Wow, I had missed this. You actually believe that lowering taxes will address, much less solve, our economic crisis today?
In combination with a cut, a LOT of cuts, in spending. Cut taxes, balance the budget. We can DOOO EEET.
Interestingly enough, a tax decrease for quite a few Americans as a component of Obama's tax plan is something favored by a number of well respected economists.
Bear's boy the NYU economic expert was on NPR on the way home, and is preaching an increase in domestic government spending - infrastructure, state and local governments, alternative energies, etc - as a stimulus.
Sounded kinda like Obama's plan, too.
__________________ I missed a Mensa meeting for this?
In combination with a cut, a LOT of cuts, in spending. Cut taxes, balance the budget. We can DOOO EEET.
Cut taxes or balance the budget? As far as cutting spending is concerned, the Bush Administration has just ramped up spending to its highest level in history, by far. So I guess you oppose the bailouts?
If you mean Nouriel Roubini, I think his ideas for stimulus taking the form of infrastructure enhancements (as opposed to giving rednecks a spot of cash to send to China via Wal-Mart) is probably a good one.
Yes, I oppose the bailouts... are you fucking kidding? Yes, I absolutely oppose the bailouts.
Why do you apply an either/or evaluation to cutting taxes and balancing the budget? Between the Iraq war, the war on drugs, and the TSA, there are untold billions to be saved each month.
And yes, Roubini - that was the man. It makes quite a bit of sense. I was listening to that thinking "Obama needs to get that guy on retainer somehow."
The reality is that a tax hike may be necessary early, and I hate the notion, but I'm definitely of the belief that cutting the right taxes will increase tax revenue.
You ever hear the saying "Companies don't PAY taxes, they just collect them?"
Well, there's some truth to it. Company taxes ultimately boil down to an additional capitation. Which income class has the easiest time paying a head tax? Who would find it hardest?
Reduce those taxes, and prices go down. Prices go down, confidence goes up, people spend more, meaning tax revenues go up.
In combination with a cut, a LOT of cuts, in spending. Cut taxes, balance the budget. We can DOOO EEET.
Interestingly enough, a tax decrease for quite a few Americans as a component of Obama's tax plan is something favored by a number of well respected economists.
Bear's boy the NYU economic expert was on NPR on the way home, and is preaching an increase in domestic government spending - infrastructure, state and local governments, alternative energies, etc - as a stimulus.
Sounded kinda like Obama's plan, too.
Well, so far, if I was unable to make my own decisions on my finances or general direction of economics, I would hand everything to Roubini and let him guide it. He has been dead accurate for years and years.
As for the "increase spending to act as a stimulus, it is, as said better than a $300 check. Putting monies to work on majors works projects, everything from highway construction to dams to Air Force bases helps the economies stabilize quicker than anything, and by doing it, it increases the amount of cash flow into the federal coffers by volume of people working.
Two examples. First, watch just how hard a town will fight for a business or a base or a factory to be placed in THEIR town or state. It is done because everybody knows that the entire economy is lifted.
As the second example, look what happens to a town when the major employer pulls out. Not only does that one business fail but many ancillary businesses fail along with it creating a cascade of unemployment. Dayton with its former GM powerhouse is one city, Jacksonville/Mayport is another as the Saratoga decommissioned and Mayport was without a carrier group.
Yes, I oppose the bailouts... are you fucking kidding? Yes, I absolutely oppose the bailouts.
Why do you apply an either/or evaluation to cutting taxes and balancing the budget? Between the Iraq war, the war on drugs, and the TSA, there are untold billions to be saved each month.
Right now the US Budget is around $3T. We spend around $4T. After the bailout, that number is likely to change upward for a bit.
There is no way to cut taxes, even with complete reductions of IRAQ, War on Drugs and TSA. That won't even make up the deficit spending.
And when you calculate all the infrastructure that has been ignored for the past eight years [note that I keep bringing this up] you can even slice decent percentages off of EVERY program and will still not be able to cut taxes. Add the $600B for INTEREST and you have 20% of the budget already spoken for without getting anything for the money. And this is just stuff on the APPROPRIATIONS [check writing]side.
When you add in the TWO major REVENUE issues that are front and center, 1) falling employment rates and 2) retiring, high pay [high taxed] boomers, you see that just keeping the current stream of REVENUE going is going to be a problem.
Add the bogie of RECESSION and the problem is further exacerbated. I would really not look for a cut in taxes that is significant, beyond the current plan for any foreseeable future. And frankly, it would be smarter to hold off on that for a year to gain the extra revenue to start working on debt reduction so that 20% of all REVENUE [or added Debt] does not eat away at a recovery.
The reality is that a tax hike may be necessary early, and I hate the notion, but I'm definitely of the belief that cutting the right taxes will increase tax revenue.
You ever hear the saying "Companies don't PAY taxes, they just collect them?"
Well, there's some truth to it. Company taxes ultimately boil down to an additional capitation. Which income class has the easiest time paying a head tax? Who would find it hardest?
Reduce those taxes, and prices go down. Prices go down, confidence goes up, people spend more, meaning tax revenues go up.
The problem is prices won't go down. Just like the food prices, which went up due to high fuel costs have not dropped to pre-fuel crisis levels. Corporations will simply take the extra as profits. That has happened EVERY TIME.
Now, as for companies and taxes, the thing that CAN be done is eliminate all the loopholes like offshore ownership of American Companies and all the little accounting tricks that billions of dollars of lobby money have insured are in the tax code each year.
And eliminate the excessive perks that companies have been providing to some of their upper level employees, all written off. When my office was at IBM's HQ in Armonk, there was an employee cafeteria in the basement, standard with very good food. On the third floor, where I worked, which was also where the CEO and all the VPs worked, we had our own kitchen, dining room that seated 40, five chefs and some of the best food imaginable every day. I gained 30 pounds in 13 months. We also had cars/drivers available to us when we needed to get to the city for meetings at the Ogilvy office. While very nice, the excess was simply unnecessary.
That is the kind of tax focus, along with the bonus plans that can be looked at as a way to enhance some of the taxes that Corporations do pay. I don't advocate taxing on things like equipment and general salary. But there are expenses and there are expenses.
Meet me in the middle, Bear. What we spend today is of no consequence to me; it's too much.
According to the FY2009 federal budget, our receipts are $2.7 trillion and outlays are $3.1 trillion.
Iraq - $120 billion
Discretionary G/TWAT - $70 billion
Discretionary Defense - $515 billion (up from $479 billion in 2008, and $302 billion in 2001)
Discretionary DHS - $37 billion (this is the DOD-centric component, not the extra $40 billion for every other department)
IRS - $11 billion (don't get me started)
Discretionary Department of Agriculture - $20 billion
Dunno about you, but I see about $300 billion we can trim from this list, maybe all $400 billion you need to get the budget balanced again.
$1 trillion of the $3.1 approved in FY2009 is discretionary spending. $600 billion for "security" alone. Anyone else work for a company that has clamped down severely on all discretionary spending? Easy, no. Simple, yes.
I missed the part where $400B will balance the budget. But it's nice to see a Republican in favor of slashing the military. We can put them all to work rebuilding our cities instead of destroying others'
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
are you fucking kidding? Yes, I absolutely oppose the bailouts.
Linear Mode
