Gipper
Well-Known Member
Even if they could take another trillion from the private sector in taxes, imagine what that would do to the economy. These people are complete economic idiots.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
BO Needs a Trillion...
- Thread starter Gipper
- Start date
Even if they could take another trillion from the private sector in taxes, imagine what that would do to the economy. These people are complete economic idiots.
Werbung:
This is simply another statement that any deal needs to be "tax the rich" -- since it is estimated that ending the Bush Tax cuts for those making $250,000 plus would generate $80 billion a year -- or $800 billion over 10 years.
trouble is they need a trillion a year as there is zero chance any real cuts happen. even that wont cover it given the geometric growth of the parasite population
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Exactly! They cannot get enough from the rich to make a dent in the deficit. It HAS to be done through cuts.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
They cant get enough from the middle class either. In fact if they raise the tax rates on the rich, the middle and even the poor all of them together won't be enough to raise the cash needed to cover the expenses.
It would be like trying to pay the looming credit card bill by having a garage sale, a yard sale, and a lemonade stand all together. The only way to pay that huge credit card bill is to cancel the cable, the daily latte, dinners at fancy restaurants, and any other unnecessary expense. The only way to become prosperous is to stop running up the credit card by spending more than you earn.
Meanwhile, as we speak the gov is spending record amounts of money, has enacted the largest tax increase (obamacare) in the history of mankind, and is taxing every single person with assets (rich or poor) in the US at record rates in the form of printing money. The result has been a dismal economy, probably a lost decade.
The Laffer curve tells us that a zero percent tax rate would result in no revenue, a 100% tax rate would result in no revenue, and that somewhere in the middle there is an optimal tax rate that results in the highest revenue. If the present rate is above the optimal then it is hurting the economy and it must be lowered. If the present rate is below the optimal then there is room to raise it. That's the theory anyway.
In practice we learn that no matter what the rate the revenue collected never exceeds about 21 % and never falls below 16%. Any tax rate above 21% is harming people with no benefit to government revenue and any rate as low as 16% helps a whole lot of people with no harm done to the government. Lower rates on the poor help the poor, lower rates on the middle class help the middle class, and lower rates on the rich help the rich. We have a duty to try to help everyone by having the lowest rates possible. The growth in the economy and the widespread prosperity would be a benefit to every single person in the country.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You make sense Doc. Problem is the a-holes running our nation have no sense. For Obama's economic adviser to say the government needs another trillion plus to reduce the deficit, he is obviously a fool. Of course, looking at it from another perspective, he is correct. They do need over a trillion in revenue to stop deficit spending. This would seem to indicate they have no intention of making relevant cuts, which most of us expected.
Your reference to a lost decade is an apt one. Because that is exactly what will happen. It could turn out to be lost DECADES...much like Japan thanks to the bumbling Keynesian's running our government.
The bigger issue that the fools in DC and most of the media refuse to discuss, is the $200+ Trillion the government faces in unfunded liabilities. The government WILL ultimately default, but not before they try all sorts of idiotic policies that will only make matters worse.
its the excuse to have shared sacrifice. there is never enough tax revenue
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
We would be hard pressed to follow the Japanese model MORE closely. What we are doing is almost exactly the same. From wiki:
"
The strong economic growth of the 1980s ended abruptly at the start of the 1990s. In the late 1980s, abnormalities within the Japanese economic system had fueled a massive wave of speculation by Japanese companies, banks and securities companies. The combination of exceptionally high land values and low interest rates briefly resulted in heightened liquidity in the market. It led to massive borrowing and heavy investment mostly in domestic and foreign stocks and securities.
Recognizing that this bubble was unsustainable, the Finance Ministry sharply raised interest rates in late 1989. This policy caused the bursting of the bubble, and the stock market crashed. The debt crisis also followed, and the government had to bail out banks, which were now loaded with bad debts.
Michael Schuman of Time magazine noted that banks kept injecting new funds into unprofitable "zombie firms" to keep them afloat, arguing that they were too big to fail. However, most of these companies were too debt-ridden to do much more than survive on bail-out funds, and an economist described Japan as a "loser's paradise." Schuman stated that Japan's economy did not begin to recover until this practice had ended.[3]
Eventually, many became unsustainable, and a wave of consolidation took place, resulting in only four national banks in Japan. Many Japanese firms were burdened with heavy debts, and it became very difficult to obtain credits. Even in 2012, the official interest rate is at 0.1%[4] and had been very low for several years. Many borrowers turned to sarakin (loan sharks) for loans.
The 1990s therefore was the "lost decade" when the economy contracted or grew at a paltry rate. The impact on everyday life was muted, however. Unemployment rates were high, but not at a crisis level. With the traditional Japanese emphasis on frugality and saving, an impact on an average Japanese family was quite limited, whose standard of living did not deteriorate significantly from what it was in the 1980s.[citation needed]
Despite the economic recovery in the 2000s, conspicuous consumption of the 1980s such as lavish spending on whiskey and cars did not return for the most part.[5] Difficult times in the 1990s made people frown on ostentatious display of wealth, while Japanese firms such as Toyota and Sony which had dominated the industry in the 1980s had to fend off strong competition from rival firms based in South Korea, Taiwan, and other countries. Many Japanese companies replaced a large part of their workforce with temporary workers, who had little job security and fewer benefits. As of 2009, these non-traditional employees made up more than a third of the labor force.[6] As of August 2012, the nation's economy has still not been able to recover from the early 1990s crash.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)
In trading short term pain for long term stagnation they have harmed their economy in ways that it has still not recovered from. What economies need is for the natural pain to run its course - something all recessions in the US have done in the past in about two years. We could have been done with this years ago.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Not ALL recessions, but nearly all. Had the two fools Hoover and FDR allowed the pain to occur in the 1930s, rather than constantly interfering in the economy with ineffective programs and laws, the Great Depression would also have ended much more quickly. So we are not only following in Japan's footsteps, but also making the same mistakes committed by two of our most worthless presidents.
BO even stated he intends to follow FDR's plan. AMAZINGLY STUPID!!! And the Rs say nothing.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Additionally Bernake even stated that he was following the Japanese model.
So here we have two of the people in charge of the economy and both of them are modeling what they are doing after failed past attempts.
Yes you are right about the depression. The only reason I did not reference it is because techically it is not listed among recessions.
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Bernanke is printing 40 billion a month indefinitely for mortgage debt. They are keeping this ecomony afloat artifically.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...illion-in-mortgage-securities-each-month.html
This isn't even part of the extra trillion BO wants.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...illion-in-mortgage-securities-each-month.html
This isn't even part of the extra trillion BO wants.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
nd the Richard get the most benefit from it. Not because they are smarter or positioned better but no doubt by design.
Werbung:
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
I think the logic was to buy up mortgage debt from the banks, so that they would free up money to loan for starting/expanding businesses. Somehow they think this is going to prevent unemployment from going up.
