Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper I don't think he's even going to need to. All economic indicators are showing the economy is turning around. In fact, just NOW the S&P 500 just hit the 1000 mark.
NOTHING increases tax revenue like economic growth, which was the main cause of budget surpluses at the end of the 90's.
People in this thread act like it's already happened even though they simply said, "it would be foolish to take any options off the table"
Economic growth isn't going to fill a 12% budget deficit, unless it's huge and the US economy is simply too close to its maximum capacity to grow that much. Tax increases are needed.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper OK, so let me get this straight.
Obama is a liar because just after implementing the largest middle class tax cuts in history his administration says, "There is a lot that can happen over time. It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
The tax increases in question haven't happened.
On the other hand, G ...[text shortened]... aid, "read my lips. no new taxes" and new taxes DID happen.
Is George H.W. Bush a liar?
Yes, H.W. Bush WAS a liar. Its time to throw ALL statists under the bus regardless of their meaningless party affiliation. Fair enough?
Now that the gloves are off, what about the biggest statist of our era who is Barak Obama?
Sure, he gave a tax cut but let me ask you this, if he puts $1 in my pocket and then procedes to take $5 dollars in other ways, what say you? The tax cut was only smoke and mirrors so he can smile in the camera come next election and say he gave us all tax cuts. It is nothing short of an attempt at deception. Not only do we have a tax to look forward to on the middle class, apparaently we also have the largest regressive tax to look forward to in cap and trade as well as the tax increases coming to cover universal health care. Of course, you also ignore the tax on tabacco. So tell me, who do you think smokes the most? Is it the rich or the poor?
Originally posted by whodey Yes, H.W. Bush WAS a liar. Its time to throw ALL statists under the bus regardless of their meaningless party affiliation. Fair enough?
Now that the gloves are off, what about the biggest statist of our era who is Barak Obama?
Sure, he gave a tax cut but let me ask you this, if he puts $1 in my pocket and then procedes to take $5 dollars in other ways ...[text shortened]... the tax on tabacco. So tell me, who do you think smokes the most? Is it the rich or the poor?
But you see, you got this backwards. In this case he puts 5 dollars in one pocket and takes 1 dollar out of the next, and only for smokers.
That's what this amounts to by him passing the very bill he *promised* to pass.
BTW, which industrialized country with a high quality of life would you say is not statist?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Economic growth isn't going to fill a 12% budget deficit, unless it's huge and the US economy is simply too close to its maximum capacity to grow that much. Tax increases are needed.
You could be right on that. Clinton's first budget simultaneously raised taxes and cut spending. It passed with every single Republican voting against it.
The large amounts of spending taking place now are to jump start the economy, just like Bush's bank bailout that had bipartisan support (with bi-polar infighting).
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper But you see, you got this backwards. In this case he puts 5 dollars in one pocket and takes 1 dollar out of the next, and only for smokers.
That's what this amounts to by him passing the very bill he *promised* to pass.
BTW, which industrialized country with a high quality of life would you say is not statist?
yes -- if we're going to throw all the "statists" under the bus, we need to define exactly what a "statist" is.
Originally posted by joe beyser I recon ifn we gottta dance to this dang thang were gonna hafta pay the fiddler.
Joe, you don't know me so don't waste your time trying to peg me. I'll try to help you out.
It's like this, son. I've lived in Arizona since 1988 but I've lived the MAJORITY of my life in Minnesota. So don't waste your time tossing some cowboy jargon that you've learned from the movies.
Engage yourself in the world, you'll see that simple stereotypical visions are eventually shattered.
Until then i guess I'll have to put up with you. But please, don't step on my every post. The site has rules against that.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper But you see, you got this backwards. In this case he puts 5 dollars in one pocket and takes 1 dollar out of the next, and only for smokers.
That's what this amounts to by him passing the very bill he *promised* to pass.
BTW, which industrialized country with a high quality of life would you say is not statist?
I am not talking about only tabacco. I am talking about the apparent soon to be coming taxes on the middle class, as well as cap and trade, as well as the new health care costs and God only knows what else is up his sleeve. That is what I am referring to as putting one dollar in your hand and taking five from your wallet.
As for countries that have achieved "statist" status, I would say that statism is a movement for that is NEVER quenched. It only is a matter of whether they are headed in that direction currently or whether their goals are stiffled. You see, they move in increments and are the most active and oppurtunistic in times of crisis or unrest to push through their agendas with promises of "change". Time of hardship will undoubtidly come, so they lie in wait for their chance. They never reach their utopia as your freedoms begin to vanish before your very eyes. Then once those freedoms disappear they disappear forever as their statists policies become entrenched.
I would say ALL countries have some degree of this but currently the US is in hyperdrive. It is the natural state of man to seek power, secure power, and increase their power thus the centralization of government is never ending. The only way to fight it is for the masses to fight for those freedoms themselves. I can only hope they have begun to wake up.
Originally posted by Melanerpes yes -- if we're going to throw all the "statists" under the bus, we need to define exactly what a "statist" is.
The Statist believes in the supremecy of the State, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the freedoms it grants the average Joe over that of the state. For the Statist, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state which are never ending. In this, Statism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a "soft tyranny", which increasingly became more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny or some form of totalitarianism. That is why the word liberal is not accurate when referring to the statist. It is because the term liberal is the opposite of authoritarian, or the opposite of statism.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper You could be right on that. Clinton's first budget simultaneously raised taxes and cut spending. It passed with every single Republican voting against it.
The large amounts of spending taking place now are to jump start the economy, just like Bush's bank bailout that had bipartisan support (with bi-polar infighting).
Isn't it strange that Bush's out of control spending led to the credit crisis? How then is out of control spending going to get us out of the crisis?
The Austrian School of Economics proposes that the crisis is an excellent example of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, in which credit created through the policies of central banking gives rise to an artificial boom, which is inevitably followed by a bust. This perspective argues that the monetary policy of central banks creates excessive quantities of cheap credit by setting interest rates below where they would be set by a free market. This easy availability of credit inspires a bundle of malinvestments, particularly on long term projects such as housing and capital assets, and also spurs a consumption boom as incentives to save are diminished. Thus an unsustainable boom arises, characterized by malinvestments and overconsumption.
But the created credit is not backed by any real savings nor is in response to any change in the real economy, hence, there are physically not enough resources to finance either the malinvestments or the consumption rate indefinitely. The bust occurs when investors collectively realize their mistake. This happens usually some time after interest rates rise again. The liquidation of the malinvestments and the consequent reduction in consumption throw the economy into a recession, whose severity mirrors the scale of the boom's excesses.
The Austrian School argues that the conditions previous to the crisis of the late 2000s correspond exactly to the scenario described above. The central bank of the United States, led by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, kept interest rates very low for a long period of time to blunt the recession of the early 2000s. The resulting malinvestment and overconsumption of investors and consumers prompted the development of a housing bubble that ultimately burst, precipitating the financial crisis. This crisis, together with sudden and necessary deleveraging and cutbacks by consumers, businesses and banks, led to the recession. Austrian Economists argue further that while they probably affected the nature and severity of the crisis, factors such as a lack of regulation, the Community Reinvestment Act, and entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are insufficient by themselves to explain it.[43]
Over-leveraging, credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations as causes
Another probable cause of the crisis—and a factor that unquestionably amplified its magnitude—was widespread miscalculation by banks and investors of the level of risk inherent in the unregulated Collateralized debt obligation and Credit Default Swap markets. Under this theory, banks and investors systematized the risk by taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow tremendous sums of money that they could only pay back if the housing market continued to increase in value.
According to an article published in Wired, the risk was further systematized by the use of David X. Li's Gaussian copula model function to rapidly price Collateralized debt obligations based on the price of related Credit Default Swaps.[41] Because it was highly tractable, it rapidly came to be used by a huge percentage of CDO and CDS investors, issuers, and rating agencies.[41] According to one wired.com article: "Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril...Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees."[41]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_X._Li
CDOs and Gaussian copula
Li's paper "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach"[3] (2000) was the first appearance of the Gaussian copula applied to CDOs, which quickly became a tool for financial institutions to correlate associations between multiple securities.[2] This allowed for CDOs to be accurately priced for a wide range of investments that were previously too complex to price, such as mortgages. However in the aftermath of the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 the model has been seen as fundamentally flawed and a "recipe for disaster".[2] According to Nassim Nicholas Taleb, "People got very excited about the Gaussian copula because of its mathematical elegance, but the thing never worked. Co-association between securities is not measurable using correlation"; in other words because past history is not predictive of the future. "Anything that relies on correlation is charlatanism."[2]
Li himself apparently understood the limitation of his model, in 2005 saying "Very few people understand the essence of the model."[4] Li also wrote that "The current copula framework gains its popularity owing to its simplicity....However, there is little theoretical justification of the current framework from financial economics....We essentially have a credit portfolio model without solid credit portfolio theory."[5] Kai Gilkes of CreditSights says "Li can't be blamed", although he invented the model, it was the bankers who misinterpreted and misused it.[2]
Originally posted by whodey I am not talking about only tabacco. I am talking about the apparent soon to be coming taxes on the middle class, as well as cap and trade, as well as the new health care costs and God only knows what else is up his sleeve. That is what I am referring to as putting one dollar in your hand and taking five from your wallet.
As for countries that have achie ...[text shortened]... masses to fight for those freedoms themselves. I can only hope they have begun to wake up.
OK, so you're talking about tabacco plus hypotheticals that haven't happened.
You didn't exactly answer my question. I asked which countries have a high quality of life that are not statist. Surely you're basing your ideal government stucture on some models that have proven successful.
And if all countries have some degree of statism, which countries are LESS statist with a higher quality of life than the US?
Originally posted by whodey Isn't it strange that Bush's out of control spending led to the credit crisis? How then is out of control spending going to get us out of the crisis?
What does government spending have to do with the credit crisis?
Originally posted by utherpendragon It does not bother you that Obama lied through his teeth to get elected?
Also,I believe myself and others here predicted this was coming despite the nay sayers.
Well...let's take him out back, and beat the crap out of him!!ðŸ˜
2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
03 Aug '09 14:59
Back to Top