All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/14/2012 7:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2012 7:00:00 PM (view original):
Greece is tied to the Euro. It has no control over its currency. That's a completely different situation, more like a state.

The downside of putting off dealing with the deficit is very small if it exists. It's unlikely that any of us would be personally affected by that decision.

The downside of significantly reducing the deficit is very real - economic downturn - and would in all likelihood directly affect all of us.
swoosh....

that's my point going right over your head. Greece is a CCC rating last I checked. don't like European union countries then pick another country with poor credit.... what are they borrowing at? is the rate as good as ours is now? what are the conditions in that country?

not reeling in spending does have near consequences.... most of our spending is on entitlements we can't afford.... pension, ssi, Medicare, welfare, unemployment.... when do we plan to fix these problems.... when other countries stop lending to us? that may come sooner than you think.

either America leads the world out of this recession.... or we fail and send the rest of the world back into a deeper recession.... that's the line we walk now.
11/14/2012 7:28 PM
The spending is not what caused the recession. The spending is not keeping our economy slow. If anything, the spending is boosting our economy while demand is depressed.
11/14/2012 7:38 PM

Give everybody a million dollars.   Demand will be apeshit.   Problem solved?

11/14/2012 7:40 PM
11/14/2012 8:12 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2012 7:28:00 PM (view original):
The spending is not what caused the recession. The spending is not keeping our economy slow. If anything, the spending is boosting our economy while demand is depressed.
at this point do we really care what caused the recession... that's over now. how are we going to get out of the recession. Increased government spending is just a Band-Aid to increase the big G in the GDP equation... Just a Band-Aid ... it doesn't solve the real problem which is a really depressed economy with little job creation. The problem with increased government spending is that at some point it creates a bigger problem Which is a debt crisis. When we get to that point there'll be forced entitlement cutbacks as opposed to structured entitlement cutbacks. I think we've all see what forced Entitlement cutbacks look like. Just look to Greece and France.
11/14/2012 8:47 PM
Jobs and spending (all, not just government) are linked. When private spending falls, government spending can fill the void until private spending comes back. It's not a permanent solution but it's better than cutting government spending, which just makes the demand problem worse.
11/14/2012 10:05 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2012 8:47:00 PM (view original):
Jobs and spending (all, not just government) are linked. When private spending falls, government spending can fill the void until private spending comes back. It's not a permanent solution but it's better than cutting government spending, which just makes the demand problem worse.
sounds great in theory except spending ourselves into debt is good for no-one. can you name 5 countries that have crashed an economy due to reducing debt? I can name more than 5 that have suffered heavily from too much debt. Japan, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, Lebanon, Jamaica, Spain, France, the list goes on. look .... I'm not for taking an ax to the budget all at once... that's dangerous. but I am for actually being responsible and having a budget, something Obama disappointingly hasn't done, and a budget that seeks calculated reductions in spending across the board (not just special interests). then entitlement reform needs to happen now.... not ten years from now. by reform I don't mean how we can get more citizens nursing on the government ***... but less. I.e. increase the age for ssi, individual retirement/health savings accts, shorten unemployment benefits, redefine pensions, etc. like I said it's time for America to step up and lead the world out of this recession not spend us into another one.


this is actually a very good article imo.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/11-things-that-can-happen-when-you-allow-your-country-to-become-enslaved-to-the-bankers
11/15/2012 5:49 AM
Can we end the 4 billion that goes for oil subsidies? Or is that not allowed because Repubs get **** tons of money from oil companies?
11/15/2012 7:29 AM (edited)
Posted by stinenavy on 11/15/2012 5:49:00 AM (view original):
Can we end the 4 billion that goes for oil subsidies? Or is that not allowed because Repubs get **** tons of money from oil companies?
your response is much like I'd expect from Washington's political deadlock.... where you'd rather cut off you nose to spite your face because oil serves one party's interests rather than fix the economy and the looming debt crisis. JMO.

but sure... if it will help and if you don't mind paying $8/gallon at the pump. subsidies by definition are to hold down prices. I could argue that lower energy prices would benefit economic recovery more than just about anything else right now. if I'm president, that's where I start to rebuild the economy.



tax code is certainly another thing that needs to be simplified. I'm a fair tax fan. simple. no loopholes. no capital gains tax. no class warfare or 'paying your fair share' bullshit. incentive for foreign investors to invest in the USA.
11/15/2012 7:49 AM
Scr*w the tax code.  The only "fair" taxation method is a flat tax.  Of course, that would put too big a crimp in the cheating of wealthy politicians and their friends, so it will never happen.
11/15/2012 8:01 AM
Posted by all3 on 11/15/2012 7:49:00 AM (view original):
Scr*w the tax code.  The only "fair" taxation method is a flat tax.  Of course, that would put too big a crimp in the cheating of wealthy politicians and their friends, so it will never happen.
I'm down with flat tax. it's better than what we have now, and simpler. is still prefer fair tax which shifts the tax reporting burden to businesses and away from individuals. fair tax raises the sales tax to an equal level for all industries, no exceptions. it eliminates income tax so if you make $50,000 you bring home 50,000. no capital gains or interest taxes. all money is taxed as its spent. families under the poverty line get a monthly deposit to offset increased taxes on basic needs.
11/15/2012 8:08 AM
Sales tax.   When you spend, you pay.   Feds/states figure out how to split it.    My guess is it would mean we'd pay .30 on the dollar in sales tax but that would probably be a decrease in overall tax.
11/15/2012 10:00 AM
You want the rich to "pay their fair share", but won't define what it is.  You want them to pay more than they do now, but won't even hint at how much more. 

As I said, it's not a solid number but depends upon a host of economic factors I don't want to take the time to discuss in length here.
Furthermore, you haven't shown how taking more from the "rich" will help the economy, especially since those people are generally the ones who create and provide the jobs in the first place.

For every tax dollar collected from the rich, you reduce the tax by the same amount for the lower (and possibly middle) class. That's how it helps the economy - the lower and middle classes have more of their money to spend. Since consumer spending makes the economy go, this should help things at least somewhat.
You seem to assume, based on the bulk of your posts, that there is only one solution to help the needy - government programs.  That simply isn't true. 

You're assuming that I assume this when it isn't the case at all. Please stop trying to read things into my posts that I don't actually say, because you'll be wrong when you do.

I'm aware there are other ways to help the needy, but I see the absolute benefit of government programs to do it as well.
Lastly, you fail to demonstrate that government has any moral authority to coerce anyone to help their neighbor.
The government helps people itself. It doesn't need to coerce anyone to do it (though they should do it if they consider themselves to be any kind of decent human being).
As for constitutionally necessary programs, I believe the rich should pay more of the burden (they do already).  Those at the bottom should pay less (they already pay next to nothing).
Wow. I'm shocked at how easily you generalize the situation.

The rich don't usually pay more than the rest of society. They use tax loop holes, deductions, hiding money offshore or other places, and a host of strategies to pay the same or even lower rates than those who make much less. Look at Mitt Romney's 14 percent rate, lower than that of many middle class Americans, and you can see that the rich most certainly DO NOT pay more than others.

As for saying "they already pay next to nothing" for the lower class, this is absolutely FALSE. If you have a job which makes, say, $20,000 per year, someone is in the lower 20 percent of income earners in the country. It may be a full time job with benefits but just doesn't pay as much. Yet that person will still be slated to pay far more than "next to nothing" in income taxes. The exact number will be specific to the person's situation, but it won't be anywhere close to nothing, and in some cases may actually exceed the 14 percent Romney pays, which is absolutely ridiculous.
What percentage of wealthy individuals (as defined by our fearless leaders) are thos who did not work for it?  What percentage don't "deserve it"?  Why wouldn't they "deserve it"?
I would say a large percentage of the wealthy do not work for it or earn it. A specific percentage would require an extensive study, and even then might not be able to be obtained.

As for why people wouldn't deserve it, in my opinion you need to be responsible with money to deserve to have it. While you should be able to spend a certain portion on yourself, an individual only needs so much money to live and be comfortable. I'm not sure what the exact amount would be, but I do know that when I see people with ridiculous mansions, tons of sports cars, etc they do not deserve that money in my opinion because they're spending it selfishly. I sit and imagine how many horrible diseases could be cured or how many people could be fed or housed or whatever if only those with that money spent it on the good of everyone instead of on selfish things they don't need.

By the way, the paragraph directly above is my personal opinion and is not up for debate. I will not change how I feel on that so you'll be wasting your time anyway.
They are free to ignore those in need if they wish.  [Hint: a vast majority of those don't wish to ignore the needy].
Actually, they do largely ignore the needy. Most of them give a small amount (relative to the amount they have) and use it to tell themselves how great they are.

As I said above, if you have a huge house and sports cars and other fancy things, you should be giving a lot more to help others and spending a lot less on those things.

A flat tax on all earnings (no loopholes) would be an example of how a THINKING preference would handle taxes.

A flat tax favors the wealthy unless it's a flat percentage based tax, because if the tax is say $1000, a guy with $5 million is paying far less percentage wise than someone who only has $100,000. That's just simple mathematics.
A graduated tax system where the rich pay proportionately more would be an example of how a FEELING preference would handle taxes.
I can't disagree with this more.

It's a logical deduction that those who earn more should pay more. That's what income taxes are all about. There is no "feeling" involved at all - it's pure, simple logic.

It's simple: Those who make more pay more. Those who make less pay less. All based on logic. No feeling. That's as simple as I can put it to you. If you don't get it from that, you simply don't understand logic at all.
11/15/2012 10:24 AM
Do you realize that your ideas of "right" and "fair" are quite different than most everybody else's?  That your way of thinking is the outlier here?
11/15/2012 11:28 AM
Ah Bis, so many holes in your theories, so little time.....

But I'll address a little later because I just can't resist.
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.