discussion on debt ceiling

[Guest The Variable]

every time they raise the min wage, they lower the middle class quality of life...the goal in this country for a while has been to eliminate the middle class...they think by doing so it will eliminate the lower class as well....bring the lower class up to middle class levels and all is well....doesn't work that way.

 

People making $15 an hour when min wage was $3.25 an hour don't get a raise with equal % when min wage is raised to $7 an hour over time...all you have done is increase the baseline for cost among goods produced by min wage level (unskilled) workers and devalue the labor of skilled workers.

 

Exactly. My wife works for the local social services department and we carpool to work. You would be amazed at the amount of nice cars parked in the customer lot. People think that the poor are entitled to HDTV and Chrome wheels and DONK kits. They are not. Food, Water, Shelter. These are the basics for life and I believe that everyone should be able to have access to that in this country (remember many homeless are that way because they choose to be) but that should be the extent of our aid to them. We dont need to send out welfare checks, we should have vouchers and food kits to give out with a reasonable calorie count per week to those in need. Housing should be well maintained and those who wreck their living conditions will be barred from free or subsidized housing. Poor is poor and there should be some incentive given for becoming a relatively successful and productive member of society.

Edited July 20, 2011 by The Variable

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I dont think we disagree all that much. Just you think revenue should come from existing sources and I think we should add new sources. I do not know where in history increasing taxes is more effective. We did that during FDRs new deal and it exasterbated the great depression and ultimately it took a worldwide conflict fought on more than half of the continents to bring us out of it (partly thanks to that military industrial complex hacker mentioned btw). Historically, you have nations in the EU who have shown that increasing taxes leads to disaster. I also do not know where in history we have shrank the size of our government. It has done nothing but grow since 1776 getting worse after 1865 and again in the 1920s and 30s and almost exponentially worse ever since. Can you point out to me what you meant?

 

This is the only topic I'll address, as I think we've reached resolution on the others.

 

I am anxious to see what examples you find of countries with high taxation rates being disastrous. I see countries like Denmark, a country that almost never turns a deficit and that is so energy efficient that it can sell its excess, with an income tax of 51%. Germany seems to be strong to me, and their payroll tax is 41%. Even in the United Kingdom, the top income taxation rate is 50%, higher than the U.S. I could go on. From where I stand, I see economically responsible systems based upon higher taxation.

 

FDR's New Deal didn't fail because of increased taxation. It failed because the outlandish spending on public works exceeded the income, which was not raised strongly enough and which was implemented too late in the game. The New Deal started in 1933, the tax programs weren't instituted until 1935. We all see the problem here, right? One Roosevelt idea that would've worked GREAT with Reaganomics is the "undistributed profits tax", which penalizes companies a set rate for not distributing profits. Of course, Republicans would crap a literal brick if this were proposed today, but since Reaganomics is a failure of a system anyway, it would've stopped some of the bleeding.

 

Plus, I would prefer to speak of economics after 1914, when the Internal Revenue Code was modernized, for all intents and purposes. The income tax itself came about from the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and Congress got its ducks in a row one year later. I find it the textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges to speak about taxation before that time, and I don't want to do our discussion a disservice by it.

[bucfan64 309]

For the record, Bill Clinton DID balance the budget while prez. However, if you will carefully look at gov. statistics, the surplus money, was eerily identical to the decrease in Social Security funds. Clinton, took money out of one pocket (social Security) and then used it to fill up another pocket (balancing the budget).

 

So, in hindsight the guy gets waaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit for balancing the budget.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bucfan64

[Guest The Variable]

I am anxious to see what examples you find of countries with high taxation rates being disastrous. I see countries like Denmark, a country that almost never turns a deficit and that is so energy efficient that it can sell its excess, with an income tax of 51%. Germany seems to be strong to me, and their payroll tax is 41%. Even in the United Kingdom, the top income taxation rate is 50%, higher than the U.S. I could go on. From where I stand, I see economically responsible systems based upon higher taxation.

Greece, Spain, Ireland, the UK is having a lot of problems now to the point that they are moving away from socialized medicine. Denmark might run a surplus but that country is tiny and benefits from being in the EU. Plus the culture in Denmark and Sweden and Swisserland and Iceland and those other small nations are much different. They dont have to worry about the same things we do. They dont have to pay for the same things we do.

 

FDR's New Deal didn't fail because of increased taxation. It failed because the outlandish spending on public works exceeded the income, which was not raised strongly enough and which was implemented too late in the game. The New Deal started in 1933, the tax programs weren't instituted until 1935. We all see the problem here, right? One Roosevelt idea that would've worked GREAT with Reaganomics is the "undistributed profits tax", which penalizes companies a set rate for not distributing profits. Of course, Republicans would crap a literal brick if this were proposed today, but since Reaganomics is a failure of a system anyway, it would've stopped some of the bleeding.

I dont see how you could justify raising taxes when almost nobody had any money. It would not have worked then and it definitely wouldnt work now, especially since we would just scare everyone overseas. We arent the only world-class market anymore so we have to remind folks why they want to do business in our country.

 

Plus, I would prefer to speak of economics after 1914, when the Internal Revenue Code was modernized, for all intents and purposes. The income tax itself came about from the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and Congress got its ducks in a row one year later. I find it the textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges to speak about taxation before that time, and I don't want to do our discussion a disservice by it.

Well I did ask where historically shrinking government has been harmful since you made that point. I cannot think of a single instance where our government has shrunk. Cutting spending and decreasing government would negate the need to pay for all the extra unnecessary bureacracy because it wouldnt exist. No need to pay more for taxes.

 

You know who shrank their government and got better? Russia. You know whose markets have gotten better since their government empowered their businesses better? China. You know who hasnt and has been in a recession since the 90s? Japan, who since the 30s? Spain.

[1inStripes 934]

Isn't Germany about to see issues financially due to Greece's problems?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Greece, Spain, Ireland, the UK is having a lot of problems now to the point that they are moving away from socialized medicine. Denmark might run a surplus but that country is tiny and benefits from being in the EU. Plus the culture in Denmark and Sweden and Swisserland and Iceland and those other small nations are much different. They dont have to worry about the same things we do. They dont have to pay for the same things we do.

 

You're telling me to all but disregard small EU countries, and then you're bringing up Greece (not even double the size of Denmark) and Ireland (a SMALLER population than Denmark by almost a million). Spain and Britain have had troubles lately, but what first-world nation hasn't? Their troubles have not been nearly as significant as the U.S. Plus, the culture of Denmark/Sweden are closer to the U.S. than you'd realize.

 

Plus, I don't know how socialized medicine got into the equation, but I've always been a detractor of that system. I may be calloused, but health care is NOT a fundamental right, and nations should not treat it as such.

 

I dont see how you could justify raising taxes when almost nobody had any money. It would not have worked then and it definitely wouldnt work now, especially since we would just scare everyone overseas. We arent the only world-class market anymore so we have to remind folks why they want to do business in our country.

 

As far as the Great Depression goes, that era has this huge misconception that *nobody* was working, that the employment rate was something like 80%. 1 in 4 were out of a job during the Great Depression. That's a devastating amount, yes, but it's not as if "almost nobody had money". The Rockefellers were hurt, but fine. The Fords were hurt, but fine. Corporations had money, and 3 in 4 people still had jobs.

 

Besides, it's not as if Roosevelt's Congress didn't tax; it just stupidly spent first, taxed later, which is the equivalent of writing a check with the belief that your paycheck will hit the bank before the check does. It didn't, and set the nation back 6 years.

 

We haven't been the only world-class market since the 1960s. It seems as if lawmakers have forgotten about a little something called the "tariff". Couple that with a tax increase domestically, and you force the market into a "more damned if you do, less damned if you don't" situation. That's how you increase revenues at home without forcing businesses elsewhere. Of course, this would require a repeal of NAFTA, but that'd be more than fine with me. I even think that would be justifiable, considering Mexico's inability to police itself.

 

 

Well I did ask where historically shrinking government has been harmful since you made that point. I cannot think of a single instance where our government has shrunk. Cutting spending and decreasing government would negate the need to pay for all the extra unnecessary bureacracy because it wouldnt exist. No need to pay more for taxes.

 

You know who shrank their government and got better? Russia. You know whose markets have gotten better since their government empowered their businesses better? China. You know who hasnt and has been in a recession since the 90s? Japan, who since the 30s? Spain.

 

I did not see where you asked me in what instance shrinking government has been harmful; I've checked back through every post, perhaps I missed it. Besides, I'm not against "shrinking government" anyway; as I said before, it's half of what I esteem to be the proper fix for this nation.

 

I think you're not taking into account how much government has grown since 1992. We invest our dollars into things now that were ideas in infancy or flat out weren't feasible in 1991. Just cutting expenditures isn't enough anymore. I fail to see how we're any better than a $500B deficit if we trim all that which can afford to be trimmed.

 

Plus, I disagree that Spain has been in a recession for 80 years.

[Guest The Variable]

You're telling me to all but disregard small EU countries, and then you're bringing up Greece (not even double the size of Denmark) and Ireland (a SMALLER population than Denmark by almost a million). Spain and Britain have had troubles lately, but what first-world nation hasn't? Their troubles have not been nearly as significant as the U.S. Plus, the culture of Denmark/Sweden are closer to the U.S. than you'd realize.

Moodys didnt just threaten to downgrade spain to to junk, they did it. And you might not think it but Spains had a very troubled economy since WW1. If you want me to go bigger, then we can go to the soviet union. Can you point out a free enterprize system like ours that has bankrupted because of lower taxes and cutting spending?

 

Plus, I don't know how socialized medicine got into the equation, but I've always been a detractor of that system. I may be calloused, but health care is NOT a fundamental right, and nations should not treat it as such.

It is going to become THE entitlement unless its stopped. Entitlements are bankrupting us, not lower taxes.

 

As far as the Great Depression goes, that era has this huge misconception that *nobody* was working, that the employment rate was something like 80%. 1 in 4 were out of a job during the Great Depression. That's a devastating amount, yes, but it's not as if "almost nobody had money". The Rockefellers were hurt, but fine. The Fords were hurt, but fine. Corporations had money, and 3 in 4 people still had jobs.

Again, you have to take into account under employment and the fact that unemployment does not give you an accurate number of people unemployed. Its always lower than actual unemployment. And even if you had taken ALL of the Rockefellers, Fords, Vanderbuilts, Belmonts ect ect fortunes...100% of them, the most it would have done would be to put a dent in that depression. It took a worldwide conflict that killed off a large percentage of our potential workforce, a nation rationing its resources, its nation operating at a war footing and a large group of nations buying our products to fuel the war. That got us out, not a damn thing FDR did helped. We did get Freddie Mac out of the New Deal and the TVA and empty finance reform. The New Deal was a bill of goods.

 

Besides, it's not as if Roosevelt's Congress didn't tax; it just stupidly spent first, taxed later, which is the equivalent of writing a check with the belief that your paycheck will hit the bank before the check does. It didn't, and set the nation back 6 years.

That certainly didnt help...but even when it was spending money before the bill was due, things werent getting better.

 

I did not see where you asked me in what instance shrinking government has been harmful; I've checked back through every post, perhaps I missed it. Besides, I'm not against "shrinking government" anyway; as I said before, it's half of what I esteem to be the proper fix for this nation.

Here...You said this:

I firmly believe that in order to do an adequate job, one must increase income (tax) while decreasing expenditures (cutting). History has shown that doing one does not work as a long-term solution (though history has shown that increasing taxes is more effective than cutting).

to which I responded:

Historically, you have nations in the EU who have shown that increasing taxes leads to disaster. I also do not know where in history we have shrank the size of our government. It has done nothing but grow since 1776 getting worse after 1865 and again in the 1920s and 30s and almost exponentially worse ever since. Can you point out to me what you meant?

 

I think you're not taking into account how much government has grown since 1992. We invest our dollars into things now that were ideas in infancy or flat out weren't feasible in 1991. Just cutting expenditures isn't enough anymore. I fail to see how we're any better than a $500B deficit if we trim all that which can afford to be trimmed.

Oh, I have...but I dont like barfing at work so I try not to focus on it. The War on Poverty, "affordable housing" and other initiatives that have screwed us were already in effect prior to 91 though.

[ghs73 157]

You're telling me to all but disregard small EU countries, and then you're bringing up Greece (not even double the size of Denmark) and Ireland (a SMALLER population than Denmark by almost a million). Spain and Britain have had troubles lately, but what first-world nation hasn't? Their troubles have not been nearly as significant as the U.S. Plus, the culture of Denmark/Sweden are closer to the U.S. than you'd realize.

 

Plus, I don't know how socialized medicine got into the equation, but I've always been a detractor of that system. I may be calloused, but health care is NOT a fundamental right, and nations should not treat it as such.

 

 

 

As far as the Great Depression goes, that era has this huge misconception that *nobody* was working, that the employment rate was something like 80%. 1 in 4 were out of a job during the Great Depression. That's a devastating amount, yes, but it's not as if "almost nobody had money". The Rockefellers were hurt, but fine. The Fords were hurt, but fine. Corporations had money, and 3 in 4 people still had jobs.

 

Besides, it's not as if Roosevelt's Congress didn't tax; it just stupidly spent first, taxed later, which is the equivalent of writing a check with the belief that your paycheck will hit the bank before the check does. It didn't, and set the nation back 6 years.

 

We haven't been the only world-class market since the 1960s. It seems as if lawmakers have forgotten about a little something called the "tariff". Couple that with a tax increase domestically, and you force the market into a "more damned if you do, less damned if you don't" situation. That's how you increase revenues at home without forcing businesses elsewhere. Of course, this would require a repeal of NAFTA, but that'd be more than fine with me. I even think that would be justifiable, considering Mexico's inability to police itself.

 

 

 

 

I did not see where you asked me in what instance shrinking government has been harmful; I've checked back through every post, perhaps I missed it. Besides, I'm not against "shrinking government" anyway; as I said before, it's half of what I esteem to be the proper fix for this nation.

 

I think you're not taking into account how much government has grown since 1992. We invest our dollars into things now that were ideas in infancy or flat out weren't feasible in 1991. Just cutting expenditures isn't enough anymore. I fail to see how we're any better than a $500B deficit if we trim all that which can afford to be trimmed.

 

Plus, I disagree that Spain has been in a recession for 80 years.

 

sad part about all of this is our dollars that we are borrowing from china is being used by the eu and world bank to bail out greece where the people reitire at around 50 with full pensions. we need to keep what little money we have here in this country. get business to reinvest in the united states. if it means tax breaks to get them back and create jobs so be it.l jobs equal more tax money. take a look at blfd va. small town yes but still way back when walmart wanted to come to the area they were looking at blfd wva. they said no. to much traffic trash noise and other things. blfd va said come here gave them a tax break helped them get the land.now look at the area walmart sams club ryans lowes staples fast food resturants and nicer ones like bob evans and applebees. now if you look at blfd va compared to blfd wva. va is neat and clean roads kept up few empty homes ready to fall down. yes not much to downtown but the store that are there still do enough business to keep open. yes most of the jobs may not be high paying manufacturing jobs but again you have kept joy mfg. in blfd va and a few others business in the business park. so lowering taxes can lead to increased jobs and taxes. you pay for everything in wva from fire to streets. not so much in va side. property taxes are not as bad in va as wva. so if the federal gov. would give tax breaks to business to lure them back could be more jobs and more taxes. also look at boeing in sc. gov trying to stop them from building this plant because the workers do not want the union. if they stop this thousands of jobs lost and tax dollars to the state and fed gov. but just the gov. spending money will not help this economy maybe for a short time but not long term. small business is the way to get jobs ging again. cut the waste in washington and the obama care and that will be a start. every agency can cut waste. i know where i work we have cut in the past 4 years about 6 million from our budget but still give good care to the mentally ill here in staunton and northern va.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

sad part about all of this is our dollars that we are borrowing from china is being used by the eu and world bank to bail out greece where the people reitire at around 50 with full pensions. we need to keep what little money we have here in this country. get business to reinvest in the united states. if it means tax breaks to get them back and create jobs so be it.l jobs equal more tax money. take a look at blfd va. small town yes but still way back when walmart wanted to come to the area they were looking at blfd wva. they said no. to much traffic trash noise and other things. blfd va said come here gave them a tax break helped them get the land.now look at the area walmart sams club ryans lowes staples fast food resturants and nicer ones like bob evans and applebees. now if you look at blfd va compared to blfd wva. va is neat and clean roads kept up few empty homes ready to fall down. yes not much to downtown but the store that are there still do enough business to keep open. yes most of the jobs may not be high paying manufacturing jobs but again you have kept joy mfg. in blfd va and a few others business in the business park. so lowering taxes can lead to increased jobs and taxes. you pay for everything in wva from fire to streets. not so much in va side. property taxes are not as bad in va as wva. so if the federal gov. would give tax breaks to business to lure them back could be more jobs and more taxes. also look at boeing in sc. gov trying to stop them from building this plant because the workers do not want the union. if they stop this thousands of jobs lost and tax dollars to the state and fed gov. but just the gov. spending money will not help this economy maybe for a short time but not long term. small business is the way to get jobs ging again. cut the waste in washington and the obama care and that will be a start. every agency can cut waste. i know where i work we have cut in the past 4 years about 6 million from our budget but still give good care to the mentally ill here in staunton and northern va.

 

Definitely agree with you about Greece. I hate to see perfectly good aid go to complete, utter waste to support a culture whose lifestyle is predicated on taking it easy. I'm not saying that many Hellenes don't work hard, they do, but the culture, much like Italy, doesn't specifically reward those who put in extra effort.

 

I think, though, you're opening a new can of worms with your discussion about Wal-Mart. All the industries you named are service industries: no manufacturing, nothing corporate, nothing that is going to draw people into the area. Service industries don't pay competitively, and that serves to keep depressed areas depressed. I'm not saying to get rid of them-they do provide employment, and something is better than nothing; I'm saying that the mistake was to bring them in BEFORE we brought in more significant employment opportunities.

 

Tariffs are the ticket to keeping American jobs in America. Make it unprofitable to move industries abroad, and then, you will see fewer and fewer tax breaks being required to haul businesses in. Of course, I'm speaking in hypotheticals, because this will never happen. Tax breaks for businesses went from being a perk to being necessary to bring in business, and there's something despicably wrong about that.

 

Again, I'm all for cutting any spending that may be cut. But I promise, it will not be enough. Especially when you're hemorrhaging tax money that would originally be there if not for tax cuts. Stop the tax cuts, or increase taxes. Since the first cannot and will not happen, the second must be done.

[ghs73 157]

Definitely agree with you about Greece. I hate to see perfectly good aid go to complete, utter waste to support a culture whose lifestyle is predicated on taking it easy. I'm not saying that many Hellenes don't work hard, they do, but the culture, much like Italy, doesn't specifically reward those who put in extra effort.

 

I think, though, you're opening a new can of worms with your discussion about Wal-Mart. All the industries you named are service industries: no manufacturing, nothing corporate, nothing that is going to draw people into the area. Service industries don't pay competitively, and that serves to keep depressed areas depressed. I'm not saying to get rid of them-they do provide employment, and something is better than nothing; I'm saying that the mistake was to bring them in BEFORE we brought in more significant employment opportunities.

 

Tariffs are the ticket to keeping American jobs in America. Make it unprofitable to move industries abroad, and then, you will see fewer and fewer tax breaks being required to haul businesses in. Of course, I'm speaking in hypotheticals, because this will never happen. Tax breaks for businesses went from being a perk to being necessary to bring in business, and there's something despicably wrong about that.

 

Again, I'm all for cutting any spending that may be cut. But I promise, it will not be enough. Especially when you're hemorrhaging tax money that would originally be there if not for tax cuts. Stop the tax cuts, or increase taxes. Since the first cannot and will not happen, the second must be done.

 

one thing is manufacturing likes to see areas like blfd with the stores and shops. it takes brave council members and gov. to do what is needed to bring in the higher paying jobs.i agree wtih higher tarrifs. keep them inline with what is charged for our products abroad. but if you look at blfd va compared to blfd wva it is day and night in services and costs. the town of blfd when it snows is out clearing the roads side and main roads. my parents lived on a hill in blfd and the town was there bright and early clearing the road. then on the wv side you see snow covered roads. this is in part because of the tax base that the service business bring into the town. and the town does try to lure manufacturing to the area. but they need the help of the state for this in good roads and access to those roads which with the four lane is much better.things like this do not happen overnight but this community is on the right track. and i think state and fed. gov. needs to look at this and see what has worked with tax breaks for business. not no taxes but breaks less taxes so they can have the stbility to hire more and build more.

[Guest The Variable]

Who is John Gault?

[Hacker 82]

John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." The novel is seen by many as the embodiment of her philosophy of Objectivism. She described Objectivism this way; "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

 

You will find that some on the political right subscribe to parts of her philosophy, especially involving the rights of the individual.

 

Personally I always have seen objectivism as selfishness bordering on Narcissism

[Guest The Variable]

John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." The novel is seen by many as the embodiment of her philosophy of Objectivism. She described Objectivism this way; "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

 

You will find that some on the political right subscribe to parts of her philosophy, especially involving the rights of the individual.

 

Personally I always have seen objectivism as selfishness bordering on Narcissism

 

I was quoting the beginning of the book in an attempt to be pithy. I am reading it right now. A lot of what she describes in the book, a lot of the actions taken by progressives (called progressives in the book as well back in the 50s) then have been going on for decades and even more so now. Objectivism maybe selfish and perhaps narcissistic in nature, but it draws much closer parallels to the Constitution and our nations founding that the progressive movement that seems divergent and caustic to that document.

 

Rand was a refugee from the soviet union, that must be taken into consideration, but since a lot of our leaders in washington have this idea of social justice its no suprise that the novel seems so applicable today.

[hokie07 11]

I was quoting the beginning of the book in an attempt to be pithy. I am reading it right now. A lot of what she describes in the book, a lot of the actions taken by progressives (called progressives in the book as well back in the 50s) then have been going on for decades and even more so now. Objectivism maybe selfish and perhaps narcissistic in nature, but it draws much closer parallels to the Constitution and our nations founding that the progressive movement that seems divergent and caustic to that document.

 

Rand was a refugee from the soviet union, that must be taken into consideration, but since a lot of our leaders in washington have this idea of social justice its no suprise that the novel seems so applicable today.

 

One of my favorite books. It was part of our reading for the semester in one of the Comparative Economic Systems classes I took in undergrad. I hope you enjoy it half as much as I did. Atlas Shrugged has been called the second-most influential book in the world; only behind the Bible.

 

I'm still waiting on the movie Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 to come out on DVD. It only hit the big city theaters so I wasn't able to catch it. I've already signed up on Amazon for notification when it's available for purchase.

Edited July 25, 2011 by hokie07