07 Oct 10
Originally posted by telerionI wish I could believe that somebody in Washington gives a damn.
That's the big question in fiscal policy circles. There's no consensus yet, but I think the general (non-partisan) view is that we should hold off on increasing taxes and cutting spending programs until the economy has recovered. Then there needs to be a very serious discussion about broadening the tax base and lowering rates as well as some explicit expe ...[text shortened]... axes or reduced programs. That way nobody's left feeling like they are getting screwed over.
As for the Bush tax cuts, do you think they should expire?
07 Oct 10
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think so. A modest deficit in tough times I think is reasonable, but the current out of control deficit is hurting consumer and business confidence in the economy. Obama should raise taxes immediately and find ways to cut the budget (coughAfghanistancough).
My point here is that we should not have to tax the citizenery to death because of its out of control spending. But you are correct, taxes do need to go up as does cutting spending. The question is when? I think we can both agree that a healthy economy produces much more revenue than a sick one. So then should government wait to raise taxes until the economy has recovered so that it will not hinder growth that creates a healthy economy?
07 Oct 10
You can't have people living on subsidies in a manner that is equal to or better than those who contribute to those subsidies. There need to be some penalty or restrictions on those who collect on these subsidies....maybe removing voting rights....or some required for of public service..........there needs to be a disincentive..
07 Oct 10
Originally posted by highdrawYour initial statement is a reasonable one, after that it just gets bizarre.
You can't have people living on subsidies in a manner that is equal to or better than those who contribute to those subsidies. There need to be some penalty or restrictions on those who collect on these subsidies....maybe removing voting rights....or some required for of public service..........there needs to be a disincentive..
07 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThe economy has major structural problems involving the ever growing inequality of income and failure to create enough decent paying jobs to ramp up aggregate demand. The tax code presently rewards unearned, passive income and penalizes workers. Muddling through "until the economy recovers" doesn't seem like a good option; the recession officially ended more than a year ago but we still have 30 million un and underemployed workers. I'm not sure this economy left on its own under the rules it presently operates under will ever recover sufficiently enough that the gross under-utilization of economic resources we are currently laboring under will be alleviated to any significant degree.
That's the big question in fiscal policy circles. There's no consensus yet, but I think the general (non-partisan) view is that we should hold off on increasing taxes and cutting spending programs until the economy has recovered. Then there needs to be a very serious discussion about broadening the tax base and lowering rates as well as some explicit expe ...[text shortened]... axes or reduced programs. That way nobody's left feeling like they are getting screwed over.
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom you it's been a long time coming No1, the mess is not a result of anything even close to resembling a free market, it's the "rules it presently operates under", the gummint shaped what happened, this is an important step in the debate. That is a very astute observation you've made there, possibly with a little guidance, but no need to make further mention of that as it is an unwritten rule here at RHP, never, never admit you have been wrong.
The economy has major structural problems involving the ever growing inequality of income and failure to create enough decent paying jobs to ramp up aggregate demand. The tax code presently rewards unearned, passive income and penalizes workers. Muddling through "until the economy recovers" doesn't seem like a good option; the recession officially ended ...[text shortened]... omic resources we are currently laboring under will be alleviated to any significant degree.
So the next phase is: Do we need another set of (No1 approved) rules or just less of them? That's going to be a long hard road but a small step in the right direction has been made.
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by WajomaLess rules is what led to the financial collapse which exposed the structural deficiencies of the economy. Free market anarchism of the sort you preach is unworkable unless society wants to accept levels of poverty and deprivation akin to a Dickens' novel.
From you it's been a long time coming No1, the mess is not a result of anything even close to resembling a free market, it's the "rules it presently operates under", the gummint shaped what happened, this is an important step in the debate. That is a very astute observation you've made there, possibly with a little guidance, but no need to make further menti ...[text shortened]... That's going to be a long hard road but a small step in the right direction has been made.
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're bound to suffer flash backs but no reasonable person can argue that Wall St, the banking system or insurance system operates in a free market environment.
Less rules is what led to the financial collapse which exposed the structural deficiencies of the economy. Free market anarchism of the sort you preach is unworkable unless society wants to accept levels of poverty and deprivation akin to a Dickens' novel.
09 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAll things fail, or at least should. It is only when you artificially prop them up and allow them to become monsterous "too big to fail" entities that you begin to have bigger and badder problems.
Less rules is what led to the financial collapse which exposed the structural deficiencies of the economy. Free market anarchism of the sort you preach is unworkable unless society wants to accept levels of poverty and deprivation akin to a Dickens' novel.
What can I say, life is hard. However, if you take "medications" so as to never allow yourself to become depressed then the end result will be worse than the initial depression you were trying so desperately to avoid.
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by whodeyIs that a roundabout way of saying society should just accept people dying of starvation and treatable disease? Hard to see how any "end result" would be worse than that esp. for the people dying.
All things fail, or at least should. It is only when you artificially prop them up and allow them to become monsterous "too big to fail" entities that you begin to have bigger and badder problems.
What can I say, life is hard. However, if you take "medications" so as to never allow yourself to become depressed then the end result will be worse than the initial depression you were trying so desperately to avoid.
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderAwww jeez isn't that cute, No1 wants all treatable diseases treated and no person to ever starve again. Guess anybody that argues against his level of control freakism must want starving people and people to die of treatable disease.
Is that a roundabout way of saying society should just accept people dying of starvation and treatable disease? Hard to see how any "end result" would be worse than that esp. for the people dying.
Wonder how true he is to his ideals?
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by WajomaIs there a moral difference between "wanting" something to occur and espousing policies which, if adopted, would certainly result in that thing occurring?
Awww jeez isn't that cute, No1 wants all treatable diseases treated and no person to ever starve again. Guess anybody that argues against his level of control freakism must want starving people and people to die of treatable disease.
Wonder how true he is to his ideals?
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderGo easy on the exageration there bud, there is nothing 'certain' about the beneficiencies of your policies.
Is there a moral difference between "wanting" something to occur and espousing policies which, if adopted, would certainly result in that thing occurring?
And it is possible to live as a libertarian but I would say it is impossible for you to live by your ideals without reducing yourself to a cardboard box on the foot path.