120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in US History

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Obama could bring the USA out of the recession, bring peace to the Middle East, win the war in Afghanistan and send a successful mission to Mars and Azure wouldn't be happy.

Yes, because I'm an evil conservative who has shares in the military industrial complex, meaning I love war and people dying, especially in that hellhole called the Middle East. I also kill puppies for breakfast, kittens for lunch, and kids for supper.

I guess your best reply is to resort to hyperbole and stupidity.

But then again, I'm just a stupid, naive Palin supporter who thinks that rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes, and that the US government needs to collect and spend even more money that they actually don't even have.

Win/win for everyone involved. Especially those of us in Canada who are directly tied into how the US economy does.

I know! Lets spend another trillion dollars of government money. Maybe THAT will restart the economy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

If ever there was a country that needed tax hikes, it is the US... and let's be honest, all they are doing is not renewing tax cuts made by Bush that never should have been allowed to happen. They need major investment in social programs and re-invention of health care and education and they need money to do it.

No, they need major reform on their social programs, not major reinvestment. They already spend a record amount of money on healthcare.

I find it mind-boggling how you actually believe that the US should just pull another trillion dollars out of its ass to pay for 'social services.'

They don't have the money. They're already going bankrupt. You can't just spend even more. The whole system needs to be reworked.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, because I'm an evil conservative who has shares in the military industrial complex, meaning I love war and people dying, especially in that hellhole called the Middle East. I also kill puppies for breakfast, kittens for lunch, and kids for supper.

I guess your best reply is to resort to hyperbole and stupidity.

But then again, I'm just a stupid, naive Palin supporter who thinks that rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes, and that the US government needs to collect and spend even more money that they actually don't even have.

Win/win for everyone involved. Especially those of us in Canada who are directly tied into how the US economy does.

I know! Lets spend another trillion dollars of government money. Maybe THAT will restart the economy.

You forgot that you're also a closet racist.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You forgot that you're also a closet racist.

I was going to leave that for the "Obama is a Muslim" thread.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, they need major reform on their social programs, not major reinvestment. They already spend a record amount of money on healthcare.

I find it mind-boggling how you actually believe that the US should just pull another trillion dollars out of its ass to pay for 'social services.'

They don't have the money. They're already going bankrupt. You can't just spend even more. The whole system needs to be reworked.

And this I completely agree with, we have a funny thought process going on in the U.S and even in Canada that the failure in Social and Health programs is the fault of a lack of funds or the amount of money thats thrown at it, and that we can simply fix these problems by throwing money at it.

The U.S is spending over $7,000.00 per person on healthcare and Canada topped $5170.00. Both top 5 in the world.

There's a problem with effective spending and getting bang for the buck, not the amount of money spent.

Thats one of the reasons why Obama's health care reform isn't strong enough. Its one of the reasons why Canada's health care system is failing. We just throw money down a well and have no expectations that its being spent effectively and actually providing services.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's a problem with effective spending and getting bang for the buck, not the amount of money spent.

Thats one of the reasons why Obama's health care reform isn't strong enough. Its one of the reasons why Canada's health care system is failing. We just throw money down a well and have no expectations that its being spent effectively and actually providing services.

This is something that I'm intimately familiar with, and have heard this lament many a time.

Absent a single payer system#, the only way for the US to begin to curb their systemic costs is to promote and further publicize treatment guidelines, attempt novel ways to limit Medicare practices that abuse the system, promote trials for cost efficiency / clinical efficacy (CER), and promote exchanges to open up the marketplace.

All of these provisions (some in multiple, trial form for future assessment) are in the healthcare bill that is to be phased in, so I'm at a loss to understand what more the proponents of healthcare reform could want *for the time being*. Rather, we hear red herrings like tort reform and such that do not meaningfully impact costs or the fundamentals of the system (see Texas).

# I think there is little doubt that a single payer system in the US is a no go at this point politically, socially, and economically (wrt the associated industry).

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, because I'm an evil conservative who has shares in the military industrial complex, meaning I love war and people dying, especially in that hellhole called the Middle East. I also kill puppies for breakfast, kittens for lunch, and kids for supper.

I guess your best reply is to resort to hyperbole and stupidity.

But then again, I'm just a stupid, naive Palin supporter who thinks that rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes, and that the US government needs to collect and spend even more money that they actually don't even have.

Win/win for everyone involved. Especially those of us in Canada who are directly tied into how the US economy does.

I know! Lets spend another trillion dollars of government money. Maybe THAT will restart the economy.

No, I'm not accusing you of believing in all that crap. The point is that you don't like Obama and any move he makes, you want to see fail, to back up your opinion.

[SeeBass]

I think with some people there is no balance

If Obama walked on water they would claim that it's probably cause he can't swim.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

No, I'm not accusing you of believing in all that crap. The point is that you don't like Obama and any move he makes, you want to see fail, to back up your opinion.

Ever looked into the changes Obama made in the US educational system? After the atrocity that was NCLB, the changes he initiated might actually start the long process of fixing things.

His 'stay the course' approach in Iraq was also something he did right.

But these things are small compared to the economy. And I simply don't agree with the government spending a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that they don't even have and trying to jump start the economy.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ever looked into the changes Obama made in the US educational system? After the atrocity that was NCLB, the changes he initiated might actually start the long process of fixing things.

His 'stay the course' approach in Iraq was also something he did right.

But these things are small compared to the economy. And I simply don't agree with the government spending a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that they don't even have and trying to jump start the economy.

From what I understand, he's following the lessons learned from FDR in combating the Great Depression. Speaking of FDR.

Like Hoover, he saw the Depression caused in part by people no longer spending or investing because they were afraid.

Which led to his great quote,

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

It's a gamble but it seems the only way is to give the economy a kick start and saving the banks and the leading industries such as the automakers, should bring some confidence. It's going slow for the US because congress refuses to make any real changes to Wall street and the banking system and big business is holding back investing.

It may be that the US emerges from this set back as not the pre-eminent economy, but out gunned by Europe and China.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From what I understand, he's following the lessons learned from FDR in combating the Great Depression. Speaking of FDR.

The irony is that the depression was followed by the largest governmental monetary stimulus ever in the form of a world war.

The situation the US faced going into 2008 offered a problem for the conventional economic levers that are pushed and pulled. Interest rates to borrow were already low, and could not be meaningfully lowered any more. In that respect, the fed had maximized that specific incentive for businesses to borrow.

If businesses are not borrowing cash at historically low interest rates, that means they're reluctant to invest because they see a poor demand environment. Giving the businesses a marginal tax cut won't do anything different as they're not inclined to invest the money (read: meet expected increase in demand by hiring people).

As for the population, the tax cuts only help the employed and don't do anything to combat the number of unemployed. In an environment where businesses are not expanding, those with jobs are going to take their tax cut and save it* (which is what happened with the stimulus checks (income tax rebates) that Bush mailed out in 2008). When the employed save their money (the exact opposite of what is needed in the current climate), they reduce demand. Without demand, the businesses won't borrow and will look to increase productivity (layoffs / longer hours per employee).

The whole paradox of thrift deal, wrapped up in zero interest rate policy, means that the demand (read: business revenue) has to come from somewhere. If the population is not going to do it, then the government has to do it temporarily to smooth out the cycle for businesses.


* This is exactly what happened with the income tax rebates George W. Bush mailed out in 2008. By and large people kept the money instead of producing demand by spending it, which was the opposite of what was required/intended. This was similar to the outcome following the first one he did in 2003 wherein ~2/3 had spent a portion of the money 1 year after receiving it. This is why the attempt now is to maintain/produce demand (and garner a multiple on that spending) by funding infrastructure projects to attempt to dampen the large increase in unemployment.

[Shazam]

Quantitative easing has been happening for a while now.

Anyhow, this isn't the Great Depression. Not by a long shot.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From what I understand, he's following the lessons learned from FDR in combating the Great Depression. Speaking of FDR.



Which led to his great quote,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

It's a gamble but it seems the only way is to give the economy a kick start and saving the banks and the leading industries such as the automakers, should bring some confidence. It's going slow for the US because congress refuses to make any real changes to Wall street and the banking system and big business is holding back investing.

It may be that the US emerges from this set back as not the pre-eminent economy, but out gunned by Europe and China.

The trouble is every goverment for the last 50 years has been giving the economy a 'kick start'. Its like trying to get a car to accelerate when its already going at 120.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The trouble is every goverment for the last 50 years has been giving the economy a 'kick start'. Its like trying to get a car to accelerate when its already going at 120.

Sure, this may be the new reality but without the bailouts, it could have been worse. It may get worse yet and what the US government has done may come to nought, but I think they had to try. As in everything the future will tell.

[Calgaryborn]

Does anybody know if the money Bush lent the banks and they later paid back made it to the treasury? That was something like 800 billion wasn't it?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure, this may be the new reality but without the bailouts, it could have been worse. It may get worse yet and what the US government has done may come to nought, but I think they had to try. As in everything the future will tell.

Bailouts are the ugly result of a government not fixing the problems before they turned into a trillion dollar taxpayer 'problem.'

Did GM go bankrupt because of gross negligence and sheer stupidity? Not being willing to adapt to newer technologies, get with the times, etc, etc? By some accounts, that is exactly what happened.

And regardless of the result of a declared bankruptcy, the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for a company who can't stay afloat. Especially when numerous other similar 'car' companies didn't have problems THAT big.

But you're right, time will tell. I just don't think until the private sides starts investing their money that the economy will do anything. If I knew how to fix that, well someone would probably be paying me a lot of money.

Just don't think that a trillion dollar taxpayer tab was the right move. An ugly solution to an uglier problem.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Bailouts are the ugly result of a government not fixing the problems before they turned into a trillion dollar taxpayer 'problem.'

Did GM go bankrupt because of gross negligence and sheer stupidity? Not being willing to adapt to newer technologies, get with the times, etc, etc? By some accounts, that is exactly what happened.

And regardless of the result of a declared bankruptcy, the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for a company who can't stay afloat. Especially when numerous other similar 'car' companies didn't have problems THAT big.

But you're right, time will tell. I just don't think until the private sides starts investing their money that the economy will do anything. If I knew how to fix that, well someone would probably be paying me a lot of money.

Just don't think that a trillion dollar taxpayer tab was the right move. An ugly solution to an uglier problem.

You want the government to stay the hell out of big business, but you also lament the fact that the government didn't place enough controls on the GM bailout. You want the government to create jobs and improve the economy, but don't want them to be a substantial employer. You say you want the government to cut spending, but continue the military missions abroad. You sound like the archetype American conservative who demands services but wants them without cost.

It takes money to offer services. It takes money to build infrastructure. It takes money to make the improvements that make a country worthy of investment. This is where the United States is falling down. The infrastructure is failing and the reinvestment in infrastructure by the private sector is non-existent. This is why the government has to cough up the dough. Unfortunately, they rely on the private sector to implement projects and the mismanagement and profiteering in the American system is at an all time high. The failures of private enterprise to reinvest in the local economy has brought the system to its knees. Innovation is nonexistent and future profits are limited. These are the ramifications of developing a consumer oriented economy.

The trillion dollars pumped into the economy could have been more effective, except the enterprises that received the money turned around and took it as profit, banking it or investing it offshore. The only way the government could have prevented this was by putting in place huge restrictions on how the money could be used, but if they did that you would have complained the government was overstepping its boundaries and it was acting in a socialist manner.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From what I understand, he's following the lessons learned from FDR in combating the Great Depression. Speaking of FDR.



Which led to his great quote,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

It's a gamble but it seems the only way is to give the economy a kick start and saving the banks and the leading industries such as the automakers, should bring some confidence. It's going slow for the US because congress refuses to make any real changes to Wall street and the banking system and big business is holding back investing.

It may be that the US emerges from this set back as not the pre-eminent economy, but out gunned by Europe and China.

Do like Sweden did and create a negative intrest rate on the banks cash so they wont hold it.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I can't wait for this baby:



Will make all those years of running to work worth it...

Can I have a LADA?

Do they still make those?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Does anybody know if the money Bush lent the banks and they later paid back made it to the treasury? That was something like 800 billion wasn't it?

That block of money was effectively a give-away and effectively never meant to be returned. It included the cash that was given to AIG to meet demands of the counterparties in its CDO obligations (at the rate of 1 dollar on the dollar). This money went from AIG to American banks like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch as well as foreign banks like Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank.

The larger chunk of this money was earmarked to purchase mortgage backed securities that were well under water and which would bankrupt the holding institutions if they had to mark them to market. Therefore the Fed bought these MBS at inflated prices so that the banks could have cash reserves instead. They basically bought $2 per share stocks for $10 per share, on purpose.

I don't think there was ever any intention to pretend that this money was coming back. It was clearly presented as a one way transaction.