it is like i tried to explain to con earlier, both bases need to hear some painful truths, spending needs to be cut, and taxes raised/revenue increased.....con wants to pretend that only cuts need to happen, that we are realistically going to gut a trillion dollars out of the budget, and that we won't feel any fallout from it....like i said in an earlier post, we cut taxes, we cut them again, and again, and then some more, and where has that gotten us? both sides continue to spend(con thinks it is ok as long as it is a republican doing the spending)...with the repub mantra of 'tax cuts cure everything', it is akin to someone who has taken out a loan on a 200,000 dollar home, and as soon as they sign the papers, go into work, and ask to be put on part time hours , knowing that they now have a mortgage to pay on..we continue to spend, but deny ourselves the ability to pay for said spending.
Again, your being silly if you believe the crash was preventable in 2007.
good post....it is just aggravating to watch the games being played, while the country, financially, goes down the crapper...See, the thing is that the Democrats aren't actually against spending cuts. This is just the picture that the GOP has spent the last decade painting. They create that image by offering ridiculous spending cuts all aimed at exactly the programs Democrats are least willing to cut, because this way they know the Democrats will shoot it down.
The rough equivalent would be the Democrats offering up a 10% increase in top marginal tax rate and simultaneously a 30% cut in military spending and then pointing fingers at the Republicans for not going along with it. See? See? The GOP doesn't want to cut the deficit!!!!!
Democrats want to cut spending. We just also happen to think that the very poor shouldn't be the only people to sacrifice something to fix this problem. We also tend not to think of military spending as sacred.
It's already Obama's economy. But to attempt to place all responsibility for the crash and all debt and deficits incurred on Obama is the height of dishonesty.How do you justify the results in 2011? When does this become the Obama economy?
This sounds suspiciously like you're falling for the trap of binary thinking. It is, of course, both. Tax rate * GDP = revenue.
In one post you're saying revenue is only a function of GDP, but in this block you're saying it isn't a function of GDP at all, it is a function of the size of government.
Revenue = gdp * tax rate.
We dropped the tax rates like crazy, forcing deficit spending and forcing our safety net to fall far behind the rest of the first world. As a result, the foundations of our society started to fall apart. Investment far outstripped consumption, so the market corrected.
We've been around 20% several times. 1945, 1969, 1981, and 2000.
What are you talking about? You are saying that not being super rich is "acting stupidly"?
Using silly characterizations to depict the middle class as greedy while fetishizing the rich is obviously silly
If middle class people in the US still got the same slice of the GDP that they got in the 60s the median household income in the US would be over $140k/year. Instead it is $44k.
That's the cost of this process of shoveling money into the pockets of the rich you are defending- about $100k per year per household.
To respond to that situation by trying to demonize the middle class as being stupid for wanting to at least preserve their current quality of life is disgusting to me.
It's already Obama's economy. But to attempt to place all responsibility for the crash and all debt and deficits incurred on Obama is the height of dishonesty.
Justify? What do you want me to justify exactly? What results are you referring to? What I know for a fact is that after action was taken, things got better. 2011 is slowing down as the stimulus is running out, which was pretty much expected from everyone.
this is demonstratably incorrect - else, wild swings in the tax rates would have produced some kind of notable swing in revenue. in fact the opposite is true - we have collected more revenue as tax rates decreased in the last 30 years.
if that were true, then lowering the tax rates would result in an equal and direct lowering of revenue. instead, we have repeatedly seen the opposite; from Kennedy, to Reagan, to Clinton, to Bush.
I would like you to explain how lower taxes destroyed savings?
in 1965 Revenue was 19.7% of GDP
... of course, that was after Kennedy had lowered the tax rates.... and so achieving that high would have been impossible under your "revenue = GDP * rate" theory. In 1981 it was 19.6% of GDP, and in 2000 it hit 20.6% after Clinton.... cut taxes.
no, i'm saying that the behaviors that usually cause people to be poor are "acting stupidly". not finishing high school. having kids before you are married. getting hooked on government benefits. choosing not to work full time.
so? why should I care what people who make more than me get, so long as what I am getting has increased?
equitable redistribution of income around the globe has not exactly tended to produce vibrant, powerful, rapidly growing economies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?