Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

It appears you didn't listen closely to it okie..
"Too large a tax cut, could of course, result in inflation and insufficient future revenues."

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
but you still would have to collect more money than the government spends.

Is that possible?
I dont ever remember a time where the govt had money they refused to spend.

During the late 90's we had two solid years in a row of paying the debt off; when we talk about 'more than the government spends,' what we really mean is servicing the debt.

Which has to be done, it's not like we can just ignore it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

We can't ignore what Obama and his democrats have already done to damage the US economy and what
evil and radical plans Obama democrats have for the future of this countries economy... it ain't good.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I tell you what okie.. Let's go back to the tax rate under JFK. Can you agree to that?

Not necessarily. I agreed with his basic philosophy that tax rates can sometimes be enhanced by lowering rates. However, I do not necessarily endorse his exact rates, because I think they were still too high, at least with some margins.

I have proposed a table of margins and rates, and I am willing to debate those in terms of general outline. The exact numbers could be debated by the economists and experts.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Not necessarily. I agreed with his basic philosophy that tax rates can sometimes be enhanced by lowering rates. However, I do not necessarily endorse his exact rates, because I think they were still too high, at least with some margins.

Then it is you that needs to listen to him and pay attention to what he says okie. He clearly states that a tax rate that is too low will hurt the country.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It's no so much that the government has to collect more than they spend; it's the sloppy way in which they throw money away through pork and inefficiencies.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's no so much that the government has to collect more than they spend; it's the sloppy way in which they throw money away through pork and inefficiencies.

Inefficiences, maybe, but not pork; pork constitutes about 15 billion dollars of spending a year, which is absolutely nothing at all. Not even worth mentioning in a discussion of what to do to balance budgets.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

That's where most of you make that mistake - thinking $15 billion is too small to worry about.

With any budget, when you worry about your nickels and dimes, the dollars take care of themselves. That holds true whether it's a home budget, company budget, or government budget.

Look how our government lost track of billions in Iraq. Sloppy.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Perhaps so. However the practice is basically corrupting of both the legislators and the public. The notion that a well-connected elected official can "give" special benefits to his district, state or paying constituents, when, in fact, the gift consists of money borrowed and added debt for us all, is very corrosive to the core values of good governance. It breeds corruption among career politicians.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps so. However the practice is basically corrupting of both the legislators and the public. The notion that a well-connected elected official can "give" special benefits to his district, state or paying constituents, when, in fact, the gift consists of money borrowed and added debt for us all, is very corrosive to the core values of good governance. It breeds corruption among career politicians.

Fine with me, but don't pretend that it will lead to a balanced budget. I'm no pro-pork crusader, but ending pork isn't a solution to our problems and focusing on it is a disastrous plan.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I think the point is that if we can't persuade our elected officials to deal honestly with their private "gifts" of public money, we aren't likely to induce them to deal seriously with public debt. As long as they believe they can add to our debt with little restraint and then come back to tax us more when the debt rises to a dangerous level relative to GDP - we will continue to have the problem.

The fact is that our debt as a % of GDP is dangerously high and still rising. It doesn't matter much whether you assign the blame to the huge recent additions to entitlements; those that occurred in previous administrations; or spending on wars in the Middle east, the problem remains.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, As with anything, there must be a point where old habits change. That would be a good start, but they've been battling that one battle with almost every new congress. It seems every presidential candidate makes promises to change it, but doesn't. If they can't resolve that problem, others will also remain active.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think the point is that if we can't persuade our elected officials to deal honestly with their private "gifts" of public money, we aren't likely to induce them to deal seriously with public debt. As long as they believe they can add to our debt with little restraint and then come back to tax us more when the debt rises to a dangerous level relative to GDP - we will continue to have the problem.

Ending Pork has nothing at all to do with solving that problem. We need to come up with something like 500 billion in spending cuts to end the deficit without raising taxes; you are proposing going after maybe 15 billion in spending. There is a gigantic logical disconnect here.

I don't see how ending Pork spending will in any way incentivize elected officials to deal seriously with the public debt. Perhaps you can explain it to me? Are we going to restore their ability to put Pork in bills AFTER we've balanced the budgets? I can't figure out why you believe this would lead to them being any less corrupt. At all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, As with anything, there must be a point where old habits change. That would be a good start, but they've been battling that one battle with almost every new congress. It seems every presidential candidate makes promises to change it, but doesn't. If they can't resolve that problem, others will also remain active.

Obama didn't promise to end pork. He said exactly what I'm saying: that it's a distraction from the actual situation.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

From CNN Politics:

Quote:

Critics question Obama's pledge to end 'pork'

March 05, 2009

As a spending bill loaded with pork makes its way through Congress, President Obama is getting pushback from members of his own party who are questioning his vow to end wasteful spending.

The president on Wednesday pledged turn tide on an "era of fiscal irresponsibility," reiterating his campaign promise that the days of "pork ... as a strategy" are over.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And? Like I said, he never made a promise to eliminate pork, and your piece doesn't say that he did.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree with that. However he also championed enormous additions to the public debt at a moment in which we needed restraint. Whatever may be your view of what constitutes excessive taxation (from the perspective of economic growth) this is no time to significantly raise taxes.

I'm familiar with your argument from history involving the high marginal tax rates and high growth that occurred in the two decades following WWII. However, those weren't normal times - the world was rebuiilding after the destruction of WWII; there was enormous pent up demand here and abroad for anything we could produce; and demographically we had an enormous cadre of young folks entering the workforce. Those conditions don't exist today - quite the opposite.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

The Great Recession isn't normal times either so drastic action is needed. It is as close to a global depression as one can get. Many recent graduates are feeling the effects as there might not be many jobs for a few years.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree with that. However he also championed enormous additions to the public debt at a moment in which we needed restraint.

Austerity in the face of a crisis stemming from a lack of demand is the worst economic advice possible, George. It is truly ridiculous advice. And I would remind you that candidate Obama had this situation thrust on him by the previous administration's incompetence. You should understand that he certainly didn't run on adding a trillion dollars to the debt in order to help stimulate a failing economy.

Quote:

Whatever may be your view of what constitutes excessive taxation (from the perspective of economic growth) this is no time to significantly raise taxes.

I disagree completely with your position, in large part because there are no significant tax raise being considered by anyone. In historical terms, returning now to the previous Clinton tax rates only marks a modest change, certainly not enough to change anyone's behavior patterns to the level that you and others continually claim.

Quote:

I'm familiar with your argument from history involving the high marginal tax rates and high growth that occurred in the two decades following WWII.

Or the Clinton era, you don't need to stretch back into history to find evidence that your theory sucks.

Quote:

However, those weren't normal times - the world was rebuiilding after the destruction of WWII; there was enormous pent up demand here and abroad for anything we could produce; and demographically we had an enormous cadre of young folks entering the workforce. Those conditions don't exist today - quite the opposite.

There's no such thing as 'normal times.' Our modern day isn't normal, either; we are involved in 2 ongoing conflicts, both started by your party in the name of aggressive expansionism and both of which have cost us a tremendous amount of money - but with zero sacrifice asked of the populace. The major difference between the WW2 era and today is the total lack of responsibility on the part of the Republicans (and some Democrats) regarding wartime spending and what the population should be asked to sacrifice in order to support it. Bush and his cronies adopted this tack, because they KNEW the public wouldn't support austerity measures - responsible measures - to fund a war of choice.

If the Iraq war had never been undertaken, we wouldn't have half the fiscal problems we have today. But you guys continue yammering about tax rates, as if that was determinative of anything at all....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

George, you are confusing tax burden with marginal rates. The high marginal rates after the war didn't result in high tax burden because the amount of income that was protected from taxation kept the tax burden similar to what it is now.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know