Pledge to America

[MichaelB]

Perfect! And a JT song I had never heard before... an unbelievable event in and of itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadsword_and_the_Beast

Outstanding Jethro Tull. If you're a fan of the earlier & darker work it is a must have. There's a recent ('05?) remastered version with bonus tracks.

 

[samclem]

So the trick is to get stimulation money to the lower income elderly and get them to spend the money in the most productive way possible.

Or, rather than pick a favored demographic, maybe the government could just give everyone the same amount of money--maybe via M Paquette's gift card. If everyone gets the same $$ amount, the evil rich are getting a smaller fraction of what they earn, which will be mildly "progressive" and please many. And, in a subsequent enhancement, maybe someone will eventually suggest we eliminate the government costs of making and distributing all these cards and just increase the standard deduction so people can keep more of their own money.

 

[Emeritus]

Or, rather than pick a favored demographic, maybe the government could just give everyone the same amount of money--maybe via M Paquette's gift card. If everyone gets the same $$ amount, the evil rich are getting a smaller fraction of what they earn, which will be mildly "progressive" and please many. And, in a subsequent enhancement, maybe someone will eventually suggest we eliminate the government costs of making and distributing all these cards and just increase the standard deduction so people can keep more of their own money.

Giving money to rich people is useless and does not stimulate the economy.
If you want to stimulated the economy you have to give money to the poor.

Its only "your" money if you made it overseas. if you take advantage of the laws, defense services education etc here, the society has a fair claim

Vince

 

[FinanceDude]

Giving money to rich people is useless and does not stimulate the economy.
If you want to stimulated the economy you have to give money to the poor.

Its only "your" money if you made it overseas. if you take advantage of the laws, defense services education etc here, the society has a fair claim

Vince

We get it, you are a big fan of "redistribution". How will the poor create jobs?

 

[samclem]

In fact we have the smallest government sector and the highest percentage of taxes spent on the military of any fully developed OECD country.

And I'd argue that many of those OECD nations who share our values have gotten a free ride from the US military spending, benefiting politically and especially economically from the enhanced security and stability it has brought. Those days may be coming to an end.

Unless you cut military spending, you are not cutting the size of the government

Military spending is how we got into this budget mess?

Size of this preview: 800 × 600 pixelshttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%_to_Outlays.png

 

[FinanceDude]

And I'd argue that many of those OECD nations who share our values have gotten a free ride from the US military spending, benefiting politically and especially economically from the enhanced security and stability it has brought. Those days may be coming to an end.



Military spending is how we got into this budget mess?

Size of this preview: 800 × 600 pixels

Shut down the UN and leave NATO, that would send a clear message.............

 

[Emeritus]

We get it, you are a big fan of "redistribution". How will the poor create jobs?

by spending money, same way anyone else does

jobs exist because of consumption. if you can buy food, people will grow it

If you get "personal" again I will not respond.
it adds nothing to the discussion

 

[samclem]

Its only "your" money if you made it overseas. if you take advantage of the laws, defense services education etc here, the society has a fair claim

Vince

Well, there it is, finally.

Apparently, 47% of Americans get to "take advantage of the laws, defense, services, education, etc" and pay nothing. Does "society" have no fair claim against their wealth?

 

[Emeritus]

Well, there it is, finally.

Apparently, 47% of Americans get to "take advantage of the laws, defense, services, education, etc" and pay nothing. Does "society" have no fair claim against their wealth?

Please explain who pays NO taxes Tell me how
Even prisoners pay sales taxes on what they buy in prison.

Taxes on the poor are different from taxes on the rich
Please do not repeat the BIG LIE that income taxes are the only taxes.

 

[REWahoo]

This thread reminds me of the miserable old ****box days and why I was so darn glad to see it go.

 

[samclem]

Please explain who pays NO taxes Tell me how
Even prisoners pay sales taxes on what they buy in prison.

Taxes on the poor are different from taxes on the rich
Please do not repeat the BIG LIE that income taxes are the only taxes.

The poor pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay (sales taxes, SS, and Medicare) don't support all the services that you cite as provided by the government.

 

[RonBoyd]

How will the poor create jobs?

By buying stuff? (If given the money to do that.) Jobs are what produce stuff and that is only important if there is a Market. The few Rich cannot be considered a Market (IMO).

 

[Emeritus]

The poor pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay (sales taxes, SS, and Medicare) don't support all the services that you cite as provided by the government.

OFGS tax money is fungible. Its one big pot. you pay SS tax. the tax money is borrowed by the defense department to build an aircraft carrier. hey give pieces of paper to the SS administration as IOUs. by borrowing the money they can take in less in income taxes

 

[HFWR]

Heh heh...

The numbers have to add up. To get anywhere near a balanced budget, we the people, and our alleged representatives, need to sharpen a pencil, cut the budget, raise taxes, and face the truth. Does "The Pledge" do this?

 

[ziggy29]

How will the poor create jobs?

They don't directly. What they do is spend money that fuels demand which creates jobs.

If I'm already *saving* $100,000 a year and have bought everything I really want or need, a tax cut is only going to boost my savings rate. I won't be buying more stuff and increasing aggregate demand because of it. Someone living closer to the edge, on the other hand, is more likely to spend their tax cut.

And we really don't need the "fan of redistribution" cracks here, do we? Does that add to the discussion of the issue or is this just one step closer to the Soapbox and to Porky?

 

[ziggy29]

This thread reminds me of the miserable old ****box days and why I was so darn glad to see it go.

Indeed, this thread is pretty much hanging by one at this point...

 

[samclem]

The pittance that the government will dole out in hopes that people will spend it isn't going to change the situation. There's plenty of money out there--consumers have it (but they are using for other things--debt service, savings, etc). Banks and industry have bags of it (but they are reluctant to put it at risk, to include hiring new workers). Could it be that the government's ham-fisted efforts to "manage" the economy (esp modifying the rules of the game), the unpredictable attempts to punish and reward various constituencies, and the clearly increased costs of taking on a new worker due to new government mandates are the underlying causes of the moribund recovery and high unemployment rate?

 

[scrabbler1]

Heh heh...

The numbers have to add up. To get anywhere near a balanced budget, we the people, and our alleged representatives, need to sharpen a pencil, cut the budget, raise taxes, and face the truth. Does "The Pledge" do this?

You just described the 1990s, a prosperous decade.

Ross Perot helped everyone face the truth in his 1992 presidential campaign.

We had tax increases, spending caps, and PAYGO which kept tax revenues up, spending down, and created a budget surplus.

In the 2000s, we had tax cuts, spending increases, and no PAYGO (for a few years, but the damage was done), while everyone looked the other way, and the budget surplus became a huge deficit.

If we can't learn from our mistakes, can't we learn from what actually worked well?

 

[ziggy29]

I think the usual assumptions -- "give people more money to spend and they will spend it" -- is not working in this economy. As long as people (and many businesses) fear the employment/economic situation and feel like they need to hoard cash and/or pay down debt to get by, that's what they will do.

 

[HFWR]

The pittance that the government will dole out in hopes that people will spend it isn't going to change the situation. There's plenty of money out there--consumers have it (but they are using for other things--debt service, savings, etc). Banks and industry have bags of it (but they are reluctant to put it at risk, to include hiring new workers). Could it be that the government's ham-fisted efforts to "manage" the economy (esp modifying the rules of the game), the unpredictable attempts to punish and reward various constituencies, and the clearly increased costs of taking on a new worker due to new government mandates are the underlying causes of the moribund recovery and high unemployment rate?

The previous administration managed the economy, and the next one will, too.

I think we've had enough stimulus, whether it's via government spending, or artificially low tax rates.

This de-leveraging will continue until we're de-levered...

 

[dex]

I think the usual assumptions -- "give people more money to spend and they will spend it" -- is not working in this economy. As long as people (and many businesses) fear the employment/economic situation and feel like they need to hoard cash and/or pay down debt to get by, that's what they will do.

I agree. When the wealth affect was in effect positive consumer sentiment led to people spending. Now we have the poor affect (lower consumer confidence # came out today). This prolonged recession will probably lead to higher saving rates in the future.

The US taxpayer is not over taxed and if all the Bush tax cuts were not renewed it the taxpayer still would not be overtaxed. It isn't a great idea to increase taxes in a recession though.

So giving tax cuts or money to the 'rich' or 'poor' will not do much for the current economy. The Reagan tax cuts did not produce the '80s growth - the cuts were co-incidental to the business recovery.

 

[M Paquette]

Well, there it is, finally.

Apparently, 47% of Americans get to "take advantage of the laws, defense, services, education, etc" and pay nothing. Does "society" have no fair claim against their wealth?

Good point.

I say we give the high income folks a personal income tax break, because some (about 3%) are small businesses (mostly sole proprietorships with no employees), and small businesses (SBA defines as 500 employees or less) create most jobs. Balance the revenue stream by raising taxes on the majority of taxpayers, the mid to low income folks who have been sliding by, paying no taxes while taking advantage of society.

Yeah, and balance the budget using a handwave, magic realism, and wishful thinking. Campaign promises... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

The politicians and people have figured out how to vote themselves bread and circuses. Don't think they're going to stop just because a few folks can see where this ends up at.

 

[haha]

We get it, you are a big fan of "redistribution". How will the poor create jobs?

The government will hire more IRS agents to be sure "the rich" are paying up. State and local governemnts will hire more social workers to guide "the poor" and be sure that they are getting all that is due to them, and also to be sure that they see no need to get their own jobs, thus putting the much better paid jobs of the social workers at risk. There is no end to the jobs that this endless chain might create. Of course no wealth will be created, and governemnt debt will continue to spiral, but that is a problem for another day, right? One thing will certainly have been accomplished. People who might have gone to work for profit making enterprises, and thus possibly have been Republican voters, will now be safely working for the government, and we know what that means in the voting booth.

Ha

 

[FinanceDude]

And we really don't need the "fan of redistribution" cracks here, do we? Does that add to the discussion of the issue or is this just one step closer to the Soapbox and to Porky?

Probably no, sorry.

Getting back to the OP, whether the "Pledge to America" is yet another political trick or not, we DESPERATELY NEED to rein in govt spending.....

If we as a country want to rebuild the tax base and pay down the debt, increased social entitlement programs are not the answer......as we will need MORE and MORe taxes on less and less people, how does that work?

 

[samclem]

Back to title of the subject of the thread.

I think the Pledge to America is a good idea, from a political standpoint. It allows the Republicans running for office to point to a document that describes in general terms what they want to do (smaller govt, less spending). They'd be idiots to detail all the hard-to-do and politically unpopular budget cutting right now. Rep Paul Ryan has taken some big hits from within the party for putting the real choices in stark relief--it's seen, correctly, as hurting Republicans. The Democrats are on the ropes, and it's best to keep the spotlight focused on their agenda--as already enacted and as promised. Let them reap the fruits of their work at the ballot box--there's nothing to be gained by getting between voters and the target of their anger.
When the election is over and both sides take stock of the gains and losses, maybe then there will be enough incentive to deal with the tough issues like adults. There are going to be cuts in Medicare, in SS, and in the discretionary budget. That's a given.