U.S. debt impasse could be 'catastrophic'

[petros]

Great opportunity to get rich. :lol:

Not really. Our dollar is taking a pounding.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Global fears hit Gulf stocks

Worldpress.org - World Press Wire

........ever have ;one of those days?? when everything looks like it is going sh-itsky??

 

[petros]

yeah but immodium cleared it right up quick.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

yeah but immodium cleared it right up quick.

 

[taxslave]

yeah but immodium cleared it right up quick.

Likewise a little purge of speculators every now and then is not a bad thing.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Buffett: Tax Me and My Mega-Rich Friends

WASHINGTON -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to cut Washington's huge budget deficit, saying the move would not dampen investments or jobs.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to cut Washington's huge budget deficit, saying the move would not dampen investments or jobs. (Rick Wilking/Reuters) In a New York Times opinion article, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway proposed a tax increase on Americans who make at least $1 million per year and an additional increase on those making $10 million or more.

Buffett: Tax Me and My Mega-Rich Friends | Common Dreams

 

[ironsides]

America is Not Broke - Only Congress Is and It Can Be Replaced


The "market" is not a tornado or an earthquake; it's not an outbreak of hostilities between two nations; it's not a nuclear accident or a tsunami. It's the crowd-sourcing of pessimism or optimism about our financial future by a lot of people whose individual judgments are strongly influenced by other people with a significant stake in shaping the future the way they want it to be.
The market does not control America. Americans control America, and never forget it.

http://news.yahoo.com/america-not-broke-only-congress-replaced-162834225.html

 

[EagleSmack]

Buffett: Tax Me and My Mega-Rich Friends

WASHINGTON -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to cut Washington's huge budget deficit, saying the move would not dampen investments or jobs.

This was all the rage on talk radio.

In the US we can actually write out a check to the government. Buffett should lead by example and give away billions of his money to the US Govt. Lead by example Warren!

 

[petros]

This was all the rage on talk radio.

In the US we can actually write out a check to the government. Buffett should lead by example and give away billions of his money to the US Govt. Lead by example Warren!

They'd all have to pay through the ass if they didn't put hefty chunks of assets into NPOs. Damn near every billionaire seems to have some sort or NPO fund. If (HUGE if) Bill and Belinda wanted to buy a yacht in the name of their foundation and all of those who sat on the NPO board of directors agreed, it's legit.

 

[Bar Sinister]

America is Not Broke - Only Congress Is and It Can Be Replaced


The "market" is not a tornado or an earthquake; it's not an outbreak of hostilities between two nations; it's not a nuclear accident or a tsunami. It's the crowd-sourcing of pessimism or optimism about our financial future by a lot of people whose individual judgments are strongly influenced by other people with a significant stake in shaping the future the way they want it to be.
The market does not control America. Americans control America, and never forget it.

http://news.yahoo.com/america-not-broke-only-congress-replaced-162834225.html

Finally, an issue on which we agree. Absolutely right, the wealthiest nation on earth is not broke, it simply has to require those who have the necessary wealth to fork it over; and that is not the poor or middle class.

 

[petros]

I figure the best solution is to reduce the size of Govt and form blocks of 5 States under one regional govering body. That would reduce Govt in both State and Federal levels by at least 80% and then sell off whatever is left of New Jersey on eBay and give it to heavily armed Montanans for safe keeping.


All in favour say "oi vey!"

 

[JLM]

petros, next time try to remember that a wise man speaks because he has something to say, but a fool speaks because he has to say something.

Yukon Jack's last appearance was July 22.....................seemed fairly civil at that time! :smile:

 

[SLM]

I figure the best solution is to reduce the size of Govt and form blocks of 5 States under one regional govering body. That would reduce Govt in both State and Federal levels by at least 80% and then sell off whatever is left of New Jersey on eBay and give it to heavily armed Montanans for safe keeping.


All in favour say "oi vey!"

Radical!

(I mean that in a mutant ninja turtle kind of way )

 

[Machjo]

The tax cuts of former US President George W. Bush's administration, extended by Barack Obama, were attempts to "starve the beast." Bush said in 2001 "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been."[5]

Former U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressly advocates the policy: "please [Congress], starve the beast, don't perpetuate the problem, don't fund the largesse, we need to cut taxes."[6] U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, states "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."[7]

"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2] to “(cut) the taxes that feed social spending” in an effort to “force the federal government to reduce wasteful spending." The assumption is that the government would not spend beyond its means (taxes). History has shown, however, that the US government - the beast - has instead borrowed money to feed its continued growth resulting in ever increasing United States public debt rather than reductions in the size of government.

Some empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."[10]

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That last statement is spot on. To cut taxes without cutting spending risks a reaction in the exact opposite direction later, with general support for major tax hikes. Here in the Ontario election the PCs are falling into the same trap of criticizing the Liberal Party of Ontario of having raised taxes, and promising that the PC Party won't raise taxes. That's foolhardy and hardly a "conservative" platform. Had the PC's started campaigning on spending cuts, I could go for that, the idea being that success on that front would naturally lead to lower taxes or at least lower debt down the road. But tax cuts as a policy platform in its own right independently of success or not in spending cuts? That's a dangerous platform to vote for. And quite frankly, that alone is making me rethink voting PC unless my local candidate can clarify a wiser position on his part.

Here's a pretty sad quote:

"Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...

Morally I see this as spineless. A responsible politician runs either on revenue growth (sch as tax increases), spending cuts, or both. A spineless one runs on tax cuts or other cuts to sources of revenue, spending increases, or both.

And of course smart and responsible voters vote for the first kind; self-interested or stupid ones vote for the second.