Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bernanke: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Speaking before the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (a hilarious misnomer if there ever was), the Fed Chairman, as predicted, lambasted GOP opposition to raising the debt ceiling yet again. As the mouthpiece for Wall Street, he indicated the mere talk of this action would have potentially severe market implications that are not needed to achieve the committee's goals. He also dismissed some GOP suggestions of selectively paying debt as it comes due in the interim:

Given the size of the debt and the uneven flow of government revenue, such an effort would buy only a short amount of time while raising unnecessary concerns in financial markets, he said.

"While debt-related payments might be met in this scenario, the fact that many other government payments would be delayed could still create serious concerns about the safety of Treasury securities among financial market participants," Bernanke said.


Wall Street is clearly not on board, and as the saying goes, what they want, they usually get. Back to square one??

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2011/06/14/national/w113225D24.DTL


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Wall Street is clearly not on board, and as the saying goes, what they want, they usually get. Back to square one??


Well you just have to figure this is a political appointee and will choose his path based on that.
I do not think that the philosophy of continue to feed a heroin addict more heroin until you kill him is going to work.

I had him on in the background this am while working in the office and my thought was he sounded like Barney Frank about 6 weeks before the Freddie and Fannie were found out to be sitting on over 5 Trillion in bad debt.

Okie


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Speaking before the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (a hilarious misnomer if there ever was), the Fed Chairman, as predicted, lambasted GOP opposition to raising the debt ceiling yet again.

There is no reason what-so-ever to trust the federal government with an increase in the debt ceiling unless it is directly coupled with the measures necessary to rapidly get back under the existing ceiling and start chipping away at the debt. The American people should be given the confidence that raising the debt ceiling would only serve to provide a factor of safety while we maneuver a heavy ship and not just enable more unrestrained deficit spending. If that's too much to ask, then let the pseudo-default happen. The games must end.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 1):

Well you just have to figure this is a political appointee and will choose his path based on that.

Neither Bush or Obama have particularly sound economic knowledge, so not sure how this has much bearing beyond cementing his own legacy.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 2):
There is no reason what-so-ever to trust the federal government with an increase in the debt ceiling unless it is directly coupled with the measures necessary to rapidly get back under the existing ceiling and start chipping away at the debt.
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 2):
The games must end.

Absolutely - so where are the realistic proposals from either party?? I still don't see alphabet agencies on the chopping block, closure of tax loopholes, or a ban on the Fed using taxpayers as a piggy bank for bankers...

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 2):
pseudo-default happen

I'm not sure stabbing the patient is practical treatment.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):

I'm not sure stabbing the patient is practical treatment


It would be more like rehab, curing the patient from his addiction.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):

Absolutely - so where are the realistic proposals from either party


There will absolutely be none as long as the temporary solution is the least path of political resistance to get re-elected instead of what is the correct path to get the spending under control for the sustainability of the country's financial well being. We are talking a political process that counts on funding and legislation for special interest groups that return the votes for the funding or legislation.

Okie


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Perhaps someone will care to volunteer the US debt rating a week after default would occur. Then start working through the implications of whatever debt rating it is. You might suddenly find Boeing and GE in trouble, not to mention GM and Ford. And as for small business, good luck.

Why not have a look at Greece, apparently some find the fate of Greece attractive. Well you will get most of that, but without those wonderful Aegean islands.

Wall St is not jumping up and down simply because it thinks there will be a solution, but many of you guys are suggesting that the best thing is to default. I don't suppose Wall St would be backing that view as a way forward, least of all for them!

Matthew Zames for one seems less than sanguine about the effects of a default.


User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 1):

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Wall Street is clearly not on board, and as the saying goes, what they want, they usually get. Back to square one??


Well you just have to figure this is a political appointee and will choose his path based on that.
I do not think that the philosophy of continue to feed a heroin addict more heroin until you kill him is going to work.

Um, yes he is. And, for the record, who appointed him first?



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Wall St is not jumping up and down simply because it thinks there will be a solution, but many of you guys are suggesting that the best thing is to default. I don't suppose Wall St would be backing that view as a way forward, least of all for them!


No Baroque, most are looking for spending cuts and massive cutting down the size of government before and finding a path to sustainability before giving a go ahead for a short term debt increase.
The big socialist push is to put massive taxes on small business and high income until they put them out of business.
Population is roughly 307M, 134M taxpayers/families, the upper 1% pay 50% of the taxes the lower 50% (67M) pay no taxes. Using those numbers then each of the upper 1% pays the tax burden for 67 families
Divided into the population that means the average taxpayer in the 1% bracket supports the tax-burden of 154 people.
What would you consider a fair number 154, 250, 1,000 or more?

Okie


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 2):
There is no reason what-so-ever to trust the federal government with an increase in the debt ceiling unless it is directly coupled with the measures necessary to rapidly get back under the existing ceiling and start chipping away at the debt.

Amen. _Both_ sides here have a meritorious, existential argument. We die if the debt ceiling is reached. We also die if it _is_ raised and we spend ourselves to death, which is what the Democrats want to do.

This is what gives some steel to the Republican point of view. I agree with yours BTW. The economic debt should end here. If we raise the ceiling let's make equivalent cuts going forward. IMO a health care revolution. And reduced defense footprint.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Well there's really no option but the raise the ceiling is there, even though that in itself is a very bad idea, because let's face it, when the ceiling is raised, US public debt with quickly snowball completely out of control to levels which are simply surreal.

It has been said numerous times before, but the AAA+ rating for the US government is completely out of touch which economic reality of the country as the underlaying fundamentals are nowhere near this premium status which dates from another era still: there is no way on earth the US can ever repay its debt and if it weren't for the Chinese buying whatever government paper the US currently prints, the US would have a very hard time raising the cash it urgently needs to fund its standards of living, which have grown way above and beyond its economic status right now.

Now, raising the dept ceiling basically means selling out to the PRC and you can bet your life than in 10, 15 or maybe 20 years, they'll come back and claim what's rightfully theirs: looks to me like the US has just put out very big FIRE SALE banner, all across the country and the PRC is very pleased to see that happening.


User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 7):
No Baroque, most are looking for spending cuts and massive cutting down the size of government before and finding a path to sustainability before giving a go ahead for a short term debt increase.
The big socialist push is to put massive taxes on small business and high income until they put them out of business.
Population is roughly 307M, 134M taxpayers/families, the upper 1% pay 50% of the taxes the lower 50% (67M) pay no taxes. Using those numbers then each of the upper 1% pays the tax burden for 67 families
Divided into the population that means the average taxpayer in the 1% bracket supports the tax-burden of 154 people.
What would you consider a fair number 154, 250, 1,000 or more?


Wow, that is impressive! Half of the taxable population does not pay taxes? Is half of the population to poor to be taxed? How come?

Also, do not forget VAT and other possible taxes beyond income. I cannot imagine that 50% of the taxable population do not pay VAT.


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):
I'm not sure stabbing the patient is practical treatment.

As Sam Kinison said, "I checked with a rehab, just in case you know...they wanted 13,000 dollars for 3 weeks....my first thought was that if you are doing drugs and have 13,000 dollars, you don't have a f---ing problem yet!". And that in a nutshell is our problem. If the politicians get the debt ceiling raised without tying the raise to some sort of cuts, then the problem is solved in their minds until the next time we hit the debt ceiling.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Why not have a look at Greece, apparently some find the fate of Greece attractive.

All you have to do is look at how the left on this forum alone spins up to 105% rated power when just the mention of revamping SS or Medicare, starting in a decade or more is brought up. Greece will look like a minor disturbance if we have to really crack down on either of those programs or food stamps or any other number of other social programs.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 10):
I cannot imagine that 50% of the taxable population do not pay VAT.

There is no federal sales tax at this time in our country but that can't last long now.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 7):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Wall St is not jumping up and down simply because it thinks there will be a solution, but many of you guys are suggesting that the best thing is to default. I don't suppose Wall St would be backing that view as a way forward, least of all for them!

No Baroque, most are looking for spending cuts and massive cutting down the size of government before and finding a path to sustainability before giving a go ahead for a short term debt increase.

Ahem. That IS a solution. Although not, I suspect, the one that Wall St expects though they would be happy enough with it -until someone runs the profit expectations with a substantial cut in government expenditure at which point - oh I don't think I should mention it as obviously we are in the land of the flat earth here.

They probably expect a cave-in and on past experience that would be the strong favourite. But one way or another they expect a solution. Which probably means they will be doubly pissed if one does not eventuate.

Hell probably hath no fury like a market scorned to adapt a well known turn of phrase.


User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 10):
Also, do not forget VAT and other possible taxes beyond income. I cannot imagine that 50% of the taxable population do not pay VAT


All pay a sales tax, fuel tax etc on items now but the income tax is adjusted so that the lower 50% get credit back on income tax. So as long as the there is a double system it would not matter if it was a VAT tax or any other if it credited back on income tax then it a matter of semantics of what you call the tax or at what point in the chain the tax is collected.

I am by no means remotely close to the 1% but self employed. I have to file my taxes quarterly and in-spite of all the rhetoric the taxes have to be paid first before I get to pay myself.
Now if I took an extreme view and for sake of discussion then I am supporting the tax burden of say maybe 4 families.
The conclusion would be that I get to buy a lot of HDTVs, Homes, Automobiles, Vacations, Food, Clothing for 4 families before I can buy food to feed my family.

Okie


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1348 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 13):
The conclusion would be that I get to buy a lot of HDTVs, Homes, Automobiles, Vacations, Food, Clothing for 4 families before I can buy food to feed my family.

That's incredible OKIE, You pay taxes on zero income?
Of course not.
To pay taxes, you have to have income. You are not paying taxes first.

Also, we pay taxes to support Government programs. Everyone in the Conservative side likes to gripe about how much money get's paid to welfare, but would you rather pay the 20,000 a year to keep a family floating ,or the 40,000-60000 a year to incarcerate everyone that turns to theft and violance to survive instead of vegging on welfare?


The Governement must control spending , no doubt, but they need to do it on the biggest damn items. Defense, social security, medicare,and interest on the debt.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 13):
Now if I took an extreme view and for sake of discussion then I am supporting the tax burden of say maybe 4 families.
The conclusion would be that I get to buy a lot of HDTVs, Homes, Automobiles, Vacations, Food, Clothing for 4 families before I can buy food to feed my family.

You're all dissing progressive tax systems -- we all have them because, well, the alternative would be to impoverish a huge chunk of the population. How does that fit with the land of the free and the great society?

Take 50% of a million in income and the guy still has $500,000 to spend. I doubt he'll starve.
Take 10% from a guy who makes $20,000, and he struggles to pay the rent.

I'd be way more impressed with the right's call for spending cuts if they were prepared to get rid of Homeland Security, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, and cut military expenditures in half. Oh, and get rid of all those horrendous agricultural subsidies. But no -- the focus is on SS and medicare. The idea is to cut useful spending so they can continue to spend on useless stuff -- great thinking.

Doesn't anyone down there understand that a US debt default would be globally catastrophic? Too busy pointing fingers, I guess. I sure as hell won't be buying any US dollars for a while, and I think I'll sell the few US equities I have before its too late.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 15):
But no -- the focus is on SS and medicare.

As it should be - one is bloated and hasn't adapted to the times, the other is redundant.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 15):
useful spending

Is education and infrastructure improvements.

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):
looks to me like the US has just put out very big FIRE SALE banner, all across the country and the PRC is very pleased to see that happening.

All told the Fed doesn't mind killing the dollar either as they've been at it for a good 20 years now.

Some interesting thoughts from the Economist:

The Republican failure on the deficit is more serious. Mr Obama is deeply vulnerable here, not least because he is still trying to kid Americans that their fiscal future can be shored up merely by taxing the rich more. But the Republican solution of tax cuts and even deeper spending cuts (typified by Mr Pawlenty’s proposals this week) is arguably worse. Most of the burden of repairing America’s public finances should certainly fall on spending. But the deficit is simply too large to close through spending cuts alone. The overall tax take—at its lowest, as a share of GDP, in decades—must eventually rise.

An honest Republican candidate would acknowledge this and lay out the right way to do so—for instance, by eliminating distorting loopholes and thus allowing revenues to rise. He (or she) would also come up with a more systematic plan on the spending side. No Republican seems to understand the difference between good spending and bad. Investment in roads and education, for instance, ought not to be lumped in with costly and unreformed entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare. Defence should not be sacrosanct. That Mr Obama has no strategy either is not an excuse.


http://www.economist.com/node/18805643



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 15):
But no -- the focus is on SS and medicare. The idea is to cut useful spending so they can continue to spend on useless stuff -- great thinking.

Doesn't anyone down there understand that a US debt default would be globally catastrophic?

If you're not willing to look @ medicare and medicaid reform / replacement, then no matter. The finances will blow up within 5 years anyway. Whether we default now or in 5 years, is not a major difference. You advocate one kind of explosion, the Repubs threatening default are talking about a different kind of explosion. Neither side is recommending a balanced budget and continued prosperity. Oh well.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17):
Whether we default now or in 5 years, is not a major difference.


Yes it is. If you default now. There's no tomorrow. The result will be catastrophic. With five years to fix things, well, at least you have five years to fix things

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16):

As it should be - one is bloated and hasn't adapted to the times, the other is redundant

I mispoke myself. I didn't mean to suggest those programs don't need major reform, they do. With a well-organized universal health care system in place, medicare would indeed be redundant. Social security is a different animal I still have a hard time understanding how you could create this universal pension system and then not fund it adfequately -- arms length from the government.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 18):
Yes it is. If you default now. There's no tomorrow. The result will be catastrophic. With five years to fix things, well, at least you have five years to fix things

Okay, well, either way most of my career is in the dead zone. I'd really like this to be fixed this year. It will be painful and I'd like to take the pain now. Otherwise this death march will continue for years. Both parties have a "default" policy right now and that isn't good enough. Of course businesses are quivering with fear.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 12):
They probably expect a cave-in and on past experience that would be the strong favourite. But one way or another they expect a solution. Which probably means they will be doubly pissed if one does not eventuate.

One will, the GOP has control of both houses on this one. They own the house and have th votes in the Senate to block any increase without the cuts. What we are seeing is all theatre. In the end the debt ceiling will be raised with the cuts the GOP wants.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1290 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 15):
Doesn't anyone down there understand that a US debt default would be globally catastrophic? Too busy pointing fingers, I guess. I sure as hell won't be buying any US dollars for a while, and I think I'll sell the few US equities I have before its too late.

Hey, be careful!  Wow! In the real "down there" we well understand what a US debt default would mean, it is "in between" you need to worry about.

Deep cuts in Federal expenditure are not as bad as a debt default, but will cause further destruction in the US economy. With a bit more skill, the US could soon have a war with Pakistan to fund. Special exception for that???


User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3102 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1267 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 21):
Deep cuts in Federal expenditure are not as bad as a debt default, but will cause further destruction in the US economy. With a bit more skill, the US could soon have a war with Pakistan to fund. Special exception for that???


I do not think that the US is going to default on debt. There is enough income to pay the debt. The US government is just a mad spender that has maxed out the credit card.
The concept of Demonizing the Bank for not raising the credit limit does not seem to be working.
Spending is going to have to be cut, we have quadrupled the spending in the last two years and doubled the debt, it is just not sustainable. One thing for sure those who buy our debt are going to be demanding some marginally higher interest rates.

Pakistan may be the regimes next target who knows.
Right now the government is busy arming the Mexican drug cartels with automatic weapons. No telling how many 1,000's of lives that is going to cost along with Billions of dollars to clean up.

Okie


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 20):
In the end the debt ceiling will be raised with the cuts the GOP wants.

Yes, but as the Economist article put it so well, the cuts need to be smart or there's no point in this exercise. Redundant agencies need to be axed, tax loopholes need to be closed to increase revenues, and the like. I have not seen these proposals to date.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 10):
Also, do not forget VAT and other possible taxes beyond income. I cannot imagine that 50% of the taxable population do not pay VAT.

They do pay local sales taxes, the gasoline (road) tax, etc. Just not income taxes to the federal government. Lots of them are actually in the positive since they get tax credits and actually receive money from the government instead of paying. Of course politicians love that since they can promise voters more money or "benefits" (aka government handouts forcibly confiscated from someone else through taxation).

Quoting Arrow (Reply 15):
You're all dissing progressive tax systems -- we all have them because, well, the alternative would be to impoverish a huge chunk of the population. How does that fit with the land of the free and the great society?

No, it'd have a dramatically smaller government and more freedom.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 12):
They probably expect a cave-in and on past experience that would be the strong favourite. But one way or another they expect a solution. Which probably means they will be doubly pissed if one does not eventuate.

Wait, what did you say? I'm pretty sure only Sarah Palin can get away with saying "eventuate."


25 gigneil : We. Need. More. Taxes. Period, in case you missed it. NS
26 BMI727 : And torpedo a massive export market's economy? They need us as surely as we need them. Politicians decided they were. That doesn't make it right. But
27 gigneil : Yes it DOES make it right, actually. What's actually fairest is a consumption tax. Let's get one of those. That's because we elect idiots at the loca
28 BMI727 : Sounds good. Let's go to a VAT. You pay as much tax as you wish. And we don't nationally? Shift it away from entitlement crap then.
29 Flighty : The elderly / wealthy favor a VAT because poor / young people then pay higher tax rates vs income than they do on the VAT. (Since rich people spend l
30 BMI727 : It has to replace income tax, otherwise it's not helping much. Maybe that's what needs to happen.
31 Baroque : You might think so, but you hit that debt limit and you do not. I am wondering if you understand what default is? Taxes (or rather the lack of them)
32 slz396 : What will happen however is that the ballance of power will change: in 20 years time, the US will no longer be treated as a respectable customer of c
33 Post contains images NIKV69 : Probably because the Dems don't want to just get rid of the loopholes and want to increase the tax rate on the rich while letting unions continue to
34 okie : We are only close to 50% of our income going to debt service. It will be a matter of how many social programs, government employee's that will not ha
35 Aaron747 : Both parties have shown they are unable to do anything about tax loopholes. There are wealthy donors to both parties who do not want the IRS to do an
36 Post contains images Baroque : So, you do understand. Trouble is that if you hit that limit, you risk those interest rates and massive cuts not to mention being on the ropes. Pleas
37 okie : I do not really have much control here but as pointed out up thread that the top 1% of the tax payers are supporting roughly 154 peoples tax burden,
38 gigneil : I was on board with that. NS
39 FlyPNS1 : But that won't fix the near-term budget problems. It might help in the long-term (2020 and beyond), but it does nothing to help today.
40 Baroque : I do hope you cannot catch me as ever having told you where to raise your taxes - unless I weakened and mentioned that you pay ridiculously low taxes
41 okie : All I can tell you at this point is that nobody and I mean nobody has jumped up and said increase my taxes nor cut the ropes on my "Hammock for Life"
42 Post contains images Baroque : I just wish I did not agree with you on this! The extra taxes should be really really widely based. Maybe progressive but this is not really a time t
43 Post contains images Arrow : The irony is, so many other places solved the problem by doing exactly that. We had a finance minister here years ago who coined the phrase "short te
44 okie : And in a constant state of change I would add. What ever accounting procedures you did last year or last quarter for that matter go out the window wi
45 Baroque : I can buy that. It is the % of this or that, if you stood on your left foot for four hours on the second Tuesday in the month that gets me mad. Most
46 NIKV69 : How can you do that in times like this when the real unemployment rate is 15%? In normal times that works great but in a recession it's death. I didn
47 Aaron747 : Some recent studies have suggested a majority of people receiving unemployment benefits have halted their active searches at an average of 10 months.
48 Flighty : It's harmful in many ways. As you point out, it reduces people's drive to work. So by definition it cuts work output there. It also is a large debt.
49 NIKV69 : Recent studies? The states have systems in place that force extended benefits receivers to prove they are looking for work and can't simply sit on th
50 Flighty : Most people have a relative, or a friend. I don't see how the govt needs to ensure we always have a steady paycheck. That is not a govt role IMO!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TSA Pat-Down Must Be Sharia Compliant posted Sun Nov 21 2010 10:55:24 by photopilot
Group - Ronald McDonald Must Be Shelved! posted Fri May 21 2010 13:16:17 by EA CO AS
Should Troop Levels In Afghanistan Be Raised? posted Tue Oct 6 2009 14:30:12 by FuturePilot16
You Must Be In Mumbai If:- posted Fri Aug 21 2009 11:33:07 by HAWK21M
Venezuelan Oil Workers Must Be Socialist posted Thu Jul 16 2009 12:07:02 by MaverickM11
Must Be The End Of The World People Are Shopping! posted Mon Dec 22 2008 07:59:51 by Derico
Must Be A Slow News Day.... posted Mon Aug 13 2007 19:12:19 by Mirrodie
European Eating-Feels So Wrong It Must Be Right? posted Sun Apr 8 2007 17:49:43 by Dougloid
Charging The Ipod Nano. Must Be A Better Solution posted Thu Oct 12 2006 18:51:56 by Kay
Voting Machines: Integrity Must Be Preserved posted Mon Oct 2 2006 01:38:07 by AerospaceFan