[kjjm4]

I think that its fairly likely that spending will be greater than the amount of revenue taken in the near future regardless of which party is in control. The majority of republicans want to spend a lot of money and lower taxes, but the majority of democrats want to raise taxes on the rich and spend even more than the republicans do.

I blame it on career politicians. They have to justify their own existance, so they have to continuously come up with new laws and new programs. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a full time legislature with each member getting paid $169,300 a year.

[Commander_Cool]

Originally Posted by cyrus-the-virus90

you need to cut taxes and spending. The more money people have the more they will spend and indirectly you will actually get more money.

I forget what this plan was called, and how to properly explain it.

Its called a laffer curve. If you tax too heavily you decrease economic activity which eventually decreases tax revenue, and if you have low taxes you have increased economic activity. Somewhere inbetween equilibrium is reached that maximizes tax revenue.

[timmyt]

Meanwhile, only 18 out of 355 congressmen voted against earmarks.

[Kellster]

Originally Posted by I love Impulses

So if the federal government is super weak then California can finally secede from the union? YES!

I propose that we get Nasa to make a Category 8 Hurricane and make it hit the entire south area that is being parasitic, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and a couple others and that will give us 40 additional years to have to face the problem again in which time we can maybe find a solution? Let's just nuke Florida.

The South isn't parasitic, its the fastest growing region of the country. Get rid of the MidWest.

That study doesn't account for changes in administrational policy. There's no need for irrational fear mongering.

[koolkid]

Originally Posted by Commander_Cool

Its called a laffer curve. If you tax too heavily you decrease economic activity which eventually decreases tax revenue, and if you have low taxes you have increased economic activity. Somewhere inbetween equilibrium is reached that maximizes tax revenue.

You can't tell where you are on the curve. Plus economists for the most part agree that it doesn't work.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html

[scumquat1]

Originally Posted by koolkid

You can't tell where you are on the curve. Plus economists for the most part agree that it doesn't work.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html

I've seen Art Laffer speak several times and he's pretty clear in saying that it is the upper income brackets that are the ones where you get revenue increases in response to tax cuts. The dreaded "tax cuts for the rich" are what cause wealthy people to adopt behaviors that result in more economic activity of the type that increases government revenue. For example, the capital gains tax cuts of the Clinton administration caused a lot of activity that generated tax revenue.

In any event, I completely reject the idea that getting more of our money into the hands of the government is a good thing. The correct course of action is to reduce taxes across the board and let the American people decide what they want to do with their earnings, not Washington bureaucrats. The needs of people are literally endless, so we can't solve this problem by raising taxes. We need to cut the size of government and allow market forces to work.

[koolkid]

Originally Posted by scumquat1

I've seen Art Laffer speak several times and he's pretty clear in saying that it is the upper income brackets that are the ones where you get revenue increases in response to tax cuts. The dreaded "tax cuts for the rich" are what cause wealthy people to adopt behaviors that result in more economic activity of the type that increases government revenue. For example, the capital gains tax cuts of the Clinton administration caused a lot of activity that generated tax revenue.

In any event, I completely reject the idea that getting more of our money into the hands of the government is a good thing. The correct course of action is to reduce taxes across the board and let the American people decide what they want to do with their earnings, not Washington bureaucrats. The needs of people are literally endless, so we can't solve this problem by raising taxes. We need to cut the size of government and allow market forces to work.

I agree with you on a philosophical basis, but do you honestly think that it is politcally viable or just realistically viable? If we did that, not only would we be affected domestically, we would have to abandon all of our over seas commitments and responsibilities while giving up our position in the world to China. What I think should happen is, politicians have to stop promising new things, the easiest thing to do, then raise taxes and cut spending.

[NightKreeper]

Originally Posted by Animalm0ther3

dawt

[Matt 23]

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141

[Matt 23]

^ ^
the breakdown of how they got those numbers are under there names in pdf format.

[careyman_462]

^Yep, pretty funny seeing as Obama/Clinton supporters like to ***** about spending money on the war.

EDIT - We discussed this in another thread, and people refuted it with "McCain will spend more". I'll admit though, facts are hella more fun when they come from your ***.

[AR55]

I blame this on all FDR and Ronald Reagan. I'm dead serious too.

[koolkid]

Originally Posted by AR55

I blame this on all FDR and Ronald Reagan. I'm dead serious too.

Why would you blame Reagan? Yes he created large defecits with military spending, but in doing so bankrupt the Soviet Union, which left America in a unipolar position and a period of unprecedented prosperity in the 90's. And eventually the deficits were solved under the tax revenue generated during this boom during the Clinton Era. This is a long term problem that is the reuslt of entitlement programs like social security and medicare.

[koolkid]

Theres a great cnn money article on it right now.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news...tune/index.htm

The $34 trillion problem
Medicare is poised to wreak havoc on the economy. And our presidential candidates are avoiding the issue.

"If that average holds and if the rules of our social insurance programs don't change, then by 2070, when today's kids are retiring, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will consume the entire federal budget, with Medicare taking by far the largest share. No Army, no Navy, no Education Department - just those three programs."

It's not defense spending it's entitlements

[Furious Ge0rge]

Originally Posted by koolkid

Consumer confidence has nothing to do with taxes, it is not directly related to tax rates. There have been periods like in Johnson's Great Society Era where taxes were high and consumer confidence was high. American's have to live with what they've created, a fiscal nightmare.

I knew that didn't sound right when I typed it.

But anyways, my point still stands, Americans are hurting, badly, and the last thing we need are higher taxes. My mom is a single mother who has raised two children, got her a self a career, and for the past 10 years has been entirely independent, hasn't relied on welfare or social security, but the past few years have been increasingly hard for her, EVERYTHING is going up. Gas, food, utilities, and she makes a lot more money than she did 5 years ago. I'm not spouting socialist rhetoric here, but there is a real problem going on in this country, and it's not being covered by the media, and it's the fact that people who 5-10 years ago were living more than comfortably, are now hurting, and are otherwise responsible with their finances.

[Furious Ge0rge]

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

Some of the things he does say do come off as crazy. I consider myself a fairly average American when I judge those in office. When I hear someone touting to end taxes, cia, this, that, and another thing all in a term of office that is CRAZY. It takes a lot of time to do that. It takes a lot of time to do just one of those. Mr. Paul, IMHO, took a leap off the deep end in his election. I admire his passion, I agree with the taxes, but I also know about reality. If he were to start saying "we need to work towards <insert ONE goal> and by the end of my presidency I want that accomplished>" I would be a better supporter. Instead he comes off as a 16 yr old dreamer, change everything in no time and forget that the average person at McDonalds now can't make change in their head.

Again, that's your interpretation. The man is passionate about the values that founded this great country. Sure, his ideas may SEEM crazy, but there's good judgement, and well-thought out Political Theory behind his 'radical' ideas.

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

Make our country less safe? There goes that teenager stuff again, looking myopically and in a negative light. How am I going to take you seriously when you make broad generalized uninformed statements like that? Sure, bad stuff has happened on both sides of the agencies, but I bet if you put them on a scale the good far outweighs the bad. Its like saying we shouldn't have medications availible because they have side effects.

'Teenager' stuff, eh?

Viva la Revolution!

On Planet Earth.... Yes, it makes us 'less safe'. You DO realize the consequences for getting involved in Global politics with irrational people? Oh, you're one of those people that believe Bin laden attacked us because 'we're free'! Well, there's 1,000 other countries that have a higher standard of living, better education, more freedoms, and are A LOT closer to the Middle East than we are, and how come they seem to be unscathed by THE TERRORISTS?

I'll tell you why, we've been involved in irrational people, who deal in irrational politics. We've helped Bin laden. We've instated dictators in countries that were otherwise free and independant. We spy, we lie, and that makes us less safe. And now with the Patriot Act, and a water-tight seal on all Information going through the Pentagon, the crimes of our Government are hidden in-between red tape. When has the CIA vastly improved the standard of living for me, my family, or my neighbors? By pissing off people who think that anyone that isn't a Muslim should die? Oh, go CIA, thanks for making my job of going to sleep at night so much easier!

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

Demeanor, no. The fact that he forgets that change takes time kills his chances with me. The way e comes off wanting to rid us of our forgein intelligence arm kills it for him. The way he seems overly idealist and not rooted in reality kills it for him.

Well, given the choices we have for President, we have; no change, change in the same direction we've been going, or Ron Paul. The only other candidate besides Paul running to DECREASE Government spending, was Giuliani. No one has provided us with tangible change that will drastically cut spending, and give the Government back to the people. Sure, on some ideas, he is a bit extreme, but A LOT of change is better than... well, none. I've said it a hundred times, if I were to vote for my IDEAL candidate, it wouldn't be Paul, but he's the ONLY one with integrity to stand by his words, the IDEAS of change we NEED, and a REAL plan for change. Has Romney, Thompson, or Huckabee offered anything?

There's a reason why people like Paul, he's a person that would get in office, to REPRESENT the people, which is what the President is SUPPOSED to do, right? How many years has it been since the people were properly represented, and not just passed off as a means to get in the White House? Paul's the only one who is passionate about the people he represents. He is always looking out for the interest of the people over Government, which is what the very BASIS of our Constitution is.

Sure he promises a lot of change, and it may seem overwhelming, but it wouldn't happen over-night, and he is even quoted for saying so. Nothing happens over-night. Every radical change takes conditioning, and wide-spread support from the people. What honestly makes you think he's going to hop in the Oval Office on the 13th of January, and the next day the IRS, CIA, FBI, DOE, etc., are magically gone? Ignorance, I suppose, but I honestly doubt this is Paul's intention.

Originally Posted by Jim96SC2

I guess this again falls in the "if you don't agree with me your wrong" category for you. Vote for Paul if youwish. Vote for Hillary. Vote for Obama. Or hell, McCain. Thats your choice. But I think I've earned the ability to question someones platform and make judgements based on what I see. Thats kind of what the whole voting thing is after all.

I'm not telling you who to vote for, but when you ask for someone to do A, B, C, and D, I simply give you a candidate who does these things. You want lower taxes? You want a safer country? You want immigration reform? You want to end the Nany State we have become? Well, there's no other candidate better than Ron Paul for these issues listed. Paul is the ONLY one to propose a legitmate subscription for our Illegal Immigration problem (Which as you and I both know, is a HUGE problem), and that's attacking the problem at it's root. He doesn't want to erect a ****ing 100,000 mile long fence that will do nothing but piss of illegals and make them come in through our vulnerable ports just like human traffickers and sex slaves do. He wants to eliminate the Welfare State we have become. Illegals are leeches, and without a host, a leech will go away. What better way to invite illegal immigrants to our country than to turn it into a welfare state, and give anyone medical care and an education that has a sob story? What has McCain proposed? A ****ing wall? Romney? Thompson? Huckabee? And speaking of Socialism, what have the 3 other contenders proposed we do about the rampant Socialism in our Country? (Both Social and Corporate) Eh? These are MAJOR issues that are affecting us now. Our economy isn't doing so hot, we're spending like there's no tomorrow, and no one is putting a stop to it. What say Romeny, Huckabee and Thompson?

Oh right, only one change at a time.



Fact is, our country is going to go down the ****ter very fast if we keep up our current practices in Government. It's absolutely ****ing absurd how long this abuse of power has gone on in our country. I'm simply tired of seeing the same old faces in the White House, and nothing gets done. Everyone is ****ing miserable, nothing gets done, and we're getting robbed. You give me a candidate that doesn't seem 'crazy' to Jim95SC2, and has real change in mind, and I'll vote for him. Until then, keep criticizing Paul for delivering something we all need. Continuatally waiting for your dream candidate that will likely never come, is only helping out the people who are ruining our country. It seems we have approximately 4 years until people start to realize they're being robbed (See first post).

[koolkid]

On Planet Earth.... Yes, it makes us 'less safe'. You DO realize the consequences for getting involved in Global politics with irrational people? Oh, you're one of those people that believe Bin laden attacked us because 'we're free'! Well, there's 1,000 other countries that have a higher standard of living, better education, more freedoms, and are A LOT closer to the Middle East than we are, and [b]how come they seem to be unscathed by THE TERRORISTS

One, we were attacked because we are the preeminent power in a unipolar world.

Two, they have been attacked by terrorists. London Tube Bombings, Spanish Train Bombings. I think the assasination of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam by a Islamic Terrorist also counts as an attack. There have been plenty of foiled plots in Europe like in Germany as well.

The fact is because we are number one in the world we are an attractive target. And part of it does have to do with our culture and our "freedom" this war is a cultural battle, and a civilizational clash.

[Matt 23]

Originally Posted by koolkid

On Planet Earth.... Yes, it makes us 'less safe'. You DO realize the consequences for getting involved in Global politics with irrational people? Oh, you're one of those people that believe Bin laden attacked us because 'we're free'! Well, there's 1,000 other countries that have a higher standard of living, better education, more freedoms, and are A LOT closer to the Middle East than we are, and [b]how come they seem to be unscathed by THE TERRORISTS

One, we were attacked because we are the preeminent power in a unipolar world.

Two, they have been attacked by terrorists. London Tube Bombings, Spanish Train Bombings. I think the assasination of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam by a Islamic Terrorist also counts as an attack. There have been plenty of foiled plots in Europe like in Germany as well.

The fact is because we are number one in the world we are an attractive target. And part of it does have to do with our culture and our "freedom" this war is a cultural battle, and a civilizational clash.

True, but that is not the main reason Osama attacked us specifically. It is more or less our foriegn policy in the middile east that provoked Osama to lead attacks on the US.

[PDXMark]

Originally Posted by Bloomberg.com

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- Bond investors have never been so sure that the Federal Reserve will lose control of inflation. They're so convinced that they're giving up yields just to buy debt securities that protect against rising consumer prices.

The yield on the five-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Security due in 2012 has been negative since Feb. 29, and traded today at minus 0.17 percent. The notes, which were first sold in 1997, have never before traded below zero. Even so, firms from Deutsche Asset Management to Vanguard Group Inc., the second- biggest U.S. mutual fund company, say TIPS are a bargain...[Link to full story]

Please read!

[paintballpimp092]

Originally Posted by I love Impulses

So if the federal government is super weak then California can finally secede from the union? YES!

The rest of us are hoping California will secede too... Personally I wish they would've done it ten or fifteen years ago.

[Frank112916]

Originally Posted by koolkid

On Planet Earth.... Yes, it makes us 'less safe'. You DO realize the consequences for getting involved in Global politics with irrational people? Oh, you're one of those people that believe Bin laden attacked us because 'we're free'! Well, there's 1,000 other countries that have a higher standard of living, better education, more freedoms, and are A LOT closer to the Middle East than we are, and [b]how come they seem to be unscathed by THE TERRORISTS

One, we were attacked because we are the preeminent power in a unipolar world.

Two, they have been attacked by terrorists. London Tube Bombings, Spanish Train Bombings. I think the assasination of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam by a Islamic Terrorist also counts as an attack. There have been plenty of foiled plots in Europe like in Germany as well.

The fact is because we are number one in the world we are an attractive target. And part of it does have to do with our culture and our "freedom" this war is a cultural battle, and a civilizational clash.

lol...1,000....hahahhaha

I'm glad you have no clue what "Facts" and "statistics" are....

According to the Human Development Index study done in 2002, the United States ranks 8th overall in the world w/ an HDI value of .939. The countries that rank above us are as follows (in order from 1st to 7th). Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, and Iceland. Our Adult literacy rate is higher than 97.7%. Our GDP and Education index are .98 and .97 respectively. You are ****ing clueless.