i think it's arguable that the defecit acceleration in the last 5 years already has destroyed the dollar, as in worthless dollar now a foregone conclusion ... and now the painful process of watching bush's vastly expanded national debt run us into default is slowly but eventually going to play out in front of us
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
One good thing about Republicans and the FED we have to admit exists
- Thread starter Daal
- Start date
i think it's arguable that the defecit acceleration in the last 5 years already has destroyed the dollar, as in worthless dollar now a foregone conclusion ... and now the painful process of watching bush's vastly expanded national debt run us into default is slowly but eventually going to play out in front of us
Quote from gnome:
Well... if they pass tax cuts, they HAVE to pass them for the rich. THE RICH ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO PAY SIGNIFICANT TAXES. Instead of complaining about the rich, (1) all the social welfare teatsuckers should be GREATFUL for us, and (2) some teatsuckers should get off the teat and go make themselves rich. (America never promised "everyone will be rich"; the door is open for most people to TRY to make themselves rich, and that still holds).... but I digress.
The biggest problem with tax policy is that the Gummint wants to make tax-cuts permanent. That really means they want to make HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING permanent. Eventually THAT will crush the $USD and bankrupt all but the super-rich.
The point is that the tax cuts were directly aimed at the rich with the excuse that all tax cuts will boost the economy. Now the propensity to consume by the rich is clear lower than it is for the poor and middle class), in laymens terms, the rich save while the poor and middle class just spend. If your going to try and boost an economy via tax cuts, your not going to cut taxes for the rich.
Quote from Avid_Consumer:
i think it's arguable that the defecit acceleration in the last 5 years already has destroyed the dollar, as in worthless dollar now a foregone conclusion ... and now the painful process of watching bush's vastly expanded national debt run us into default is slowly but eventually going to play out in front of us
Hasn't "destroyed" it yet, $USD still trades @ 85 or so. When the dollar's demise is embraced, it will drop eventually < 10.
Bush isn't solely to blame... it's been accelerating since FDR... though Bush stands out as the most profligate deficit spender to date. (Som-Bitch!)
Best Boomers can hope for is the collapse doesn't crescendo for 30 years or so.... but our kids and grandkids are totally hosed!
Quote from Covertibility:
The point is that the tax cuts were directly aimed at the rich with the excuse that all tax cuts will boost the economy. Now the propensity to consume by the rich is clear lower than it is for the poor and middle class), in laymens terms, the rich save while the poor and middle class just spend. If your going to try and boost an economy via tax cuts, your not going to cut taxes for the rich.
This argument always annoys me because of the lack of depth in thought. Of course the rich spend less on the margin, but what do you think is done with the extra savings? This isn't the 19th century where the rich are hoarding their gold coins in their basements like Silas Marner. These savings are invested- and it doesn't matter where, because it is all good for the economy, whether it buys the stock of a growing (and employing) company, or is invested in government debt thereby lowering borrowing costs for everyone.
But even if they were to bury their gold, it would still be better encouraging incompetence by putting it in the hands of the government.
Quote from gnome:
THE RICH ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO PAY SIGNIFICANT TAXES.
That's very true HOWEVER the rich abuse the tax system to the extremes, so it's not like they even need the tax breaks nor do they ever ever EVER pay what they supposedely should.
Instead of complaining about the rich, (1) all the social welfare teatsuckers should be GREATFUL for us, and (2) some teatsuckers should get off the teat and go make themselves rich.
I don't think the rich would like more competition, it's easier to have the welfare teatsuckers stay in their place at the poverty line.
(America never promised "everyone will be rich"; the door is open for most people to TRY to make themselves rich, and that still holds).... but I digress.
The illusion of the American dream, lol. Recently disproved by a study which showed that USA is the toughest 1st world to move up through the levels. I wonder why, hmmm, maybe we should research how our president got to where he is.
The biggest problem with tax policy is that the Gummint wants to make tax-cuts permanent. That really means they want to make HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING permanent. Eventually THAT will crush the $USD and bankrupt all but the super-rich.
USA is only bankrupt if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there is no chance for the country to stay current on its debt. That can only be shown if you can prove that US will never curb its spending down to equal the tax revenue or raise their taxes to equal the spending. The real problem is the financial system, in this case, the "monetizing the debt".
As for the tax cuts for the rich, they had little effect on the economy. If you want to drive consumption, give the money to the middle class & poor. This benefits the rich anyway, through economic "prosperity" whcih will increase profits & asset value of the rich one way or the other
The rich do not need tax cuts, if anything, they should be taxed more. They will always pay a fraction of what is really owed, it will always be like that. The rich themselves tax the poor & middle class, it is a power struggle after all, and in this country the rich are winning by controlling the media & government.
If you want to guarantee a revolution in USA, start cutting the taxes of the rich and placing the burden on the middle & poor class. Works everytime.
Quote from hofficita:
This argument always annoys me because of the lack of depth in thought. Of course the rich spend less on the margin, but what do you think is done with the extra savings? This isn't the 19th century where the rich are hoarding their gold coins in their basements like Silas Marner. These savings are invested- and it doesn't matter where, because it is all good for the economy, whether it buys the stock of a growing (and employing) company, or is invested in government debt thereby lowering borrowing costs for everyone.
But even if they were to bury their gold, it would still be better encouraging incompetence by putting it in the hands of the government.
Lack of depth of thought? I just have to laugh at your remarks.
Lets begin. You have a recession. Employers are not employing people unless they live in Hofficita's world. In the real world, during a recession the unemployment rises as people get laid off for various reasons. Now you want to boost aggregate demand. Tax cuts is a favorite among the politicans. The Fed cutting rates is a 2nd way. Govt spending is yet another way. As we've seen a few years ago, all 3 we're done.
Now money is either spent or saved, that is if its a closed economy in fantasy land or in Hofficita's world. In the real world, we have to factor in the foreign exchange markets whereby cutting rates will see equity (THE RICH PEOPLE'S MONEY) leave the country for a higher rate of return. So does giving the rich a tax cut after cutting interest rates help the economy? No, its just going to be saved elsewhere where there is a better rate of return .
Although I do have to laugh that the rich buy US debt to keep borrowing costs down. LOL. The Chinese and the Japanese are responsible for keeping the rates down. Does Hofficita ever notice the massive trade imbalances?
It is always fun to see people attack my posts with their garbage.
Quote from Daal:
like the stock market einstein
Saved elsewhere for a better rate of return means sent overseas or did you miss out on all those double digit returns from the emerging markets when the US market tanked? Or the easy Euro/dollar trade when the rates were cut? The tax cuts were labeled as a way to boost aggregate demand. Throwing money into the stock market does not create the aggregate demand to alleviate poor economic conditions, ie a recession.
Just for a laugh, why not gives the names of the "few quasi-communist winners that are more marxists than marx" that you stated in a previous post.
Quote from Covertibility:
Lack of depth of thought? I just have to laugh at your remarks.
Lets begin. You have a recession. Employers are not employing people unless they live in Hofficita's world. In the real world, during a recession the unemployment rises as people get laid off for various reasons. Now you want to boost aggregate demand. Tax cuts is a favorite among the politicans. The Fed cutting rates is a 2nd way. Govt spending is yet another way. As we've seen a few years ago, all 3 we're done.
Now money is either spent or saved, that is if its a closed economy in fantasy land or in Hofficita's world. In the real world, we have to factor in the foreign exchange markets whereby cutting rates will see equity (THE RICH PEOPLE'S MONEY) leave the country for a higher rate of return. So does giving the rich a tax cut after cutting interest rates help the economy? No, its just going to be saved elsewhere where there is a better rate of return .
Although I do have to laugh that the rich buy US debt to keep borrowing costs down. LOL. The Chinese and the Japanese are responsible for keeping the rates down. Does Hofficita ever notice the massive trade imbalances?
It is always fun to see people attack my posts with their garbage.
So where is this fantasy world that you live in where lower borrowing costs overseas does not translate into lower domestic borrowing costs (ever heard of I.R. arbitrage), or where higher external currency values does not result in higher foreign demand for US goods and services (which coincidentally may result in a better domestic economy and more jobs).
We can go around in circles like this, for in fact, the global economy is just a big circle of capital flows. Ultimately wealth comes from two places: resources(labor included) and ideas. Since resources in the planet can only grow at a rate equal to the birth rate, additional wealth is only generated by technologies created by the human mind. The human mind generates these ideas best when unencumbered by government restrictions. Any reduction of government interference (such as lessening taxation on income and capital) leads to the overall faster accumulation of wealth by a society.
Even though you don't believe this, maybe you can agree with the sentiment I expressed earlier, that money is best to be spent any which way (including shredding or burning) than to be put in the hands of the unaccountable government.