Where is the US economy headed?

Maybe its a little like having a 460 v-8 as compared to a measly 4 cylinder under the hood? A little bit of a headwind or something else might affect one greatly while you hardly notice the other, so yes, I can agree that if we are in a time of a roaring economy, a very small tax rate hike might work as projected, but if the engine is already running a bit anemic, and is sensitive to the slightest effect, a tax rate hike, like loading lead bricks into the trunk, especially alot of them, might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Maybe its a little like having a 460 v-8 as compared to a measly 4 cylinder under the hood? A little bit of a headwind or something else might affect one greatly while you hardly notice the other, so yes, I can agree that if we are in a time of a roaring economy, a very small tax rate hike might work as projected, but if the engine is already running a bit anemic, and is sensitive to the slightest effect, a tax rate hike, like loading lead bricks into the trunk, especially alot of them, might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It's true that there is a lot of confusion about what the long-term effects of tax hikes are; but not about the short-term effects.

I like to think of it (in a massively oversimplified way, heheeh!) as the same thing as my student loan situation: what percentage of my income should go to paying off the debt? Obviously, just as in the 'macro' situation, there are a large number of factors involved in the decision; but it's easy to see that the more I pay in the short term, the less long-term interest there will be.

We need to be paying something off in the short-run. I don't advocate crippling our economy by bumping taxes 15% overnight, but there's no reason why we couldn't have more of a focus on fiscal sanity for a while. And yes, this may slow the economy down a bit. But imagine if I never paid any interest on my loans, choosing instead to funnel all the money I would have used to pay my loans off, back into my everyday life. While my income is higher in the short run, it drops in the long run due to the nature of compound interest.

Nations can get in the same sort of financial trouble as people; our nations' 'credit score' is important when it comes to the foreign investment we rely upon to stay afloat. We are close to the edge of serious problems right now with our international credit, and should take some action before things get worse.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There needs to be a relationship between income/revenue and spending. Without considering the spending side, whatever happens to revenue will have very little meaning.

0 Replies

The problem I see, cyclops is which comes first, spending or paying for the spending? Many people get into the trap of seeing more money coming in, so they spend more before they even get it. This is the reason pay day loans, or rip off artists I call them, proliferate. And now we see people spending their income tax refunds long before they receive them. Irresponsible people always spend more than they make, no matter the amount.

And I think government is just like an irresponsible citizen, no matter the amount we give it, they will overspend it Once the politicians see the likelihood or hope of more government revenue, they are already busy instituting more programs to utilize the revenues before they even receive it. And once a program is instituted, it is rare to ever get it rolled back.

So, conservative Republicans see this effect, and so there is a great reluctance to see taxes raised. We instead cling to the hope that increasing deficits will encourage a reduction of spending increases to fight the problem of the fast growth of bloated government. In other words, if we refuse to give a higher percentage of our money, spending will have to be limited. We believe the government should be able to live on the percentage given it now. Unfortunately, there is a larger and larger percentage of people that pay no income tax, so they have no hesitation to continue to demand more services.

I agree with the philosophy of being responsible and paying more as we go, and to a degree, the Republican congress of the 90's was able to make some headway in this regard.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The problem I see, cyclops is which comes first, spending or paying for the spending? Many people get into the trap of seeing more money coming in, so they spend more before they even get it. This is the reason pay day loans, or rip off artists I call them, proliferate. And now we see people spending their income tax refunds long before they receive them. Irresponsible people always spend more than they make, no matter the amount.

And I think government is just like an irresponsible citizen, no matter the amount we give it, they will overspend it Once the politicians see the likelihood or hope of more government revenue, they are already busy instituting more programs to utilize the revenues before they even receive it. And once a program is instituted, it is rare to ever get it rolled back.

So, conservative Republicans see this effect, and so there is a great reluctance to see taxes raised. We instead cling to the hope that increasing deficits will encourage a reduction of spending increases to fight the problem of the fast growth of bloated government. In other words, if we refuse to give a higher percentage of our money, spending will have to be limited. We believe the government should be able to live on the percentage given it now. Unfortunately, there is a larger and larger percentage of people that pay no income tax, so they have no hesitation to continue to demand more services.

I agree with the philosophy of being responsible and paying more as we go, and to a degree, the Republican congress of the 90's was able to make some headway in this regard.

I agree that the Republican congress did a good job in the 90's, though you will admit that most of the savings came from a reduced military budget - something that Republicans wouldn't do in a million years today.

Spending. We're in a bind, where the vast majority of constituents in America don't want to see social security or Medicare/aid cut, and a significant majority don't want to see defense cut. But without cutting some of those, we can't balance the budget unless we raise taxes significantly. So I don't see any way around it; it isn't as if the public are going to change their minds about SS any time soon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Not only that, all hell is going to break loose when the baby-boomers begin to retire, and they learn they're not going to get the benefits promised while paying into the system.

I personally don't have a problem, because I'm 71 years old, and we have enough personal savings to carry us through.

0 Replies

I support universl health care, and so does the majority of Americans.

From the NYT:

March 2, 2007
Most Support U.S. Guarantee of Health Care
By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

okie, It's not, I repeat, it's not a liberal issue.

0 Replies

We already have universal health care, cicerone, although it isn't the kind you want. If you want to debate this issue, I would suggest starting a new thread, or is there one already? I am for important changes in the system we have, but I am not in favor of the government forcing their health care down the throat of every man, woman, and child in this country.

I would like to see a poll and see how many Americans want the government to provide a minimum form of housing to every American. If a majority wants it, is that also a good idea, cicerone?

0 Replies

okie, It's obvious you do "miss the point." Universal health care directly affects our economy; one of the reasons the big three automakers are no longer the "big three." International competition for goods and services is an important issue to our economy;

0 Replies

I know it obviously affects the economy, but I think it is a side issue to the economy, as it is really a major issue by itself. Go ahead and debate the point, but do you really think we need another bureaucracy to break the bank even further. After all, I thought you were concerned the country was going broke.

Bush's stupid prescription drug plan was another bad idea that will cost the country trillions before it is over.

0 Replies

Quote:

Go ahead and debate the point, but do you really think we need another bureaucracy to break the bank even further.

The question is, will it break the bank more than the current system is breaking the backs of our citizens and companies?

The profits of the health insurance industries are another thing which I'm not really too concerned about, though it plays a huge role in this. I've long held the opinion that health insurance should be required to be non-profit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Should we also make the oil companies non-profit, or the hardware store non-profit, or whatever non-profit? Good grief,cyclops, have you lost your marbles?

0 Replies

okie, You are making claims that are being challenged by those who support universal health care as being "more efficient." It takes away the "profit motive" from insurance companies, and transfers those same monies to actually help people who need medicare care. It cuts admininstrtative and profit costs, and spreads the benefit of health care to all of our citizens.

0 Replies

The profit motive saves all of us money. Why would you want to eliminate the very thing that helps us?

0 Replies

okie, Oil companies has nothing to do with universal health care.

If you want to talk about the cost of energy, that's the failing of our government for not demanding better fuel efficiency and aternative fuels.

It's also about the speed limits in our country that guzzles more fuel.

Oil is a international commodity with international market supplies and demand. You're talking through your hat. US universal health care is about the US quality, supply and demand on our medical care that has very little impact internationally. Those who can afford it may come to the US for their health care, but that will not effect our quality, supply and demand internally - like oil.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Oil companies has nothing to do with universal health care.

If you want to talk about the cost of energy, that's the failing of our government for not demanding better fuel efficiency and aternative fuels.

It's also about the speed limits in our country that guzzles more fuel.

Oil is a international commodity with international market supplies and demand. You're talking through your hat. US universal health care is about the US quality, supply and demand on our medical care that has very little impact internationally. Those who can afford it may come to the US for their health care, but that will not effect our quality, supply and demand internally - like oil.

One of the reasons the cost of health care is already out of control is because it is not sufficiently subject to the free market system as other goods and services are. Going to a 100% government system is only going to increase cost, and probably decrease quality.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, Oil companies has nothing to do with universal health care.

If you want to talk about the cost of energy, that's the failing of our government for not demanding better fuel efficiency and aternative fuels.

It's also about the speed limits in our country that guzzles more fuel.

Oil is a international commodity with international market supplies and demand. You're talking through your hat. US universal health care is about the US quality, supply and demand on our medical care that has very little impact internationally. Those who can afford it may come to the US for their health care, but that will not effect our quality, supply and demand internally - like oil.

One of the reasons the cost of health care is already out of control is because it is not sufficiently subject to the free market system as other goods and services are. Going to a 100% government system is only going to increase cost, and probably decrease quality.

I believe that what you have written here is 100% false.

Can you provide proof that part of the reason that costs of health care are out of control being 'too much regulation?'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I believe that what you have written here is 100% false.

Can you provide proof that part of the reason that costs of health care are out of control being 'too much regulation?'

Cycloptichorn

I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I believe that what you have written here is 100% false.

Can you provide proof that part of the reason that costs of health care are out of control being 'too much regulation?'

Cycloptichorn

I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

wowzer.

0 Replies

It's no use trying to discuss a topic with anyone who refuses to understand what he/she is talking about.

okie wrote: I did not say it was due to too much regulation. I said it was due to not being sufficiently subject to the free market.

Show us why it's not "sufficiently subject to the free market?"

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know