|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
Make the rich pay their fair share.
They do... in fact they have a higher rate than others, so they pay a higher "share."
Quote:
End all benefits to companies that move overseas. Also, do not buy goods from the companies that move overseas. They love China so much, see if the Chinese people buy their goods - they won't.
What do you mean by benefits? Stop subsidizing companies? I'm fine with that. I actually am.
Don't buy goods from companies that are overseas? Once again, I'm for it, but's really easier said than done ... few products (if any) are 100% built in the US... and even then the "true" American companies who do full assembly in the US still have things imported from overseas ... even if just raw materials ...
But it would have to be done on the individual level. The minute that we put together a formal boycott or tariff on other country's goods, they do the same to us and we will probably experience (my guess anyway) our generation of stagflation.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,311
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,311 |
Let me put out a couple of ideas and see where it goes. 1. Cut back or end aid to the 160 countries that we give foreign aid to. Why do we give aid to China, Pakistan, Libya. We need the money more than they do.That would save nearly $40 billion annually. 2. Bring our troops home. Iraq and Afghanistan have drained our Treasury, and what has all this money bought us, except corrupt governments? And now we are in Libya. Why do we still have troops in Europe, Japan, Italy and Korea? Let’s tell all these countries that the cost of our deployments will cost ($X) annually. Pony up or we are pulling out. I checked earlier tonight and we have spent from the beginning of the Iraq war to tonight about 921 billion dollars in Iraq alone. Our military has saved the butts of countless countries throughout the world for so many years and, for the most part, we have been denigrated by most of them. When our military returns, deploy them to the borders to protect our sovereignty. Just an estimate, but this move probably would save nearly $150-$250 billion annually. Military threats could be handled by Rapid Deployment Forces in the USA. 3. Stop all corporate subsidies. This means the oil monopolies currently siphoning the money directly from our wallets; farm subsidies also must cease. No special incentives to corporate buddies through tax law modifications. Also, no incentives for farmers to not grow on their farm. Grow corn and make ethanol or food to feed the needy. A report regarding General Electric shows that on U.S.-generated net profit of over $4 billion, no corporate income tax was paid; in fact GE received over $3 billion in tax credit. Jeffrey Immelt (GE’s CEO) is one of Obama’s economic advisers. Very convenient! I have no clue what could be saved by the elimination of corporate subsidies, but this year alone, GE’s share could have been $4 - $5 billion, and that’s only one, in-your-congressman’s-pocket corporation. Annual savings will probably approach several hundreds of billions. 4. A recent CBO report stated that several hundreds of billions could be saved by eliminating overlapping government programs. What are you all waiting for? There would be jobs lost, but government is too big. 5. Cutting your salaries and benefits would add very little to the savings, but you must realize our Founding Fathers did not envision career politicians. You deserve to be paid for your time. You do not deserve the excessive retirement and medical benefits you demand. You should receive Social Security and Medicare, when you qualify. All past, present and future congressional retirees should immediately be stricken from the retirement and health care rolls and placed on Social Security and Medicare only. 6. If you are a multi-national corporation, if you create a product in this country with US materials and US labor force for the US market, you get a break on taxes. If you make a car to be shipped back into the US market from abroad using a auto worker making 14 dollars a day in Mexico or 26 dollar gap jeans in Bangladesh with a top end worker making 28 cents an hour working 15 hours a day 7 days a week, we will tax you through the nose or you need to sell that product somewhere else. 7. Programs like welfare should not last forever. Many of us have had problems some time in our life and we need help for a short time. But you should not have 2 or 3 generations on welfare and not looking for some type of a job. There should be a limit on welfare. And you should pass a drug test for public assistance. 8. Look at some type of program for some of the people in prison. That is a cost that is rising rapidly.It cost about 4 times the amount of money to put someone in prison as it does to educate them. 9. As for revenue, keep the highest tax rate at where it is or even raise it a couple of points. That is about 1 trillion dollars right there. 10. We need to create decent jobs. That solves so many problems so that the worker can pay taxes, get health care, get off public assistance and most importantly when us as a county have a few bucks laying around, we normally spend it spurring more economic activity. A couple of the big assumptions of Ryans budget plan is that Obamacare will be repealed saving 1.3 trillion dollars and if the Bush tax cuts were extended, there would be another 1.5 trillion through increase employment. The number of savings that Ryan is using on the tax cuts in his budget is from the original Bush tax cuts circa 2001 that in the 10 years after the tax cuts (through his year), there would be 1.6 million additional jobs created. Ryan is assuming the same. The creation of 1.6 million jobs did not happen. Since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, have lost 1.726 million jobs due to a number of reasons. It appears that in Ryan's budget plan they are using the same set of numbers that was used for the Bush tax cuts. Paul Ryan had the Heritage Foundation help him come up with a lot of this analysis. http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/heritageanalysis452011.pdf
Last edited by northlima dawg; 04/07/11 11:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
Quote:
Quote:
As was asked.. Where do you think the cuts should come from?
Third time: Where should cuts come from charlie?
Fourth time, where should the cuts come from charlie?
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Charlie doesn't want any cuts. He wants more spending, and to take more money from the "rich". (which is anyone making more money than Charlie)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Correct, his version of a balanced budget does not involve cuts, exept to the military probably... his idea is for the bottom 50% to pay nothing and/or get refunds, the middle class to pay very little and the upper class to be taxed at about a 70-90% clip so that nobody takes home more than a few hundred thousand dollars.. and he believes this is sustainable...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
You have a pretty good list there.
I don't agree with 6.
Any retaliation on our companies with any sorts of tariffs is always met with foreign tariffs. We don't need an economic slowdown or a ceasetrade. It's bad for the globe, not just us.
Other than that, we need to stress number 10. While the idea of not needing workers because ours are more expensive than foreigners has been brought up time and again ... the opposite is true when / if we have good business leaders and corporations in place. If a company needs workers but there aren't enough, then they only way that they can get workers is by offering them increased wages or benefits. The workers dont fight over jobs, the companies fight over workers.
Therefore I would agree with all but #6, and extend #10 to say we will extend breaks and laws (to an extent) for individuals starting small businesses. Not so much a subsidy, but rework the system. Individuals who are self employed must pay more in taxes than people who work on their own. They must also navigate the legal channels, deal with the hassel of startup costs, and etc. Obviously if they have a good idea then they can make it work, but at the end of the day we need to encourage innovation and growth from the ground up. Actually help the guy in his basement at night make that job his full time career.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Individuals who are self employed must pay more in taxes than people who work on their own
Trust me, we already do. I just picked up my taxes from my accountant today; I had a very good year last year. So what savings I though I had just got reduced another 25% to send off to the gov't. Plus I get the double whammy of my increased estimates (based on what I brought in last year) to pay this month - bye bye another 25%. Yay! I just love April  It always reminds me that I work for the gov't for the first 4 months of the year.
If I knew all this cash was going to reduce debt to help stabilize the country for future generations I wouldn't care as much. But I know it is going to crap and it is very irritating.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Any retaliation on our companies with any sorts of tariffs is always met with foreign tariffs. We don't need an economic slowdown or a ceasetrade. It's bad for the globe, not just us.
You know....I never got that argument. One of the major reasons for a tariff is to make some of these companies manufacture their product within our borders. Make it cheaper for them to produce it here than to produce it there and ship it.....right???? This provides more jobs for US workers, etc.... Now here is the thing...you are worried about the repurcussions.....But I ask you this......WHO is the LARGEST consumer on this planet???? THE USA!!!!! That is a power that we are NOT using. So those companies HAVE to sell their product here....Why are we not using our leverege as the largest Buyers on the Planet??? Instead we have acted as meek 3rd world country developers and have taken the worst trade deales around... You are worried about tariffs from other countries???? They already EXIST!!!!!
It is time we stop letting ourselves be taken advantage of.....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
What I don't agree with is #2.
Your thought is to become an isolated nation...and frankly we cannot put the Genie back in the bottle.....Pandora's Box has been opened....There is no use closing the Barn Door after all the horses have run out.....(need any more crazy analagies???...lol)
The plain truth is that we have interests all over the world. And those interests are valuable and have to be protected. Even in Afghanistan, the opium capital of the World. Especially with electric cars now starting to became the new rage and the largest deposit of lithium ore ever found right smack in Talibanland.
Isolation doesn't help us....it kills us....it makes us wither and die. China was the greatest country on Earth. Possibly several hundred years more advanced than any other civilization on the planet at that time. They closed themselves off and stagnated. The world passed them by and they were conquered by it. I know you are not advocating a total isolation....but your move in a way does this very thing. For our external interests will no longer be protected. And we leave ourseves vulnerable.
While I don't think we may need as many bases as we currently have....I do think we need a vast majority of them. We definitely should be closing some of them down. But the whole "it gives us a bad image " thing is just crap. In most cases the communities do like the presence as it brings in a lot of business and money to their locales. I know for a fact that when Hahn Air Force Base in Germany closed it was a very sad thing for the communities in that area.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
jc
With the government shutdown at midnight, why are there so many members of congress appearing on news shows? Shouldn't they all be locked away working on the budget?
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
jc
With the government shutdown at midnight, why are there so many members of congress appearing on news shows? Shouldn't they all be locked away working on the budget?
They need to be on the air to show the American people who to blame if the government does shutdown 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Harry Reid has already said that any budget that cuts a single dollar of funding for planned parenthood is an immediate no-go as far as he is concerned... the republicans have planned to cut some of their funding.. so when the troops aren't getting paid, Harry Reid can explain that they aren't getting paid because he stood his ground on federally funded abortion... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Alot of good ideas there but lots of implications in doing it...I think with many you couldn't just STOP doing something. The reprecussions would be huge...whether ceasing all foreign aid or chopping all corporate subsidies. One thing that made me a little puzzled though.. Quote:
When our military returns, deploy them to the borders to protect our sovereignty.
Errr....would that be from us loveable, toque wearing Canadians or the mass military power of Mexico...  If the States scales back its military activity, it should flat out scale back its military.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Errr....would that be from us loveable, toque wearing Canadians
Oh ESPECIALLY from those nobs up north called Canadians!!!!  
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
You know....I never got that argument. One of the major reasons for a tariff is to make some of these companies manufacture their product within our borders. Make it cheaper for them to produce it here than to produce it there and ship it.....right???? This provides more jobs for US workers, etc.... Now here is the thing...you are worried about the repurcussions.....But I ask you this......WHO is the LARGEST consumer on this planet???? THE USA!!!!! That is a power that we are NOT using. So those companies HAVE to sell their product here....Why are we not using our leverege as the largest Buyers on the Planet??? Instead we have acted as meek 3rd world country developers and have taken the worst trade deales around... You are worried about tariffs from other countries???? They already EXIST!!!!!
It is time we stop letting ourselves be taken advantage of.....
Unfortunately you are wrong. The US is the largest consumer economy ... but when you consider that we only have 300 million peole and china and india ALONE combine for 2.5 to 2.7 BILLION ... even if we consumer more as a per rate economy ... they consumer more overall. Plus India and China are actually going through their industrialization, so all of the high tech crap that the US makes we sell to them.
The major reason for a tariff you are right is that it makes it harder for other countries to ship their goods in here and sell them at a discount. If we tariff China (for example) then they will get mad becuase they can't sell their goods. What they will do is then put a tariff on all of our exports being imported to their country. So all of our established companies would take a major hit.
We are a major power yes, but we aren't a "superpower" as many suggest arguably ... and we are definitely not the only ones on top. According to the World Bank statistics the US is approximately only 4.55% of the world population.
Furthermore ... we can't just "import" stuff because that would represent all of our money being funneled overseas. So, without getting into specific numbers, it makes sense in theory that we NEED to export stuff to get money back into our country.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
News on the budget front. Quote:
WASHINGTON — It's touted as the biggest one-time rollback of domestic spending ever, but most folks will be hard-pressed to notice.
After all, it's just 1 percent of what the government will lay out this year.
The number of security officers at airports won't be reduced. National park campgrounds won't close. There will still be enough meat inspectors to prevent temporary plant closures. Disadvantaged schools won't see cuts in federal aid. And stiff cuts to grants for community action agencies serving the poor were averted.
Basically, the things most people expect from the government won't change very much if Congress approves the cuts unveiled Tuesday, the details from that late-night deal that kept federal operations going.
For starters, the budget cuts come after two years of generous increases awarded to domestic accounts when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House. And they total only $38 billion out of the $3.8 trillion the government will spend on everything this year, including Social Security and other retirement programs.
If the government were a family living on $60,000 a year, that's equal to a $600 cut.
Democrats had earlier warned the original House measure — it would have cut more than $60 billion — would have had draconian effects including widespread furloughs of federal workers, temporary shutting of meat processing plants, delays in processing Social Security applications and a big cut in the maximum Pell Grant for college education. Most of the more stringent cuts originally passed by the House have been reversed, and the maximum Pell Grant still will be $5,550 for the next academic year.
Remaining are items like $14 billion in cuts to accounts previously used for congressional earmarks, a $2.9 billion cut to President Barack Obama's high-speed rail initiative and $812 million from construction of new courthouses and other federal buildings.
But there will be no more Pell Grants for summer school. Local police chiefs will find it harder to win federal grants for equipment upgrades and emergency preparedness training — they were cut by $1.2 billion. Non-profit groups looking to open new community health centers will have $600 million less to compete for. And it just got more difficult for rural towns seeking grants to build new drinking water and wastewater treatment plants. Grants for them were cut by $1 billion.
Such cuts won't seem like the end of the world to many, though, as the government faces a $1.6 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year.
"It's a step removed from the daily lives of most people," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
What is more, it turns out that many of the cuts officially unveiled on Tuesday are illusory. Almost $18 billion — just less than half — involve simply mopping up pools of unused money spread across the budget. While still counting as cuts, the money from those pools can be used to shore up day-to-day agency budgets and other programs like health research. Admittedly, those cuts don't reduce the deficit.
"There's a huge chunk of money here that is ... spending that wasn't about to go out the door, so the impact is going to be smaller than we anticipated based on what the purported size of the cuts were," said Democratic budget expert Scott Lilly of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
But Lilly and others warn that the remaining cuts will have an impact over time. Deferring federal building construction means higher maintenance costs. Cuts to water and sewer grants mean the backlog of such projects will just get larger.
And, more immediately, the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal help to those who can't afford it, would serve fewer people. The same would be true for job training programs, community health centers and a program that mentors the children of people in prison.
The bill is just the first round. Republicans are moving to pass a broader budget plan this Friday that calls for cuts across the budget — including Medicare and Medicaid — and a deeper round of cuts to apply to the agency budgets covered in the pending bill covering the next six months of government spending..
In the next round, it will be more difficult to protect programs like heating aid for the poor and subsidies for money-losing air travel to rural airports. But plenty of lawmakers and interest groups will try.
LINK
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
If the government were a family living on $60,000 a year, that's equal to a $600 cut.
how many families living on that have had to cut significantly MORE than that the past 3-4 years to make ends meet. but, our government can't possibly do that because it would have "draconian effects"
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Quote:
Quote:
If the government were a family living on $60,000 a year, that's equal to a $600 cut.
how many families living on that have had to cut significantly MORE than that the past 3-4 years to make ends meet. but, our government can't possibly do that because it would have "draconian effects"
Actually ...... it's like a family making $45,000 per year that spends $60,000 per year cutting $600 in annual spending ..... and thinking that they are now fine.
Actually, it's probably even worse than that.
This budget is going to kill this country.
Oh well .... I don't have kids so who cares. Everyone else's kids and grandkids can take the hit for our waste. I want some waste for my very own though! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,311
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,311 |
PSTu24: This is what I was referring to on #6 concerning tariffs and protecting our own interests. http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeti...set=&ccode=We're Worrying About the Wrong Deficit Wednesday, April 13, 2011 Commentary: The danger of borrowing reckless from foreigners WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Everyone's panicking about the deficit, demanding immediate action to bring it under control before it destroys the economy. That's understandable, but they're worried about the wrong deficit. Instead of obsessing over the federal government's deficit, they should be recoiling with horror at the nation's deficit with the rest of the world. It's the current account deficit that's the greater problem, because that's money that we owe to foreigners, not to each other. If we ran a current account surplus, as Japan does, our level of public debt would be much easier to manage. It's absolutely true that having too much debt can cripple the economy, especially if the amount needed to service the debt grows faster than the economy does. The 2008 financial panic shows what can happen when households foolishly take on more debt than they can handle to buy speculative assets. The 2008 global recession was sparked by too much American debt, but it was debt from the private sector, not government, that was the problem. Annual borrowing by the private sector — households, companies and banks — doubled from 2001 to 2007, rising from $1.9 trillion to $3.9 trillion. Government deficits also increased during that time, but by much less — from $100 billion to $428 billion. And then the economy crashed. Households, banks and companies drastically reduced their borrowing, even as the federal government took on more. Despite the surge in government deficits to $1.7 trillion in 2010, total domestic borrowing (public plus private) slowed to just $650 billion in 2010 from more than $4 trillion in 2007, because the private sector paid off — or wrote off — more than $1 trillion worth of debt. Whether it's $650 billion or $4 trillion, that's an awful lot of debt. But it's important to keep in mind that one person's liability is another person's asset, one person's debt-service payment is another's income. For the country as a whole, this debt has offsetting costs and benefits (as long as it's repaid, that is). It's often said that the $14 trillion federal debt represents an awful curse on our children, but it's easy to forget that it also represents a tremendous blessing of wealth for this and coming generations. For instance, workers and retirees have $2.6 trillion in Treasury bonds set aside for their benefit in the Social Security trust funds. Yes, taxpayers will have to pay to redeem those bonds, but the proceeds will go right back to the people who have paid extra taxes for the past 30 years to build up the trust fund. And those proceeds will be spent — for the most part — inside the United States, boosting aggregate demand. Debt isn't all negative. Unfortunately for us, the Chinese and other foreigners also have a tremendous amount of "our" wealth set aside for their benefit. As of the end of January, Chinese held $1.3 trillion in Treasury securities, and about $800 billion in other U.S. financial assets. All told, foreigners own about $11 trillion in U.S. financial assets, including $4.4 trillion in government securities. In addition, foreigners have invested more than $2 trillion directly in U.S. businesses. How did foreigners come to own so much of America's wealth? By selling more stuff to us than we sell to them. Because we have a persistent trade deficit, every year they send us oil, cars and poorly made useless things, and we send them hundreds of billions of dollars, which they use to buy up pieces of America — Treasury bonds, equities, mortgage-backed securities, and controlling stakes in American companies. Since 2001, our current account deficit has totaled $5.8 trillion. That's how much capital we've had to import from abroad to fuel our investment and consumption. It's the difference between how much we spend and how much we earn. Running a current account deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing, just as taking on debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on what you do with the money. If it's invested productively, a current account deficit can help a country grow faster. In that case, the debt to foreigners can easily be repaid because the economic pie is bigger. But if the foreign capital is invested unwisely (think for instance, of the housing bubble), or used to support a consumption binge or reckless fiscal policy, a current account deficit won't help the economy grow. In that case, paying off the debt becomes impossible, and selling assets becomes essential. You're well on the way to becoming a banana republic. Rex Nutting is a columnist and international commentary for MarketWatch. Below is the Wiki defination of a Banana Republic. One has to wonder if we are heading to a 21st century version of a Banana Republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republicBanana republicFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Banana republic (disambiguation). Banana republic: the American writer: O. Henry (William Sydney Porter, 1862–1910).Banana republic is a pejorative term that refers to a politically unstable country dependent upon limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, corrupt politico-economic plutocracy or oligarchy.[1] The term banana republic originally denoted a "servile dictatorship" that abetted (or supported for kickbacks) the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.[1] As a political science term banana republic is a descriptor first used by the American writer O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1904), a book of thematically related short stories derived from his 1896–97 residence in Honduras, (which he called the “Republic of Anchuria”) where he was hiding from U.S. law for bank embezzlement.[2] A banana republic is a commercial enterprise for profit by collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country. Kleptocracy, government by thieves, features influential government employees exploiting their posts for personal gain (embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), with the resultant deficit repaid by the native working people who “earn money”, rather than “make money”. Because of foreign (corporate) manipulation, the government is unaccountable to its nation, the country's private sector–public sector corruption operates the banana republic, thus, the national legislature usually are for sale, and function mostly as ceremonial government.[3] ___
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
doubled from 2001 to 2007, rising from $1.9 trillion to $3.9 trillion. Government deficits also increased during that time, but by much less — from $100 billion to $428 billion.
Maybe much less in dollar amounts, but 100 to 428 billion is a 4x increase versus the 2x increase of 1.9 tril to 3.9 tril.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
jc
Obama is currently giving a speech about the deficit. I've lost count at how many times he's contradicted himself. He said everything needs to be on the table for cuts, but then criticizes a republican plan that includes cuts to clean energy and education.
He said America is the land of opportunity, but then complains about those who are successful for making a lot of money.
Then he goes back to everything needing to be on the table for cuts...except for those that are important to him (such as clean energy).
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Right. Good post - it's a good read. I understand the problem at hand, but I believe that too many people (concerning trade and economics) try to attack the symptoms rather than the problem.
If we cut off trade (or inherently do so by forcing up tariffs, quotas, and etc. to other countries), then we would be creating further problems for ourselves; both from higher prices, and also from retaliation of other nations where we export.
I get that we have problems, but the simple answer is not just try to tax people or tariff them.
We need a stronger model that rewards businesses for keeping factories in the U.S. ... but until then, how can you punish someone .. honestly ... how can you tell them that they are in the wrong because they found a way to cut costs?
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I'm tired of it all. I'm tired of the "look, we cut $30 some billion from our $1.something trillion deficit". I'm tired of the "here's how we're going to cut $4 trillion from our debt by 2023."
None of these things address the issue. Cutting $30 some billion today is a start - but it's mostly coming from money the gov't. put aside for things that won't get done.
O's "we're going to cut $4 trillion in debt by 2023 is just todays buzzword - nothing is going to happen except taxes go up. There won't be any cuts, there won't be any debt reduction.
I understand they need to put out 10 year plans. Just like W did. And, what did we get? O, who adds trillions to the deficit.
It's never ending. Get on the public dole people. We're letting this country be killed, and no one wants to do anything about it.
By 2021, we will be spending 80% of GDP on INTEREST!!!! 80% of gross domestic product - spent on interest.
This country is in rapid fail mode - and those that don't see it are ignorant - sorry to be so blunt.
We add trillions to the debt - then get excited about saving some $30 billion on the deficit?
Our president tells us he'll cut $4 trillion from the debt - the debt that they now report as $14 trillion, but which in actuality - if any one cares to do any research - is really well over 50 trillion? And this is news?
I notice how O has it all set up for "in 10 years....." this will be the effect. What I also notice is that's if spending doesn't increase in the next 10 years. Fat chance of that.
Screwed. The country - which means us - right up the poop chute. And I don't lay it all on O. He's compounded the problem - but he didn't start it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
jc
Obama is currently giving a speech about the deficit. I've lost count at how many times he's contradicted himself. He said everything needs to be on the table for cuts, but then criticizes a republican plan that includes cuts to clean energy and education.
He said America is the land of opportunity, but then complains about those who are successful for making a lot of money.
Then he goes back to everything needing to be on the table for cuts...except for those that are important to him (such as clean energy).
cut all spending on green energy. let the private side work on it. but then again they will only use global warming excuse to keep it going.
as for education it's not like the feds are spending anythig there.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum GOP budget plan (both short term
and long term)
|
|
