Candidate: I'm not a disciple of Ayn Rand

[Root of Jesse]

That's what I'm concerned about. No one saying what needs to get done. Increase taxes (particularly on the rich) and cut military and any unnecessary social service spending, as these take up the two biggest portions of our government.

When you increase taxes on the rich without eliminating all the loopholes, you actually take in less money, because the rich have ways of stuffing money where it's hard to find. But if you eliminate all the loopholes, you leave those that are less than rich paying more of the burden. The way to increase revenue is to flatten taxes across the board, exempting those below a certain rate totally. The best way to do this is a flat tax, which is a tax on consumption, not on income. Have a way of rebating taxes for those making less than, say, just to throw out a number, $25,000 a year.

The way it is now, with half the country not paying any income taxes, is not fair. And when 'the rich' already pay half of their income in taxes, pretty soon you're squeezing blood from a turnip.

The other thing to remember is that there' not that many rich. The other thing to remember is that, while lots of people say that we should tax the rich more, including many in Hollywood, those saying it are doing nothing voluntarily to help pay down the debt. Including Obama and Romney. And Alec Baldwin, etc. There is nothing wrong with making a donation of your excess wealth to the Federal Government...

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Well, there is that whole debt we owe that's not slowing down but increasing....

Yeah but the thing about the debt is that America owns most of it to itself.

The biggest investors in American T-bills are:

1) The Federal Reserve and intergovernmental agencies (mostly the SSA)
2) State and local governments
3) American commercial banks
4) Private American citizens
5) American Pension funds

Together the above own ..... let me go check

{time passes}

Quick math about 10 trillion dollars of the debt.

Hey, since we all grow with the economy we'll benefit from it.

This is why, personally I don't worry about the debt. We own, we control it, and we get paid back from it.

 

[Fantine]

Many economists mention a value-added tax (a national sales tax, with a little added at each step of production.)

Most other industrialized companies have them.

I sort of like the small fee added on to stock transactions. As someone near retirement who will depend at least partially on the success of our investments, I strongly dislike the slot machine atmosphere of today's stock market. I'm not advising that people buy and hold forever, even when fundamentals change, but there are too many people going in and out indiscriminately based on gossip.

It hurts all investors. This small tax would add stability to the stock market and bring in much needed revenue (and would affect the biggest investors the most.)

Have you all forgotten that when Clinton raised taxes the stock market and the economy boomed and he left office with a surplus?

So much for conventional Republican wi?dom.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Many economists mention a value-added tax (a national sales tax, with a little added at each step of production.)

Most other industrialized companies have them.

I sort of like the small fee added on to stock transactions. As someone near retirement who will depend at least partially on the success of our investments, I strongly dislike the slot machine atmosphere of today's stock market. I'm not advising that people buy and hold forever, even when fundamentals change, but there are too many people going in and out indiscriminately based on gossip.

It hurts all investors. This small tax would add stability to the stock market and bring in much needed revenue (and would affect the biggest investors the most.)

Have you all forgotten that when Clinton raised taxes the stock market and the economy boomed and he left office with a surplus?

So much for conventional Republican wi?dom.

The "conventional Republican wisdom is actually Democrat wisdom. JFK did the same thing, cutting taxes to increase revenue, long before Reagan. And it worked. The issue is that, whichever you do, you have to also cut the spending. This is not a problem of not enough revenue, it's a problem of too much spending. If we did away with things like the Department of Education, and some of the other bureacracies, IRS, if you have a flat tax, and trim the fat in those you keep, you can go a long way.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The "conventional Republican wisdom is actually Democrat

Democratic

wisdom. JFK did the same thing, cutting taxes to increase revenue, long before Reagan.

Yeah, but for two different reasons with two completely different outcomes.

The effective tax rate in the JFK era was about 30%. JFK cut the rate from 70% (I think) and closed the loophole in the IRS regs and made the tax rate 45% (I also think).

This was effectively a tax increase since the rate of taxes corporations and the rich were paying actually when up from 30% with the loopholes in place.

Reagan cut taxes flat out from whatever they were to 30% on the high end.

This just lower revenues and was a tax decrease which did nothing but cause the beginning of the shift of wealth from the middle class to the rich, thus putting us in the situation we are in today.

(before you waste the bandwidth claiming I have no proof would you be kind enough to do the basic, rudimentary research into the economic history of these two events to see what was actually going on ?)

And it worked.

Well, they both worked but the outcomes intended were completely different. JFK wanted to simplify the tax code and increase the effective tax rate.

Reagan just wanted to make sure the rich got richer.

The issue is that, whichever you do, you have to also cut the spending.

The pentagon would be a good place to start.

This is not a problem of not enough revenue, it's a problem of too much spending.

In the current case you are incorrect: Currently we as Americans are taxed less then we have been in about 60 years.(Again would you please look this up before claiming I'm making it up)

If we did away with things like the Department of Education, and some of the other bureacracies, IRS, if you have a flat tax, and trim the fat in those you keep, you can go a long way.

As the above chart shows you are again incorrect. Cutting department of Education and "other bureaucracies" whatever the means wouldn't have a dramatic effect on US spending. Defense, Healthcard and Pensions account for almost 75% of the budget. Pensions were paid for my the employees at least partially and are required to be paid back.

Healhcare is Healthcare.

And defense is evidently sacrosanct.

So I think you need to go back to the drawing board on possible soluitons to this whole thing.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Yeah but the thing about the debt is that America owns most of it to itself.

I am aware...and? What are we doing to stop the hemorrhaging? Will politicians make a stand when this thing reaches $20 trillion in deb or more? Are you going to say this in turn does not affect us that bad stateside or on a global scale?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yeah but the thing about the debt is that America owns most of it to itself.

The biggest investors in American T-bills are:

1) The Federal Reserve and intergovernmental agencies (mostly the SSA)
2) State and local governments
3) American commercial banks
4) Private American citizens
5) American Pension funds

Together the above own ..... let me go check

{time passes}

Quick math about 10 trillion dollars of the debt.

Hey, since we all grow with the economy we'll benefit from it.

This is why, personally I don't worry about the debt. We own, we control it, and we get paid back from it.

This might be why folks dont see the problem.

You cannot owe yourself - like living off a credit card without an income - and hope it turns out well.
States all over are in a very bad way.
Some claiming bankruptcy.
Some just paying min wage to service personnel - police, fire etc.
And yes - that does affect the folks trying to pay bills.

It is unsustainable - and one reason Social Security is just about gone - broke - may not be there for the next few generations.
The national debt has grown significantly in recent years due to rising annual deficits. A deficit occurs in any year the government spends more money than it takes in. Borrowing to make up the difference is added to the national debt -- technically referred to as the gross federal debt.
The gross debt has two components:



1) Debt held by the public -- money the government borrows on the open market from domestic or foreign investors; and


2) Intra-governmental debt -- money the government owes itself, as in the Social Security trust fund.

 

[Antigone]

You cannot owe yourself - like living off a credit card without an income - and hope it turns out well.

The state doesn't work like that.

Imagine you worked any minimum wage job and you wanted to move up in life. Imagine you took a course at the local community college for, say, theology. You would have to pay for these classes. Objectively, you are getting nothing in return except a piece of paper that says you've completed a theology course. Your cash-flow is objectively negative: you are spending money and you are not getting anything in return on which a pricetag can be placed and that can be sold in an instance. A theology course at a community college won't give you a big fat job in return to earn back the money. Objectively, the balance is negative.

But look at it the other way: the course has made you happier. It has given you a sense of fulfillment, and it has increased your self-worth and knowledge. You become happier and as a result, you are more productive at work and you are not ill as much as you used to be. Objectively, the cash flow is negative because you cannot easily, if at all, measure these effects, but it has improved your life.

That's the way the state works too. The debt of a country can be divided into two ways: commercial and investment. Commercial debt is money spent on projects like infrastructure, construction, heck, the president's loo seat for all I care. These can be measured. The second category, investment, is a little trickier because like your theology course, it cannot be measured but the effect is still there. A state can invest in healthcare and education (in the broadest sense - including Medicare and Medicaid and things like PBS, NPR and the NEA), which seems to be an endless cashflow, yet in return the people are healthier (good, affordable healthcare) and more intelligent/knowledgeable (good, affordable education). The more people profit from these services, the more they will cost and the greater the benefit to society.

 

[WarriorAngel]

We also have foreign obligations - Antigone.

 

[WarriorAngel]

And the we have Greece.... they didnt move up in life. Quite a mess.

 

[Antigone]

We also have foreign obligations - Antigone.

Yes, WA, you do. And they fit into the picture; the more you help out a different nation (if you go about it the right way, and let's just assume that waging war is not the right way; I'm with you there) the happier and healthier and more productive people become, and the less you'll have to help them in the future. Their productive workforce might now begin a booming economy and because they remember you being kind to them, you'll get first dibs on that massive Coltan deposits that they have just discovered and that you need for the production of mobile phones. They make a profit because they sell things, you gain a profit because you need these things for production.

And the we have Greece.... they didnt move up in life. Quite a mess.

Yeah, but the US isn't the one bearing the brunt of the Great Grecian Debacle.

And in any case, not intervening has far worse consequences because that would mean the country would collapse and you'd have an unemployment rate of about 100%. Also, you couldn't trade with that country anymore, which might not affect the US immediately, but the world economy's a series of dominoes and you'd get there eventually.

Should Greece - or the EU - have let things go this far? Of course not. But while I'm a big fan of learning from history, it's not actually possible yet to change it (though some here have tried).

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, WA, you do. And they fit into the picture; the more you help out a different nation (if you go about it the right way, and let's just assume that waging war is not the right way; I'm with you there) the happier and healthier and more productive people become, and the less you'll have to help them in the future. Their productive workforce might now begin a booming economy and because they remember you being kind to them, you'll get first dibs on that massive Coltan deposits that they have just discovered and that you need for the production of mobile phones. They make a profit because they sell things, you gain a profit because you need these things for production.

We gave loads of money out -and havent received a dime from the loanees.

IF we got back what we did to help other countries with interest - we would be now sitting pretty.

That aside - i used Greece as an example...

Yeah, but the US isn't the one bearing the brunt of the Great Grecian Debacle.

And in any case, not intervening has far worse consequences because that would mean the country would collapse and you'd have an unemployment rate of about 100%. Also, you couldn't trade with that country anymore, which might not affect the US immediately, but the world economy's a series of dominoes and you'd get there eventually.

Should Greece - or the EU - have let things go this far? Of course not. But while I'm a big fan of learning from history, it's not actually possible yet to change it (though some here have tried).

...because we could be going the same way.

If we ignore debt, if we ignore the problems - we might become Greece.
And it's scary that such a nation has gone this way.

And i do understand the world relies on one another. Unfortunately Obama is obtuse when it comes to worldly affairs and economics.
His only strength - he can campaign.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

This might be why folks dont see the problem.

You cannot owe yourself - like living off a credit card without an income - and hope it turns out well.
States all over are in a very bad way.
Some claiming bankruptcy.
Some just paying min wage to service personnel - police, fire etc.
And yes - that does affect the folks trying to pay bills.

It is unsustainable - and one reason Social Security is just about gone - broke - may not be there for the next few generations.
The national debt has grown significantly in recent years due to rising annual deficits. A deficit occurs in any year the government spends more money than it takes in. Borrowing to make up the difference is added to the national debt -- technically referred to as the gross federal debt.
The gross debt has two components:



1) Debt held by the public -- money the government borrows on the open market from domestic or foreign investors; and


2) Intra-governmental debt -- money the government owes itself, as in the Social Security trust fund.

I don't think you quite the situation.

This is not money we owe to ourselves (That's too vague a description to be useful)

Its money owed by the Federal Reserve to other people

10 trillion dollars of whats owed is to the American Government (at various levels) and to American commercial entries.

That's all I'm saying. But it's important for at least three reason:

1) American control their own destiny on the debt. The generally held idea that somehow the Chinese can break us or somehow own us is not true. They can't

2) Americans will be get vast majority of the profits from the internet on the debt. The generally held idea that somehow the debt is causing our us to bleed wealth to other countries is also not true

3) Americans with get two bites of the cheery on the debt. Debt is issue with the expectation that the loans will be used as investments and will create more more wealth than the original loan was worth. So not only will American get the majority of the profits for the interest they will also benefit from the investments made from the loans in the first place.

Now

Before you go off saying that none of any of this is true anymore or now or whatever I would point out that the Federal Reserve has never missed an interest payment on any of its loans, inflation is historically low and so are the interest payment on our loans.

The sum of all this means that EVERYBODY on the planet thinks our loans are a good deal and the the economy is (long term at least) sound.

We're not "printing money" that would cause inflation

We're not overextended that would cause the loan interest payments to go up

We're not having any trouble selling our bonds if we were that would indicate that the world thinks our economy is unsound.

Now: I'm not saying the debt isn't a problem, I'm just saying that it's not THE first problem we need to address. In fact I don't think it's even in the top 5 or 6.

You're free to disagree but when you do can you at least explain using macroeconomics and not inappropriate analogs why you disagree ?

 

[Fantine]

Congressman Ryan said in a speech today that he supports stronger trade regulations with China---although he opposed a bill that would impose stronger trade regulations with China.

He said he was against TARP--he voted for TARP.

He said he was against the GM bailout--he voted for the GM Bailout.

Obviously talking from both sides of his mouth.

 

[Vasallus]

None of that is true. Zero.

 

[Antigone]

None of that is true. Zero.

Now there's a convincing rebuttal.

You get marks for clarity and brevity, but your sentence composition could use a little flair and your source material seems to be lacking.

To be fair, Fantine didn't quote anyone either but at least she spelled it out.

 

[Antigone]

Relevant article: The Ayn Rand institute and its influence on the Tea Party.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

None of that is true.

None of what ?

Zero.

One.