the rich.

So why is it that you click the link and get a worthless web poll, instead of an article on the results of the actual poll?

 

[ebaycj]

There is no possible tax incentive that can compete with cheap offshore labor.

Though there likely are tax *PENALTIES* that could do so. Mostly on business.

Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a thing.

 

[Bowfinger]

So why is it that you click the link and get a worthless web poll, instead of an article on the results of the actual poll?

'Cuz teh intarwebs are hard.



It was a ten-question poll. The links on each page are to the corresponding web polls. If you go to page 10, you will see this at the bottom of the page:

This poll was conducted at the CBS News interviewing facility among a random sample of 1,067 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone Nov. 29-Dec. 2, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

I know this because I also wanted to see the details, so I started poking around. Unfortunately, they don't appear to offer anything more than the info above.