| highwaystar101 said: I have faith Obama will handle the financial situation well though. |
Why?
What has he done to give you that faith? I mean he is a great speaker, and motivator, but personality won’t get us out of this (in fact, it’s what’s getting us deeper into it).
TheRealMafoo said:
This is 100% true. It’s just that simple. |
I'm all for what you are saying. Once the economy turns around, we should decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP and raise taxes. But those who are fiscally conservative should not complain when we raise taxes, although they are entitled to complain if spending increases.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
TheRealMafoo said:
Why? |
Personal perspective I guess. He has said a fair few things where I have thought "yeah, that's a good idea". Not the same for everyone I know, but as I said I had faith... which isn't the same as fact lol
| akuma587 said: Percentages are all well and good, but percentages =/ actual and real revenue. You can be collecting a higher percentage of revenue from the rich BUT STILL be collecting less money from them than you would otherwise. A higher percentage does not mean more revenue. And that is where your logic is ultimately flawed. Let's say you are taking 50% of 100 - that is 50. Now let's say you are taking 60% of 70 - that is 42. The percentage was higher, but the actual number was lower. A higher percentage does not mean a higher number of revenue overall. That's basic algebra.
|
LOL you are arguing his point. That raising the tax rate does not collect more money. Based on this comment, you think lowering the tax rate will generate more real dollars (and I happen to agree with that).
I personally don’t care if the rich get richer. I just care the number of dollars government brings in. If lowering taxes brings in more dollars, and the rich get richer, that’s a win-win.
Taxes are not meant to be a punishment. It’s just a mechanism to pay the bills.
akuma587 said:
I'm all for what you are saying. Once the economy turns around, we should decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP and raise taxes. But those who are fiscally conservative should not complain when we raise taxes, although they are entitled to complain if spending increases.
|
So you're for at least keeping the spending the same until we find a way to collect more money?
highwaystar101 said:
Personal perspective I guess. He has said a fair few things where I have thought "yeah, that's a good idea". Not the same for everyone I know, but as I said I had faith... which isn't the same as fact lol |
Fair enough. My personal perspective is I agree with our founding fathers. Our form of government was put into place to protect its people from the good intentions of man.
No one in the history of the US (aside from maybe Washington), has had more power or influence then Obama. No one has wanted to change what government means more then Obama.
To me, that’s a very scary combination.
TheRealMafoo said:
So you're for at least keeping the spending the same until we find a way to collect more money? |
Government spending will almost always increase over time as the economy grows larger. People who huff and puff about that are just plain stupid. Its much more important to look at how much government is spending as a percentage of GDP rather than the dollar amount. One is a "real" increase while the other is a "perceived" increase.
This is also the only way to account for inflation. Not taking inflation into account is equally dumb.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
TheRealMafoo said:
Fair enough. My personal perspective is I agree with our founding fathers. Our form of government was put into place to protect its people from the good intentions of man. |
That's fair. It's not a secret that Obama is a socialist is it. A more socialist America would be a big change but don't think he will be extreme in his pro-socialist changes if they occur. To be honest American people wont allow it.
I wouldn't know though, I'm not American so this is all seen from afar. It may be a different view on him there.
TheRealMafoo said:
Fair enough. My personal perspective is I agree with our founding fathers. Our form of government was put into place to protect its people from the good intentions of man. |
You love talking about the Constitution without actually citing to anything in the Constitution don't you?
You are mistaking fear of one type of government for another. How many provisions in the Bill of Rights have to do with protections for criminals, such as the detainees, versus how many have to do with protection from the government raising your taxes and taking property? I count 13 vs. 4. So if any President walks all over the rights in the Bill of Rights, it is one who dispels with the protections afforded to criminals, as there are significantly more of those.
The Constitution was made compared to the Articles of Confederacy as the government did not have ENOUGH power to raise taxes under the previous form of government. So if anything, you have things completely backwards. The Framers wanted to give the government more power than they previously had to raise taxes.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
akuma587 said:
Government spending will almost always increase over time as the economy grows larger. People who huff and puff about that are just plain stupid. Its much more important to look at how much government is spending as a percentage of GDP rather than the dollar amount. One is a "real" increase while the other is a "perceived" increase. This is also the only way to account for inflation. Not taking inflation into account is equally dumb.
|
Ok From 1950 to today...
Income:
Spending:
The tax rate for the rich in that time as been as high as 92% in 1952, and as low as 28% in 1990.
It seems no matter what we do with the tax rates, we collect about the same vs GDP.
How are we going to cover these expenses? The answer is we can’t. It’s crazy to propose something when we have no solution of how we are going to pay for it.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
