U.S. Debt discussion

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

Well in that vein everyone who voted for Bush is just as culpable. You don't think the lowering of taxes while funding two wars on the other side of the world didn't contribute? How about Bush's own bailouts at the end of his term? I'm not 100% on this, but I think I remember reading that Bush increased government spending more than any other president up that point. Obviously he's not entirely to blame, Obama hasn't done much either, but to say the middle class and poor deserve to have their services cut for supporting Obama just doesn't make sense.

There is so much wrong with your post but this really stood out in not only its ignorance but also the arrogance. I don't understand why its such a problem to ask all members of the society to contribute more during times of hardship. The middle class and poor are going to pay no matter what happens.

Yes I agree that everyone included those who voted for Bush is responsible. This mess isn't all Obama's doing. It just got worse under Obama and is to the point where America is going to lose its triple A credit rating. Something has to be done now!

Bush's worse year for borrowing(before the bailout at the end of his term) was 500 billion. The bailout changed that of course. Obama followed up that with another bailout and then a stimulus plan. But even without those included he has dwarfed Bush's borrowing. This year without a bailout or stimulus he will spend 1.3 Trillion America doesn't have.

Certainly part of Obama's problem has been a lack of tax revenue. When Bush cut taxes the country's tax revenue actually went up but, that was a far better economy. What Obama needs to do is spend less until the economy picks up and in the mean time do nothing to harm what economy there is.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well given what the unemployment rate is right now I'm sure there are quite a few healthy and educated without a job.

I do agree with you that there is more to it then letting business keep there money to work with. If there wasn't as you say every country would have that strategy and be successful. But I honestly can't see how you create non-govenment jobs without businesses making and being able to keep a lot of their money.

Agreed, in a perfect situation, you want to give incentives and the best way to do that is through tax cuts or exemptions.

But this is hardly an ideal situation. As well, I don't think an increase from current levels is really going to do any damage. It's at least better than the alternative.

[ernie]

GOP seem to be eating their own today. Insults/criticisms being hurled at and from McCain. Delaying the vote because they don't even have the votes in the House. I'm no expert in American politics but it doesn't seem like it has been a great day for the GOP.

[Caged Great]

It seems funny that the original tea party helped to create the United States of America, and that the new tea party is helping to destroy the United States of America.

Seriously, the Republicans should not be allowed to govern at all period until they get rid of the overwhelmingly stupid tea party members. It's unbelievable that these 100 or so people are basically holding the financial world hostage because their owners don't want any more taxes on them. They need the money in order to create more jobs in China like GE just did.

This might be one of the most ######ed things to ever happen in history if they don't pull their head out of their ass before the destroy themselves.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

When Bush cut taxes the country's tax revenue actually went up but, that was a far better economy.

For the life of me I don't know where you get your stuff. If you don't want to go to the government websites, you can even wikipedia this stuff. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and then accelerated those tax cuts via 2003 legislation. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP fell from 2001 until 2004, recovered until 2007 then back down in 2008.

Net net, over this term, tax revenue as percentage of GDP fell. This is true if you consider 2001 his starting point, or even if you consider 2002 the starting point. And this is gratuitous because I'm using the end of 2008 as his endpoint.

Seriously man.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

By 2050, demographically, the USA population will be over 400 million and it will be one of the youngest populations in the world.

It will, however, get a bit older between now and then, particularly around 2030.

Racially homogenous societies like Japan that have little immigration are shrinking.

China's population will begin to age and shrink dramatically by 2030 through 2050.

Europe will lose about a third of its population, assuming immigration doesn't fill the gap.

Older, aging populations will probably reside in Muslim countries by 2050 when America is demographically turning young and vibrant again.

Cowperson

I would like to read more about this. Link(s)?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

For the life of me I don't know where you get your stuff. If you don't want to go to the government websites, you can even wikipedia this stuff. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and then accelerated those tax cuts via 2003 legislation. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP fell from 2001 until 2004, recovered until 2007 then back down in 2008.

Net net, over this term, tax revenue as percentage of GDP fell. This is true if you consider 2001 his starting point, or even if you consider 2002 the starting point. And this is gratuitous because I'm using the end of 2008 as his endpoint.

Seriously man.

Why are you calculating it as percentage of GDP? Is the government ripping itself off if they don't get a certain percentage of GDP? Look at the actual dollars taken in. Of course if you lower taxes you will be taking in a lower percentage of GDP.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes I agree that everyone included those who voted for Bush is responsible. This mess isn't all Obama's doing. It just got worse under Obama and is to the point where America is going to lose its triple A credit rating. Something has to be done now!

Bush's worse year for borrowing(before the bailout at the end of his term) was 500 billion. The bailout changed that of course. Obama followed up that with another bailout and then a stimulus plan. But even without those included he has dwarfed Bush's borrowing. This year without a bailout or stimulus he will spend 1.3 Trillion America doesn't have.

Certainly part of Obama's problem has been a lack of tax revenue. When Bush cut taxes the country's tax revenue actually went up but, that was a far better economy. What Obama needs to do is spend less until the economy picks up and in the mean time do nothing to harm what economy there is.

When a goverment spends less it harms the economy, massively.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It seems funny that the original tea party helped to create the United States of America, and that the new tea party is helping to destroy the United States of America.

Seriously, the Republicans should not be allowed to govern at all period until they get rid of the overwhelmingly stupid tea party members. It's unbelievable that these 100 or so people are basically holding the financial world hostage because their owners don't want any more taxes on them. They need the money in order to create more jobs in China like GE just did.

This might be one of the most ######ed things to ever happen in history if they don't pull their head out of their ass before the destroy themselves.

The GOP with the tea party has passed 2 different proposals and might be on the verge of offering a third solution.

Reid if he gets this one through the Senate will have offered 1 solution. His spending cuts consist of mainly military cuts brought about be the ending of the Afganistan and Iraq wars. Being as that is going to happen anyway I really don't see where you can count that as cuts. He certainly won't be saving the credit rating with that proposal.

President Obama has been calling for cooperation at the same time as he has been bad mouthing the GOP. He has offered no solutions and has threatened to veto everything proposed so far. He has also implied that Social Security checks might not be sent out.

Without real cuts the US will lose their credit rating in a few days. The Democrats who represents 2/3rds of the government hasn't offered one solution to the debt issue. Yet you blame the 1/3 who has actually offered real solutions.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

When a goverment spends less it harms the economy, massively.

Are you sure? Obama's big spending last year didn't improve the economy and this year with far less to play with the economy has niether crashed or improved.

The bond rating company doesn't seem to agree with you either. They see a need for the government to control spending and will down grade the US rating if they don't.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The GOP with the tea party has passed 2 different proposals and might be on the verge of offering a third solution.

Reid if he gets this one through the Senate will have offered 1 solution. His spending cuts consist of mainly military cuts brought about be the ending of the Afganistan and Iraq wars. Being as that is going to happen anyway I really don't see where you can count that as cuts. He certainly won't be saving the credit rating with that proposal.

President Obama has been calling for cooperation at the same time as he has been bad mouthing the GOP. He has offered no solutions and has threatened to veto everything proposed so far. He has also implied that Social Security checks might not be sent out.

Without real cuts the US will lose their credit rating in a few days. The Democrats who represents 2/3rds of the government hasn't offered one solution to the debt issue. Yet you blame the 1/3 who has actually offered real solutions.

The Democrats proposal gave the republicans a 3 for 1 advantage in terms of spending cuts verses taxing millionaires and billionaires. That is so out of balance that it's ridiculous and the republicans (tea party) said no. That's blame worthy. You can't have a fringe element holding the whole group hostage, especially when the dems came more than half way across the border to get a deal done. That's practically bending the Dems over for what they stand for.

The thing is that the ideas that they are proposing (tea party) don't actually work. Trickle down economics does not work. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% does not work. What does work is having a smaller divide economically between the poor and the rich. In terms of both innovation, as well as quality of life, the smaller the divide, the higher those will be and vice versa. The problem is that the Tea party seems to have convinced the poor that they're their representatives, despite the fact that it is overly apparent that they are doing their utmost to serve the corporate interests instead of their constituents.

If this issue did not have the possibility of f'ing over the entire world, I wouldn't care so much, but these people (tea party) should be fired at the very least. Destroying America should not be on the agenda, but that's exactly what these morons are trying to do.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The Democrats proposal gave the republicans a 3 for 1 advantage in terms of spending cuts verses taxing millionaires and billionaires. That is so out of balance that it's ridiculous and the republicans (tea party) said no. That's blame worthy. You can't have a fringe element holding the whole group hostage, especially when the dems came more than half way across the border to get a deal done. That's practically bending the Dems over for what they stand for.

The thing is that the ideas that they are proposing (tea party) don't actually work. Trickle down economics does not work. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% does not work. What does work is having a smaller divide economically between the poor and the rich. In terms of both innovation, as well as quality of life, the smaller the divide, the higher those will be and vice versa. The problem is that the Tea party seems to have convinced the poor that they're their representatives, despite the fact that it is overly apparent that they are doing their utmost to serve the corporate interests instead of their constituents.

If this issue did not have the possibility of f'ing over the entire world, I wouldn't care so much, but these people (tea party) should be fired at the very least. Destroying America should not be on the agenda, but that's exactly what these morons are trying to do.

Tax breaks for everybody does work and the only tax breaks that has been put foreward since Clinton was across the board. What Obama wants is more money to spend. It won't help the poor by spending the rich's money. Obama hasn't done any good with borrowed money. Why would you think money taken from the rich would fair any better?

The poor's lot will only improve as the economy does. The government can't improve the economy. That takes the rich. Nobody has come up with a job creation model that doesn't take citizens with money in their pockets. Nothing else creates non-government jobs.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Tax breaks for everybody does work and the only tax breaks that has been put foreward since Clinton was across the board. What Obama wants is more money to spend. It won't help the poor by spending the rich's money. Obama hasn't done any good with borrowed money. Why would you think money taken from the rich would fair any better?

The poor's lot will only improve as the economy does. The government can't improve the economy. That takes the rich. Nobody has come up with a job creation model that doesn't take citizens with money in their pockets. Nothing else creates non-government jobs.

What's wrong with the need for more money to spend. They're currently having an issue with paying down the debt. They need money to do that. You can either get that money by hurting the poor, or by "hurting" the rich. The poor don't really have much, so getting a 3 trillion dollar cut in social security/medicare/medicaid is hurting the poor. The least that the rich could do is accept a little hurt in comparison to how much the impact of those services getting cut will impact the poor.

Really, when you make 250K+ a year, the difference between say 80K and 85K in taxes is not that big a deal. If I was making that much money, 5K would not be a huge difference. If I was making 10 million a year or something like that, that impact would be even less.

Bush and Obama's bailouts stabilized the economy so it didn't go completely in the crapper. Yes, it's not great right now, but if the worst case scenario happened and the economy went into a depression, that wouldn't be good for anyone (that's what we're facing now)

I actually agree with you that the poor's lot will only improve with non governmental jobs. The problem is that a lot of larger companies export their jobs to lower wage places. Apple could make 50% profit on their products if they had their workers all in the US, but they make everything in China and rake in even more dough. There is a problem with the fact that corporations by law are bound to make the most profits possible. The fact that it's cheaper in many cases to either export jobs or have machines do it does not make things easy for the every day person.

The rich may be job creators, but recently that's only been benefiting the unemployed in India and China or any other 3rd world country providing near slave labour. I suppose next the congress will try to scrap the mandatory minimum wage so they can get those cheap jobs in the states as well.

One way they could make more jobs, albeit temporary, would be to enable a temporary tax of 3% on anyone making 250K+ and funnel all that revenue directly into repairing the infrastructure that's crumbling in the country. It would help to get some jobs going in construction, and repair something that's imminently becoming a problem.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Why are you calculating it as percentage of GDP? Is the government ripping itself off if they don't get a certain percentage of GDP? Look at the actual dollars taken in. Of course if you lower taxes you will be taking in a lower percentage of GDP.

Because that captures your all important claim that lower taxes improve economic activity.

If you look at pure receipts, then the patter is the same but they went down strongly until 03 rather than 04, moved back up until 07 then dropped again.

Better? It still shows your claim was invalid.

[yads]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

There is so much wrong with your post but this really stood out in not only its ignorance but also the arrogance. I don't understand why its such a problem to ask all members of the society to contribute more during times of hardship. The middle class and poor are going to pay no matter what happens.

Calgaryborn and Cowperson are absolutely correct when they say that the vast majority of taxes is paid for by the rich.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
...
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

What's wrong with the need for more money to spend. They're currently having an issue with paying down the debt. They need money to do that. You can either get that money by hurting the poor, or by "hurting" the rich. The poor don't really have much, so getting a 3 trillion dollar cut in social security/medicare/medicaid is hurting the poor. The least that the rich could do is accept a little hurt in comparison to how much the impact of those services getting cut will impact the poor.

Really, when you make 250K+ a year, the difference between say 80K and 85K in taxes is not that big a deal. If I was making that much money, 5K would not be a huge difference. If I was making 10 million a year or something like that, that impact would be even less.

Bush and Obama's bailouts stabilized the economy so it didn't go completely in the crapper. Yes, it's not great right now, but if the worst case scenario happened and the economy went into a depression, that wouldn't be good for anyone (that's what we're facing now)

I actually agree with you that the poor's lot will only improve with non governmental jobs. The problem is that a lot of larger companies export their jobs to lower wage places. Apple could make 50% profit on their products if they had their workers all in the US, but they make everything in China and rake in even more dough. There is a problem with the fact that corporations by law are bound to make the most profits possible. The fact that it's cheaper in many cases to either export jobs or have machines do it does not make things easy for the every day person.

The rich may be job creators, but recently that's only been benefiting the unemployed in India and China or any other 3rd world country providing near slave labour. I suppose next the congress will try to scrap the mandatory minimum wage so they can get those cheap jobs in the states as well.

One way they could make more jobs, albeit temporary, would be to enable a temporary tax of 3% on anyone making 250K+ and funnel all that revenue directly into repairing the infrastructure that's crumbling in the country. It would help to get some jobs going in construction, and repair something that's imminently becoming a problem.

They aren't having a problem paying down the debt they are having a problem servicing the debt and offering all of the other services they are providing. Good luck paying down the debt when you can't even balance the budget.

How about a temporary tax on everyone. You would increase the revenue significantly if everyone were paying something.

Another way to increase revenues would be to crack down hard on businesses employing illegal aliens stealing jobs from Americans and not paying one penny in taxes and then send the illegal aliens back to their own country and let them come in through the legal channels.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I actually agree with you that the poor's lot will only improve with non governmental jobs. The problem is that a lot of larger companies export their jobs to lower wage places. Apple could make 50% profit on their products if they had their workers all in the US, but they make everything in China and rake in even more dough. There is a problem with the fact that corporations by law are bound to make the most profits possible. The fact that it's cheaper in many cases to either export jobs or have machines do it does not make things easy for the every day person.

The rich may be job creators, but recently that's only been benefiting the unemployed in India and China or any other 3rd world country providing near slave labour. I suppose next the congress will try to scrap the mandatory minimum wage so they can get those cheap jobs in the states as well.

That's globalization for you. Just living inside a contrived border doesn't mean you should get paid more for what amounts to the same productivity as these other sources of labor. Gone are the days where you could go into a factory work a menial job and be able to afford a detached home in the suburbs and a family sedan out front.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That's globalization for you. Just living inside a contrived border doesn't mean you should get paid more for what amounts to the same productivity as these other sources of labor. Gone are the days where you could go into a factory work a menial job and be able to afford a detached home in the suburbs and a family sedan out front.

Indeed. Of course, as fuel prices rise, and the cost of shipping widgets from China to Long Beach grows prohibitive, it may once again become economically viable to make widgets on Ohio. The number variables is manifold, however, so this is all speculation...

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Because that captures your all important claim that lower taxes improve economic activity.

If you look at pure receipts, then the patter is the same but they went down strongly until 03 rather than 04, moved back up until 07 then dropped again.

Better? It still shows your claim was invalid.

No it shows a quick turn around after 9/11. You don't seem to recall what happened to the economy as a result of 9/11. The recovery afterwards was remarkable. You can't look at the receipts in the year of a tax increase or decrease. It takes time for those things to work through the economy. My point is valid: Revenue increased with lower taxes.

[KTrain]

Thought this was funny in a sad, sad way.

Apple now has more cash to spend than the United States government.

Latest figures from the US Treasury Department show that the country has an operating cash balance of $73.7bn (£45.3bn).

Apple's most recent financial results put its reserves at $76.4bn (£46.9bn).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470