Obama won't rule out raising taxes on middle class

[theanalogkid]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/obama-agnostic-on-deficit-cuts-won-t-prejudge-tax-increases.html

Of course no politician talks about cutting spending. It's never about shrinking governmnet, it's always about expansion.

[killacs]

What really needs to happen:

1) Cut spending on military HEAVILY. Leave the wars and leave some of our bases.

2) Taxes raised on EVERY class. I recall reading something where Warren Buffet paid a lot of money in taxes but overall it was only like 17% of his income. Now if Buffett losses even 30% of his income he ain't broke or sitting in the poverty line. No reason for that. This country needs to get the yearly deficit under control then work on debt

[TheRealist]

Raising taxes when about 17% of workers are unemployed/disenfranchised is a great idea. **sarcasm**

Any more economics brainbusters?

[RicoVacilon]

1) Cut spending on military HEAVILY. Leave the wars and leave some of our bases.

Huge. Make the DoD about DEFENSE and not offense. Also, reforming SS and Medicare would go a long way as well.


2) Taxes raised on EVERY class.

Yea, we actually have really low taxes both historically and comparitively. I think what is likely is a backdoor tax as opposed to a clear cut upping of income tax %'s across brackets.

[sideoutshu]

Huge. Make the DoD about DEFENSE and not offense. Also, reforming SS and Medicare would go a long way as well.

Disagree. People aren't afraid to attack us because they think they can't be successful in the attack. It is because they fear retaliation.

[killacs]

Disagree. People aren't afraid to attack us because they think they can't be successful in the attack. It is because they fear retaliation.

We could still retaliate, but do we really need bases in like Germany?

[rank is dumb]

Disagree. People aren't afraid to attack us because they think they can't be successful in the attack. It is because they fear retaliation.

Why? We just attack the nearest Punching bag of a country and never catch the real attackers..

I think they don't attack cause they know americans are selfish, self centered people.. And even if they do kill a few thousnd 4 weeks later we will all be talking about Tiger woods or John Mayer's comments and totaly forget what happened.

[Gtrght77]

Only way to fix the problems we have is to raise taxes.

Sometimes it's political suicide but may be better for the US in the long run. Bush Sr. was actually smart enough to figure that out. That is why I think the Presidents terms should be one six year term so they get to work instead of playing politics to get re-elected.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Disagree. People aren't afraid to attack us because they think they can't be successful in the attack. It is because they fear retaliation.

Agree... this is one area where I'm very conservative. I believe in a fully armed, fully geared-up military fr the very reasons you stated. The day we lay down our arms is the day we lay down period.


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

We could still retaliate, but do we really need bases in like Germany?

Yea, we do. For logistical & strategic reasons





.

[killacs]

Yea, we do. For logistical & strategic reasons





.I just don't think we need our troops overseas in as many places as they are. I do agree that we need to keep ourselves armed though.

[Gtrght77]

I just don't think we need our troops overseas in as many places as they are. I do agree that we need to keep ourselves armed though.

I agree, we spend so much on the Military compared to the rest of the world that making Cuts would not be laying down our arms. We don't need troops everywhere, we can keep them in the place we need them and close the ones that are not as needed.

[Nevada_Ballin]

We do need bases overseas, i dunno how many are neccesary but we do need them. Many of our allies who house our bases also want them there.


.

[killacs]

We do need bases overseas, i dunno how many are neccesary but we do need them. Many of our allies who house our bases also want them there.


.

Whether they want them there or not isn't the point. The point is do we need them there? We are allies with damn near all of Europe. Sitting in Germany is pretty pointless. Having bases in places like South Korea and Kuwait I agree with.

[RicoVacilon]

Agree... this is one area where I'm very conservative. I believe in a fully armed, fully geared-up military fr the very reasons you stated. The day we lay down our arms is the day we lay down period.


.

Funny. . . no one mentioned laying down our arms. But I do feel a game of strawman coming on!

[Nevada_Ballin]

Funny. . . no one mentioned laying down our arms. But I do feel a game of strawman coming on!

Cutting military spending "heavily" (which you think is "huge") is laying down arms. See elimination of F-22 Raptor. Go ahead and heavily cut military spending and you put us at a disadvantage with the rest of the world in advancing technology on that front.

Or should we let China surpass us there too?




.

[sanantonio]

Cutting military spending "heavily" (which you think is "huge") is laying down arms. See elimination of F-22 Raptor. Go ahead and heavily cut military spending and you put us at a disadvantage with the rest of the world in advancing technology on that front.

Or should we let China surpass us there too?




.

That wouldn't happen Nevada but on a lighter note how bout some nukes, China: 240 and US: 9,400 and just throwing this one in for grins Iran: 0. I don't trust China but at the same time they know what time it is.

Nevada we have way to many bases around the world it's just a huge unneccessary money black hole. Strategically and logistically speaking I have no doubt we could close at least half our bases and still be in good shape.

And then there is this


The first drones flew before the September 11 attacks - searching for Osama bin Laden. Now the US Air Force estimates that about 15 per cent of its $US230 billion ($260 billion) arms-procurement program will be spent on robot equipment within five years.

Predators can fly 700 kilometres, then hover for 30 hours at a stretch, feeding real-time video and other data through 10 simultaneous streams to controllers in 10 locations. Priced at $US4.5 million, Predators carry sensors that intercept electronic signals and listen in on phone conversations - and they carry missiles. The newer Reapers cost $US17 million and can fly nearly 6000 kilometres.

The US Air Force now has more drone operators in training than fighter and bomber pilots.

The war game she is a changing.

[theanalogkid]

Cutting military spending "heavily" (which you think is "huge") is laying down arms. See elimination of F-22 Raptor. Go ahead and heavily cut military spending and you put us at a disadvantage with the rest of the world in advancing technology on that front.

Or should we let China surpass us there too?




.

The US doesn't need to spend the amount of money it does on military defense. There's really no logical argument that can be made supporting the military industrial complex. I don't see China attacking the US any time soon.

The dollar will collapse in the future, it's coming, no fiat currency lasts forever. History has shown that. The Military Industrial Complex will collapse with it.

[RicoVacilon]

Cutting military spending "heavily" (which you think is "huge") is laying down arms.

No, it's not.

[RicoVacilon]

The dollar will collapse in the future, it's coming, no fiat currency lasts forever. History has shown that.

What a hokey argument. NOTHING lasts forever. So because of that the dollar is destined to fail. And a comet is going to destroy everyone. Or something else apocalyptic and melodramatic.

[killacs]

Thankfully three of you get it :p

[killacs]

What a hokey argument. NOTHING lasts forever. So because of that the dollar is destined to fail. And a comet is going to destroy everyone. Or something else apocalyptic and melodramatic.

Actually the way the dollar is being abused makes its collapse imminent. You can't print trillions upon trillions and expect it to be ok.

[theanalogkid]

What a hokey argument. NOTHING lasts forever. So because of that the dollar is destined to fail. And a comet is going to destroy everyone. Or something else apocalyptic and melodramatic.

Gold has been used as a store of value for thousands of years dating back to ancient Egypt, and still is currently.

Fiat currencies have never lasted for the long-run. The temptation to overprint and debase the currency is far too great.

[sanantonio]

Gold has been used as a store of value for thousands of years dating back to ancient Egypt, and still is currently.

Fiat currencies have never lasted for the long-run. The temptation to overprint and debase the currency is far too great.

Good thing alchemy isn't possible in it's basest form or gold would be following the route of the dollar. Gold has an intrinsic value based on human need and throughout time that need has been fairly stable depending on supply and other factors.

[RicoVacilon]

Actually the way the dollar is being abused makes its collapse imminent. You can't print trillions upon trillions and expect it to be ok.

Dollar won't be in trouble as long as there's PIGS in Europe. And, at least hopefully, by the time the EU gets their PIGS straightened out we will be able to back off the deficit spending. If the EU stabilizes and we're still in heavy deficit spending mode, then there could be problems.

[RicoVacilon]

Gold has been used as a store of value for thousands of years dating back to ancient Egypt, and still is currently.

You realize no one uses gold as a currency, right? Gold is a COMMODITY. No country currently is using gold in circulation--which is what currency is. Gold also has no intrinsic value so it's actually more comparable to fiat than you are willing to admit.

I've been down this pro-gold-standard road with a lot of people and unfortunately they're full of crap. I'd be more than willing to go down it with you as well. Start a gold thread if you want.

[RicoVacilon]

Gold has an intrinsic value based on human need and throughout time that need has been fairly stable depending on supply and other factors.

I know it's nitpicking, but just to point out. . . since the value of gold is based solely on what humans attribute to it, that value is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic.

[sanantonio]

I know it's nitpicking, but just to point out. . . since the value of gold is based solely on what humans attribute to it, that value is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic.

It's ok I pick nits on occassion myself. :p

[resnor]

Nevada we have way to many bases around the world it's just a huge unneccessary money black hole. Strategically and logistically speaking I have no doubt we could close at least half our bases and still be in good shape.


Thank you, General. It's nice to know that you have the qualifications to determine how many bases we need.

[killacs]

Thank you, General. It's nice to know that you have the qualifications to determine how many bases we need.

Unless we are playing assaults on countries who happen to be our allies we don't need certain bases as there are no threats near some of them

[sanantonio]

Thank you, General. It's nice to know that you have the qualifications to determine how many bases we need.

Well you're more then welcome.

[Gtrght77]

Thank you, General. It's nice to know that you have the qualifications to determine how many bases we need.

Like the Generals actually decide these things.

[rank is dumb]

They should have a $1 national Debt tax every week for those who are working.. $10 tax for Business.

[theanalogkid]

They should have a $1 national Debt tax every week for those who are working.. $10 tax for Business.

Or perhaps they should cut spending. The answer should never be more taxes. Spending isn't in control. that is why the deficit is so large.

[TheRealist]

Or perhaps they should cut spending. The answer should never be more taxes. Spending isn't in control. that is why the deficit is so large.

Finally someone is making sense in here...

[killacs]

Or perhaps they should cut spending. The answer should never be more taxes. Spending isn't in control. that is why the deficit is so large.

It's gotten to the point where they need both

[resnor]

Unless we are playing assaults on countries who happen to be our allies we don't need certain bases as there are no threats near some of them

We have bases in places to allow us to have our troops in proximity to places that we might want/need to send them. Now, if you want to advocate an isolationist stance, we could have a discussion. But, if your argument is that we only need to have bases in places that aren't our allies...well, let's see you get a country that isn't our ally to allow us to put a base in their country.

[rank is dumb]

Or perhaps they should cut spending. The answer should never be more taxes. Spending isn't in control. that is why the deficit is so large.


To be honest I don't even think about the National Debt or taxs anymore.. I was just fcking around lol... I got more improtant things in my life then to worry about what a bunch a rich white guys do lol..

[sanantonio]

We have bases in places to allow us to have our troops in proximity to places that we might want/need to send them. Now, if you want to advocate an isolationist stance, we could have a discussion. But, if your argument is that we only need to have bases in places that aren't our allies...well, let's see you get a country that isn't our ally to allow us to put a base in their country.

Worked in Iraq!!

[bk1998]

Worked in Iraq!!

Uh yeah, because we didn't establish any kind of presence in Kuwait or Turkey leading up to that. :rolleyes:

[RicoVacilon]

Deficit Hawks during a recession have been proven wrong time and time again. Deficit spending during a recession works. The problem is making sure to draw back the deficit after coming out of a recession.

[sanantonio]

Uh yeah, because we didn't establish any kind of presence in Kuwait or Turkey leading up to that. :rolleyes:

Ah sarcasm meets sarcasm lol.

[theanalogkid]

Deficit Hawks during a recession have been proven wrong time and time again. Deficit spending during a recession works. The problem is making sure to draw back the deficit after coming out of a recession.

So why did the depression of 1920-21 last only 1 year with no deficit spending or any government interventionism, but the Great Depression last 15 years with massive governmnet spending both leading up to and during it?

[StreetPack]

So why did the depression of 1920-21 last only 1 year with no deficit spending or any government interventionism, but the Great Depression last 15 years with massive governmnet spending both leading up to and during it?

I take it you're a classical economist :p

[Ultimatum-A]

They should have a $1 national Debt tax every week for those who are working.. $10 tax for Business.

I like this idea. But only until the national debt is gone. And only during times when there is a government spending freeze(like Obama says there will be soon). That way the government can't just go hogwild with our money and it will give the people a reason to b!ch about a government spending freeze and an incentive for congress to approve one. lol. Besides, I think we should freeze government spending for a year every 4 years, in the 2nd or 3rd year of a President's term. Or maybe every 6 years, nah every four sounds good! Oh and I think we should cut it down to $1 every two weeks, so $2 national debt tax every month, to be taken out of our paychecks. Oh and if you make more than $200,000 a year, you have to pay $10 a month. LOL! And I'm serious!

[TheRealist]

I like this idea. But only until the national debt is gone. And only during times when there is a government spending freeze(like Obama says there will be soon). That way the government can't just go hogwild with our money and it will give the people a reason to b!ch about a government spending freeze and an incentive for congress to approve one. lol. Besides, I think we should freeze government spending for a year every 4 years, in the 2nd or 3rd year of a President's term. Or maybe every 6 years, nah every four sounds good! Oh and I think we should cut it down to $1 every two weeks, so $2 national debt tax every month, to be taken out of our paychecks. Oh and if you make more than $200,000 a year, you have to pay $10 a month. LOL! And I'm serious!

Even if this was implemented now, you would still not be able to pay off the national debt in your lifetime. In fact, you'd probably be lucky even to shave off 10% of our current debt under that plan. At that rate, it would take over 700+ years (i didn't even factor interest on outstanding debt into the equation) to pay off the debt.

Having to contribute MY lifetime's worth of earnings to all these tax increases to compensate for sins of the past in which I took no part is grossly unfair.

I'm not going to just accept the fact that people before me were irresponsible, so I have to lay down and face the consequences of their action.

Borrow at lower interest rates to pay off outstanding debt, decrease future spending, across the board tax cuts.

[theanalogkid]

I take it you're a classical economist :p

I just don't buy the Keynesian inflationary economics.

Japan tried deficit spending back in the 90s with surpluses mind you. It did not work and their economy is still suffering.

[Gtrght77]

Even if this was implemented now, you would still not be able to pay off the national debt in your lifetime. In fact, you'd probably be lucky even to shave off 10% of our current debt under that plan. At that rate, it would take over 700+ years (i didn't even factor interest on outstanding debt into the equation) to pay off the debt.

Having to contribute MY lifetime's worth of earnings to all these tax increases to compensate for sins of the past in which I took no part is grossly unfair.

I'm not going to just accept the fact that people before me were irresponsible, so I have to lay down and face the consequences of their action.

Borrow at lower interest rates to pay off outstanding debt, decrease future spending, across the board tax cuts.

We are taking part now.

America more or less voted for this debt. We all have a share of the blame now. We demand more for less every day.

[RicoVacilon]

So why did the depression of 1920-21 last only 1 year with no deficit spending or any government interventionism, but the Great Depression last 15 years with massive governmnet spending both leading up to and during it?

Umm. . . because it was bigger? lol

[theanalogkid]

Umm. . . because it was bigger? lol

Maybe it was bigger because deficit spending attempting to avoid a market correction only prolonged it.

The Depression of 20-21 was not exactly small by any measure either.

[RicoVacilon]

Maybe it was bigger because deficit spending attempting to avoid a market correction only prolonged it.

Yup, and maybe it was bigger.

What's unfortunate is that economists are forced to take one side or the other. Russ Roberts video is a case in point. On one side are the Keynesians. On the other are the Austrians (/Chicagoans). And no one bothers to think are different times certain blendings of the two are appropriate.

[theanalogkid]

Yup, and maybe it was bigger.

What's unfortunate is that economists are forced to take one side or the other. Russ Roberts video is a case in point. On one side are the Keynesians. On the other are the Austrians (/Chicagoans). And no one bothers to think are different times certain blendings of the two are appropriate.

Deflation during the 20-21 depression was bigger than deflation at any point during the great depression with some estimates at 18%. In fact most of the measures are very comparable to the Great Depression but it only lasted 1 year instead of 15. Harding implemented the correct policies, FDR did not. (I don't think confiscating people's gold then revaluing it for the governments gain is a correct policy for instance)

Since Keynesian economics has already been shown not to work I don't see why it's a vaild choice. The only thing Keynesian economics is good for is to keep those in power in power.

[TheRealist]

We are taking part now.

America more or less voted for this debt. We all have a share of the blame now. We demand more for less every day.

This will offend some...

But we're individuals before we're Americans. Therefore, when it comes to me and a country...I choose me. There's no way I'm being forced to sacrifice myself for others, what kind of pitiful existence is that? If I wanted to choose that, then fine. But if not...

People my age (20) are going to be paying higher taxes and will see their standard of living go down all the while we support an older class through Medicare/S.S. and the trillions upon trillions of debt they have accrued for us.

It's unfair and if they expect the debt to be paid off in anyway...it should be on OUR terms and not theirs. Lower taxes, decrease government spending, finance new debt to pay off old debt at lower interest rates.

[Ultimatum-A]

This will offend some...

But we're individuals before we're Americans. Therefore, when it comes to me and a country...I choose me. There's no way I'm being forced to sacrifice myself for others, what kind of pitiful existence is that? If I wanted to choose that, then fine. But if not...

People my age (20) are going to be paying higher taxes and will see their standard of living go down all the while we support an older class through Medicare/S.S. and the trillions upon trillions of debt they have accrued for us.

It's unfair and if they expect the debt to be paid off in anyway...it should be on OUR terms and not theirs. Lower taxes, decrease government spending, finance new debt to pay off old debt at lower interest rates.

LOL!!!! taking out loans to pay off loans is what got us into this situation in the first place! And you may be an individual before an American, but I am an American before an individual. If my country calls me to go to war, I am going to go and fight for my country! Likewise, if my country calls me to help pay down a debt that we have all countributed to, I am going to answer that call! It is our duty as Americans! I don't know any country that allows more freedoms to its people than the United States, which allows you to feel the way you do. Take away those freedoms and you belong to the country in which you live! So believe it or not, you are an American first! Now, I don't condone the actions of our generation or of past generations in regards to our national debt, but it is thinking like yours that keeps us from being able to put a dent in the national debt! And I don't care if it takes a thousand years to pay down the national debt, we have to start somewhere! As long as we can get our spending under control and begin to lower the debt, even a little, I would view that as a huge success.

[RicoVacilon]

Since Keynesian economics has already been shown not to work I don't see why it's a vaild choice.

lol, OK. If you say so.

[RicoVacilon]

People my age (20) are going to be paying higher taxes and will see their standard of living go down all the while we support an older class through Medicare/S.S. and the trillions upon trillions of debt they have accrued for us.

Almost none of this is true. People your age are barely paying any taxes because they are barely making any money (if at all!). Your standard of living will NOT decrease significantly for any significant amount of time. The people using Medicare and SS have paid into it plenty to be able to justify drawing onit. I hate to sound like a "you little whippersnapper" since I'm only in my 30's, but you got to check things out a little bit better before whinin like an ole man yourself.

That said, yes the current generation needs to be proper stewards for the generations to come--and that goes for responsible actions concerning fiscal as well as environmental resources.

[TheRealist]

LOL!!!! taking out loans to pay off loans is what got us into this situation in the first place! And you may be an individual before an American, but I am an American before an individual. If my country calls me to go to war, I am going to go and fight for my country! Likewise, if my country calls me to help pay down a debt that we have all countributed to, I am going to answer that call! It is our duty as Americans! I don't know any country that allows more freedoms to its people than the United States, which allows you to feel the way you do. Take away those freedoms and you belong to the country in which you live! So believe it or not, you are an American first! Now, I don't condone the actions of our generation or of past generations in regards to our national debt, but it is thinking like yours that keeps us from being able to put a dent in the national debt! And I don't care if it takes a thousand years to pay down the national debt, we have to start somewhere! As long as we can get our spending under control and begin to lower the debt, even a little, I would view that as a huge success.

You're gonna lol me? Check your premises...:D

Tell me when Congress explicitly issued new debt with the sole intent to pay off old debt. How many national debt commissions have been formed in the past 10 years? The grand idea that government can somehow steer the economy and wage wars thousands of miles away is what is precipitating the situation, not some failed "debt alleviation" policy.

You also said you'd go to war if it were called of you. Is there a reason for that or can anyone just tell you to go kill someone in some foreign land and you'll just automatically comply? The U.S. is not a principle or some flawless ideology. We say all the time that the U.S. (or insert your country here) stands for freedom, truth, honesty, etc., but her actions have been anything but consistent with these principles. How much "freedom" has been given to the projected hundred thousand innocent Iraqi citizens who have perished in the past decade as a result of our actions? It also seems fitting that the U.S. finds it suitable to "protect my freedoms" by taking them away (or restricting them) entirely through things such as the Patriot Act, Fairness Doctrine, or even FCC.

A nation is not a principle. It can aspire to be a principle, but it can never attain that right. A government therefore should not grant freedom subjectively, it should uphold it objectively. Freedom and choice is not something given by some collective body, it is something that inherently radiates from the individuals that compose that body.

You also said we "all" have contributed to the national debt. How did I voluntarily contribute towards the national debt? Can you prove this? Even if you could, (which you can't...) then you still wouldn't be able to justify saddling future generations of Americans with higher taxes. Tell my 6 yr. old cousin that he brought this on himself, that should be a good conversation.

[TheRealist]

Almost none of this is true. People your age are barely paying any taxes because they are barely making any money (if at all!). Your standard of living will NOT decrease significantly for any significant amount of time. The people using Medicare and SS have paid into it plenty to be able to justify drawing onit. I hate to sound like a "you little whippersnapper" since I'm only in my 30's, but you got to check things out a little bit better before whinin like an ole man yourself.

That said, yes the current generation needs to be proper stewards for the generations to come--and that goes for responsible actions concerning fiscal as well as environmental resources.

"Going to be paying higher taxes" and "are paying taxes" is completely different. I never said the latter, I said the former...

I also never said anything about the elderly not being entitled to their payments (even though they are technically not...as ss reform will show)... but if we're talking SS...

The people now receiving SS funds aren't getting back "their" money. They paid into SS for the retirees before them. Just like current retirees are being paid for by current wage earners. This is why there will be a problem in the upcoming future when there are going to be a heck of a lot of old people and not enough current wage earners to support the benefits promised to them. This is when the government is either going to screw over the elderly by raising the age requirements or screw over current wage earners by raising SS taxes. My money says they raise the requirements. Nothing is fairer than signing a percentage of your paycheck away under the gun every month in hopes that you'll live long enough to actually get back what you put it in. :rolleyes:

[RicoVacilon]

This is why there will be a problem in the upcoming future when there are going to be a heck of a lot of old people and not enough current wage earners to support the benefits promised to them. This is when the government is either going to screw over the elderly by raising the age requirements or screw over current wage earners by raising SS taxes.

Actually neither. There are billions of dollars paid into SS from fraudulent SSn's of illegal immigrants that need the papers in order to work. Those papers are for invented people with invented SSN's. Since the people paying into it are illegal, when/if it comes time to collect, they won't be able to receive benefits--yet they paid into SS. So all this talk about SS going under doesn't take all that money into effect.

Your argument about taxes is simply a red herring. Whether we have higher taxes in the future or not isn't going to be dependent on current deficit spending. And like I've said before, we have historically and comparatively low tax percentages right now, so your theory that taxes will be higher in the future is a pretty safe bet.

[theanalogkid]

Actually neither. There are billions of dollars paid into SS from fraudulent SSn's of illegal immigrants that need the papers in order to work. Those papers are for invented people with invented SSN's. Since the people paying into it are illegal, when/if it comes time to collect, they won't be able to receive benefits--yet they paid into SS. So all this talk about SS going under doesn't take all that money into effect.

Your argument about taxes is simply a red herring. Whether we have higher taxes in the future or not isn't going to be dependent on current deficit spending. And like I've said before, we have historically and comparatively low tax percentages right now, so your theory that taxes will be higher in the future is a pretty safe bet.

What about all the surpluses from SS that have been siphoned off for other uses?

[bk1998]

What about all the surpluses from SS that have been siphoned off for other uses?

Most people probably never realize that this is happening.

Tell someone that yearly profits from SS have been keeping deficits lower than they actually were, and more than likely they'll just stare at you blankly.

[MonoxideChild]

Sooner or later theyll have to end the wars, not just push them around to different locales, but END them. War is being used as an excuse to spend money. Military spending is a bigger problem than the bailouts and all the healthcare nonsense imo. It's just impossible to spend so much on what they call, "military" spending, and continue as a sovereign country. Thats waht happened to the USSR, it wasnt socialism, it was the ridiculous amount of the country's money being poured into expanding military and when they need to tap reserves, guess what happened