
Did anyone watch the Daily Show's coverage of it? It was a beautiful thing.
Basically they juxtaposed one of those hack academics for hire from the Cato Institute talking about how increasing taxes on the top 2% would "only raise 700 billion over 10 years, which is a pittance" and the usual Fox drivel on how the "makers" (I'm assuming they were referring to the makers of financial debacles and economic depressions) pay too much and those worthless "takers" who pay no income tax should pay their fair share, against a calculation that in order to raise 700 billion from the bottom 50% (AGI <33k) you'd have to take half of what they earn.... Apparently, the "takers" don't have it so badly since more than 99% of them own a refrigerator and an eye-popping 25% even own a dishwasher! |
This just points out that no matter what, there isn't enough money to make a dent into our monstrous debt and spending. Therefore all efforts must be made to make deep cuts in spending and try to expand the private sector while shrinking the goverment. Taxes are not the issue. |
Long term, yes. Short term, absolutely wrong. There is no private demand right now to jump start the economy, and if the economy contracts, the tax base will contract even more, so it doesn't matter how much you cut, you'll never make a dent in the deficit. At the end of it, our infrastructure will be near collapse, our government services will be in utter decay, and our brave soldiers will have to ride on cows into battle armed with slingshots. |
dont need to cut at all. just need to freeze spending and the budget will be under control in 4 years. |
Taxes ARE the issue. We want things and we don't want to pay for them. "Deep cuts in spending" means defense, social security, and medicare. When America is willing to own up to that, maybe you will be right. Until then we need to pay our bills like anyone else. |
what would be so bad about freezing spending at todays bloated and obese levels for 7 years? that would do wonders. |
You would find out if you had to actually decide what those cuts mean. What does it mean to freeze social security? Should people's checks just start getting smaller because there are more old people and the same amount of money? How about medicare? Are you going to ration it or ban certain procedures or pay the doctors less? You can't freeze spending on programs where the population grows without reducing benefits. The republicans cant decide what to do on these. So how easy can it be? |
You posted this before, we responded before, and you wandered away before. The issue is inflation, obviously. A 7-year freeze means a 20% cut in real dollars - a military 20% weaker, 20% less money for old people living only on social security, etc. If you're good with that, keep recommending that solution. If you don't understand inflation and real dollars, you shouldn't be supporting any kind of economic program. Instead, turn of Faux and find an educational video or two on youtube. |
the average private sector person deals with 20% reductions all the time. why is government so much weaker and have so little fortitude? private companies get 20% less and give 50% more effort all the time. its called efficiency. if government can't do this then it is a real handicap. |
What are you talking about with this 20%/50% thing? Who shrugs off a 20% pay cut? Can you give some examples of these -20%/+50% companies? As I said, if you're good with 20% less to the military, 20% less to senior citizens on fixed incomes, etc., keep recommending that solution. |
companies lay off people all the time and the remaining workers work harder for the same or less pay. when the company grows again, they can hire. its called "reality". government should try it sometime....it is a good way to avoid....DEFAULT. |
Because I boom times people in the private sector see big increases while government employees are stuck with COLA. If you believe in economics then you know the meaning of risk- reward. You want gov't employees to take all the risk of paycuts without the hope of big increases in good times. |
Yeah...this vague generalization doesn't come close to your first statement of 20% budget cuts with 50% output increases, i.e., almost doubling efficiency. If private companies can do that so easily, why haven't they all done it already? This is just the same dumb-ass magical thinking that leads people to say that all we have to do is "cut waste," as if that's some genius original idea. |
The total worth of the US is more complex than the federal budget. Our greatest asset is us and what we create. Government spending is far less important than the productivity of the population, in manufacturing, science, the arts, and all the things that people throughout the world see as American.
The stimulus was aimed at avoiding a credit freeze. We needed to get money flowing to foster productivity and creativity, but it got bottled up in Wall Street. The problem was not that the stimulus increased the debt, the problem was that it was wrongly aimed and probably too small. We took an aspirin that did not cure our headache, and instead of looking for better medication, we are contemplating a craniectomy! [Yeah, I think Krugman knows more economics than Geithner.] |
Who are the rich? Couples earning over $250k? |