If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Deficits aren't dropping because we're doing something right, they're dropping because we're doing everything wrong   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 159
    More: Hero, deficits, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

7147 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 May 2013 at 6:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-23 10:20:37 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Atillathepun: BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]

It's indicates Debt, not Deficit.

So it does... in an article about deficits.  Got  me.


*whew*  I have been trying to figure out why a chart showing debt is in an article discussing deficit.  (Poorly, but that's beside the point)

Glad I'm not the only one.
 
2013-05-23 10:33:06 AM
The problem is that many lawmakers (at least those that decry Keynesian theory) forgot the 2nd half of the equation.  Obviously, some of them have no problem with the deficit spending (even when there was no reason to do so, just look at the Bush II years), but they forget that when times are good, you're supposed to pay back the deficit spending thru higher tax rates.  While Clinton had a good start on this, the following administration blew any chance of us paying back the debt/deficit by serious deficit spending and getting us into a war we had NO reason to be fighting (while putting the one we needed to be dealing with on the back burner).

But of course, when you realize that one party is trying to keep the country afloat now (with trying to put forward infrastructure repair/jobs bills), the other is trying it's damnedest to send the country to the bottom of the Marianas trench.
 
2013-05-23 11:09:40 AM

Tommy Moo: This should cut across all races and socioeconomic statuses. But, for the record, rich white people are currently not generally having more than two children, so this is one problem you can blame on them. Blame all the others, perhaps, but not this one. It is not racism or eugenics to ask people of all races to have sustainable family sizes.


Except ... it is ...

In many many areas (including the US) one or two children may become economically unviable. Since the children's earnings are the primary methods of late-life support for the parents, they hedge against this with having more children. In fact, in largely agricultural areas, children are income generators once they get out of diapers and can do some kind -any kind -of work.

Wealthier families have less children in part because they are plowing more resources into their existing children, with a substantially lower chance of economic failure for each. Even a lazy bum born in the middle class can limp along with a bank teller job, moving into management in 5-10 years and spending their lives quietly accumulating a home and a modest savings, as long as their tastes aren't that rich.

You further then go on to argue that we are , in fact, subsidizing the family, and by extension, procreation. You might say that or you might say that we are taxing singles more heavily. This point I will leave for later, but it shows that your mindset is definitely that the 'undeserving' are the ones having families that are screwing the planet up.

Add to that the fatuous notion that simply having 'fewer' children is what we need. Even having only one child is enough to 'grow' the planets population, due to longer lives and better health care. So, again, I will ask : What population do you feel would be 'enough' to be sustainable ? Perhaps we should license children? Maybe take a global 20-year break from farking? Think of all the schools we could close and the money we could save in teacher salaries, school administrator costs, bust driver, janitors, lunch ladies and school nurses we wouldn't have to pay for ?

Or perhaps we could license or auction off the right to have a kid? I bet we could raise a lot of money (and keep a lot of crack-babies away) if we had mandatory long-term BC for all women at age 10, with only a limited series of injections re-enabling fertility once they were licensed.

My Point is that all your reproduction-based prattle is just that ... prattle.
 
2013-05-23 11:17:26 AM

Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.


Liar. Admit it you did even read the comments.

Exactly none mention Obama's race.  In fact there were by my count 4 Obama positive comments and only 1 negative:

Wrecking the economy is a feature, not a bug.

Obama has been telling us all along that we don't deserve a healthy economy because it stops us from being able to "compete" with China to have the lowest-paid, most poorly-treated slave-laborors Which makes it harder for the nominally American superrich to compete with the nominally-Chinese and nominally-British and nominally-Whatever superrich who all, in fact, give their allegiance only to the nation of the SuperRich.

This is just what conservatives have always wanted. Unfortunately, they now control the Democratic Party.


You call that a racist rant.  Sorry reality does not fit your world view.
 
2013-05-23 11:34:43 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...


I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?
 
2013-05-23 04:25:44 PM

maweimer9: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...

I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?


Because they'll just juggle the money around so the offshore money doesn't *technically* go to executives or shareholders.

Instead of stupidly assuming they'll do what we want them to do with the repatriated money after they get it, we should only allow that money to come back as a reward for having already accomplished things like increased R&D and adding American jobs.
 
2013-05-23 05:01:57 PM

Baryogenesis: maweimer9: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...

I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?

Because they'll just juggle the money around so the offshore money doesn't *technically* go to executives or shareholders.

Instead of stupidly assuming they'll do what we want them to do with the repatriated money after they get it, we should only allow that money to come back as a reward for having already accomplished things like increased R&D and adding American jobs.


No juggling.  No nothing.  Not that it's possible, but the law makers would craft a bill where corps couldn't juggle or finagle or whatever any of the off shore funds if they brought them home.  You bring it in, has to be spent on the US.  And every cent will be audited by the IRS!  I want receipts dammit.

As a result, the assumption would be that if they brought the money home, then it would be spent on US products per the law.  So, not really an assumption at all.

I like the reward idea, but I guess I don't know enough about taxes to know whether it would beneficial to spend taxable income to bring home non taxable income.

Not that this will ever happen anyways.   If anything like this came close to passing, we would just hear "the gov't is telling us how to spend our money!"
 
2013-05-23 09:32:56 PM
Baryogenesis:
Instead of stupidly assuming they'll do what we want them to do with the repatriated money after they get it, we should only allow that money to come back as a reward for having already accomplished things like increased R&D and adding American jobs.

Of course then we'd have to watch what they did afterward for some time. The jobs created must be real jobs, not temps, with pay and benefits commensurate with industry standards and skill levels. There must also be training for those who have been out of work for more than two years if needed, and those people who have been out of work the longest - three years or more (and who have are on file with their state unemployment board as proof) get first priority in employment. Veterans should be next in line, followed by workers over 40, then college students with no previous experience in their field. If you fall into more than one of these categories you move up to the category with the shortest wait time.

The R+D must have real value, and use both existing and experimental tech with a long-term outlook and investment, not a "invent me something to sell next quarter" attitude.

Then the corporations get to move their money.

I can picture a scenario where all these new jobs appear in maybe one or two divisions of the corporation where not many people want to go, then a couple of years later when they think no one is watching those divisions mysteriously close down and go away, leaving their employees stranded. "Business reasons" they'll call it, while the jobs go off to Bangalore and the CEO goes off to deposit his cash in an offshore account.

This is the sh*t we have to watch.
 
2013-05-24 02:04:36 AM

On-Off: pxsteel: There is a way to reduce the debt and add jobs.  Unfortunately it's the Democrats that hate what the real fix is.  All those manufacturing jobs we have lost in the last 3 decades.  Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.  Ask yourself, would you rather have the 0% we are getting now or 10% of their profits.

or reinstore an importation tax.
Or at least an importation tax only for country who don't have humane working conditions.


Even simpler. It would go a long, long way to fixing our economy if the government outright BANNED the import of goods from any company who doesn't pay their workers a living wage. Sure, that wage would still be cheaper in Bangladesh than in Germany, but it would be enough of a difference to tip some scales back in our favor. As fuel gets more and more expensive, we'll start to realize that globalization is the solution to our production costs, but not in the way we thought. Companies will start to have factories on every continent, producing the goods that get consumed on that continent. As much as it will hurt in the short term, and it will hurt America, Russia, and other countries with huge tracts of land very badly for 15-25 years, a huge increase in the price of fuel is good for the world economy.
 
Displayed 9 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report