Government spending

  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 10:23 PM GMT
    houstonmuscle10 saidOne thing that we should all remember is that the disagreement over govt spending is not about Right vs Left, Conservative vs. Liberal, Republicans vs Democrats or Patriotism or backing the President in hard times. It IS about our elected politicians doing what is the RIGHT THING for the country. The entire Stimulus, including the Banking Bailout under Pres. Bush was rushed into without the thought and debate that such a hugely important issue deserved. Because of the poor thought and limited input we are reaping what we have sown. There are very good alternatives to what is being implemented. Just think of the economic stimulation that would be ignited, almost overnight, if for the next 12 months not a single penny of income tax or SS Tax was collected for every taxpayer in this country.


    Other than social security and a wide variety of government programs being absolutely bankrupted for a year? I don't see this doing much good in the long run. What would be great is immediate tax reform that reduces or eliminates taxes on people earning $250,000 or less, with the burden being shifted to the wealthy making $250k+. Those making obscenely excessive incomes of $500k or $1million+ should bear an even bigger brunt of the tax burden, as they have that much more unnecessary and unjustifiable income.

    This way, the government would remain operational, as would our schools, social security, and medicare systems. At the same time, middle and lower class families would have greater take-home income to spend on necessary goods and services that would serve to stimulate the economy, while (as importantly) improving their quality of life. While the more selfish of the rich would complain about their increased tax burden, I highly doubt any one making $250k+ would go hungry..... (People earning that much while others are struggling to buy food have no right to complain about their taxes, in my mind.) At the same time, the middle class would expand and the gap between extreme wealth and extreme poverty would narrow, providing continued improvement to the economy and quality of life in the U.S. over the long term.

    Obama has proposed some changes to tax code along these lines, but they are not nearly extreme enough in my mind. Greed and corruption at all levels (and loud-mouthed conservatives) will probably keep this from ever becoming a reality, but one can dream...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:33 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    SurrealLife said One thing that always puzzles me about governments is that they talk about spending money on infrastructure for years, but never do anything, but when a crisis hits all of sudden the roadblocks disappear and the money flows.
    Very puzzling.

    Because politically it is difficult to vote to spend large sums, but in a crisis all the old paradigms vanish. People get panicky.


    Wouldn't it be better to do things proactively every year? I agree that it is for political reasons. In Canada the problem is fighting about funding between 3 levels of government. The Federal government says "we will through in 3 billion to build this subway if the province and the city match it." Of course the Federal government is running a surplus, while the city does not have a pot to piss in so nothing happens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2009 10:14 AM GMT
    Houstonmuscle- Typical response from Liberals. So typical. Make money? Bad. Need money? Good. Makers should support takers. Your arguments are classic liberal thinking about wealth. It is there and some one else got it before we did. NO!! Someone else created it and deserves it.
    "Nothing? Again, you're either blind or willfully blind to the facts. Did you even read this? "His accomplishments are overwhelming, however, both before and after assuming the presidency... Closing Guantanamo, ending Bush's tax cuts and other unfair breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor, opening up stem cell research, instituting greater safeguards for the environment, ending our disastrous abstinence-only approach to the AIDS problem in Africa, increasing funding for schools and health care programs, and most importantly, taking steps to fix the economy that go beyond the failed republican response of deregulating and further lining the pockets of millionaires. The reality is his achievements have been remarkable; but as I mentioned, unfortunately there will always be those who willfully ignore reality because it doesn't support their beliefs and prejudices." Only in the twisted conservative "reality" could that be construed as "nothing." Obama has done more good in 2 months than Bush did in 8 years--and a hell of a lot less damage.

    By the way, taxing the excessively wealthy to keep government programs for the needy afloat isn't "punishing" the rich: It's common sense and decency. Someone who earns $500k+ can part with a lot more of his income, and has a duty to contribute more to government, as compared to someone earning $30k or less. It's common sense: $500k is MUCH more than ANY human needs to live, and frankly no one is worth that much, no matter how hard they supposedly work. In the meantime, while such an individual is deciding whether to buy the yacht or the BMW this month, someone else is deciding whether to put food on the table or pay for their prescriptions--because they can't afford both. So, when any one has that much of a grossly excessive income as Mr. 500k+, it's his responsibility to contribute more to help those who have not been as lucky as him. Any one who believes otherwise is heartless and ignorant in my book. This is also better for society as a whole, since history has shown propping up the middle and lower classes is good for the economy overall--rich, poor and everything in between--so the conservative ideology is not only selfish and greedy, it's also self-destructive. This is why the economy has done so much better under democratic administrations, on average, as every legitimate study has shown."

    No, you idiot, taxing the excessively wealthy stops the excessively wealthy from investing in the very programs that you want to exist. Those programs would not exist in the first place if investors did not think that they had a chance of a decent return. And are you going to give those investors their money back when the investments do not pay off? If I invest a million dollars and it does not pay off are you going to give me my money back?

    You are a socialist. No one needs more than $500k to live? So, you have now decided what a person needs to live? It is your decision? So, any smart guy that can solve the riddle of cancer should stop research if he can't make more than $500K? Why are you living under silly Marxist axioms that have been proven time and time again to be wrong?

    Heartless and Ignorant in your book? God, I hope you are younger than 17 cause your arguments are so silly. Have you only read Marx? Have you not read "The Wealth of Nations"? The book that works?

    Again, you are a silly want to be socialist, that has never lived under a real socialst government. Try it. Go to Cuba. See how they treat gays.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2009 10:36 AM GMT
    Hey Cowboyway-

    Where do you think this "stimulus" money comes from? Thin air? We just print it? No one pays for it? We sell debt. We sell debt to other countries, mostly China lately. So China buys our debt, to support all of Obama's plans. What happens when they stop buying our debt? Suppose they stop buying our debt? Suppose they not only stop buying our debt but they start selling it? Then? Then there is no market for all this debt that Obama wants to sell to finance his programs. Not only is there no China market, but we are competing with China for buyers of our debt? So, we have to raise the interest on our debt to make it attractive to buyers? Then?

    Glad that everyone has thought this out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2009 10:55 AM GMT

    Listen to Bush speak for 5 min., then listen to Obama... any idiot could tell who actually earned and deserved his degree, rather than squeaking by because his daddy way famous.


    His Daddy was famous? When George Bush graduated his Daddy was famous? Really? Running the CIA? Famous? It was long before he became VP. So, famous? No one even knew the Bush name. Nice try. Learn your history. The Bush name was not well known when he was in Yale.

    Obama is a telegenic personality. He is wonderful with a teleprompter. He does not do well without one. He is as scripted as they come. He comes off dry when he does not have his teleprompters. Even Chris Mathews has said this, the ultimate apologist for liberals. Chris Mathews, the liberal's liberal, has said that Obama is not the same without his teleprompter.

    Obama can not speak without a teleprompter. He does not write his speeches. His speeches are wonderful, but he does not write them.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 28, 2009 11:30 AM GMT
    What you don't seem to understand is that the Phil Gramm's and the Ronnie Reagan's with their deregulation and trickle down economics over the last 2 decades have brought the world economies to their knees ...
    do with that information what you will
    When dealing with this type of problem on a macro-economic level
    there are two schools of thought
    One of them is the Keysian model where in depression economics where the only source of funds becomes the gov't
    The Government has to come and kick in with vast sums of money and projects to kick start the nation's economy
    ie: Roosevelt and the Great depression

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/was-the-great-depression-a-monetary-phenomenon/?apage=5
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 03, 2009 1:07 AM GMT
    GQ- I sooo love when you argue with me about economics. I love it more when you cite Roosevelt. According to Roosevelt's own economists, we were in worse shape 8 years into his Presidency than we were at the beginning. The numbers are there if you want to look them up. Plus, WWII took well over 100,000 men and put them into the military. Instant employment. Not to mention all the government spent on military spending. HUH? Spending money on military? Like hard goods and soft goods? Wow? War is good then? It takes us out of economic duldrums? Well. then, thank you George Bush or this would have happened 3 years ago.

    Roosevelt was a disaster. He was very lucky that we got into WWII. Well, he actually engineered it with Churchill as we now see. His plans on their own? Did absolutely nothing and made things worse.

    Government spending, which really means government taking money from those that have it and giving it to those that don't through various "programs"and "projects" does not work. In the short term? Yes. In the long term, no. That is Cuba. What a wonderful place to live.