8.3 now 8.5 come election day

• password

  

  rmolin73;1241481 wrote:You can't be serious.

  Yes, I am serious about that. The man is only worried about getting elected to a second term, he started planniing his second term on the same day he took office.
• stlouiedipalma

  Yes, Obama ran on "Change" and he was viewed by many as one man who could make a large difference. In my view, the single defining event of that campaign was when the markets crashed and the economy went into the dumper. It was obvious from that point on that whoever won the election was put in a very difficult position of having to do something to stop the tailspin.
  
  I also believe that if McCain had won we would be in a real world of shit because he had no clue whatsoever as to how to deal with such a crappy economy, much less a good one. You can assail Obama all you like but I really believe the alternative was a disaster waiting to happen.
  
  I don't see things turning around with Romney, based on his business background. When he was at Bain Capital, underperforming businesses were chopped up and sold piecemeal. How can you expect that kind of management philosophy to work with the American economy? All he talks about is cutting government and cutting taxes, with no solid details on how he will do the former. It's like I said, if they go in with a hatchet, it's all bad. Unemployment will rise sharply (with all those government workers losing their jobs) and the states (which are already stretched to the max) will have to fend for themselves.
• tk421

  

  lol, yes Obama single handedly saved out economy. That's why true unemployment is 14+. please
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;1241873 wrote:lol, yes Obama single handedly saved out economy. That's why true unemployment is 14+. please

  If by save you mean bring it back from a cliff? Then, yes. The reactionary policies of the Bush administration and then the early Obama administration brought us back from the near cliff that was late 2008-2009.
  
  The system was a mess in September 2008-February 2009.
  
  The Administration since then, by their own measures, has been a failure.
• tk421

  

  we'd probably be the same or better off without all the debt if we were aloud to go off that cliff. We didn't do anything but kick the can down the road. We'll have the same problems 5-10 years from now.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;1242113 wrote:we'd probably be the same or better off without all the debt if we were aloud to go off that cliff. We didn't do anything but kick the can down the road. We'll have the same problems 5-10 years from now.

  Not really. We literally saved the banking sector from collapsing upon itself.
  If AIG would have failed, it would have taken the entire U.S. economy with it.
  During the height of the crisis in 2008, GE didn't even have enough capital to close at day's end.
  
  It is easy to forgot how close we were to total collapse back then.
• tk421

  

  the same exact thing is going to happen again, the banks are back doing the exact same thing. The government isn't doing anything different, we didn't fix anything in the system. Delaying the inevitable is only making the pain worse.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;1242128 wrote:the same exact thing is going to happen again, the banks are back doing the exact same thing. The government isn't doing anything different, we didn't fix anything in the system. Delaying the inevitable is only making the pain worse.

  And that is the fault of the President?
  Is there a solution that is politically feasible then?
• tk421

  

  complete default, that's the only thing that will ever fix the cancer that is D.C. Putting a bandaid on the problem over and over and passing the bill onto the future generations can't go on forever. Sometimes you just have to start over. I don't see a way that this country ever survives.
  
  You couldn't get 2 Congressmen in D.C. to agree on lunch, let alone what a possible solution might be or agree to implement it. Then nothing holds future Congress' to that plan. what is going to happen in 2030, 2050, etc. when debt is 200/300% of GDP, unemployment is 15+, 3/4 of the population is living of the government and the other 1/4 is rich? The system can not survive.
  
  Let it crash, hit rock bottom and start over. It's going to happen one way or the other. There isn't a tax you can levy that will pay for our budgets going forward, not to mention the unfunded liabilities. It's only 2012 and we're already spending almost 4 trillion/year. What do you think the budget is going to be in 5-10 years? How is a 5+ trillion budget going to be sustainable? How are you going to tax an extra 2/3 trillion out of the economy that doesn't have enough jobs in 2012?
  
  We've got an aging population, a generation of young Americans who don't have a job/won't start their careers until their 30s if they are lucky, a budget that has more than doubled in 12 years, in 2000 it was 1.8 Trillion in 2012 3.8 Trillion. Is another 12 years going to have 7 trillion? Who is going to replace the boomers when they all retire, where will the revenue come from? We all know the budget will not go down, they may "cut" future spending increases, but next year's budget will be higher than the previous.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;1242138 wrote:complete default, that's the only thing that will ever fix the cancer that is D.C. Putting a bandaid on the problem over and over and passing the bill onto the future generations can't go on forever. Sometimes you just have to start over. I don't see a way that this country ever survives.
  
  You couldn't get 2 Congressmen in D.C. to agree on lunch, let alone what a possible solution might be or agree to implement it. Then nothing holds future Congress' to that plan. what is going to happen in 2030, 2050, etc. when debt is 200/300% of GDP, unemployment is 15+, 3/4 of the population is living of the government and the other 1/4 is rich? The system can not survive.
  
  Let it crash, hit rock bottom and start over. It's going to happen one way or the other. There isn't a tax you can levy that will pay for our budgets going forward, not to mention the unfunded liabilities. It's only 2012 and we're already spending almost 4 trillion/year. What do you think the budget is going to be in 5-10 years? How is a 5+ trillion budget going to be sustainable? How are you going to tax an extra 2/3 trillion out of the economy that doesn't have enough jobs in 2012?

  Default? Really?
  Ok. Then, I assume you are willing to give up your home, car, credit cards, and anything else that is through a bank. Oh, and your 401k would be gone, pretty much, and any investment or IRA would be toast. Plus, the markets would destroy all capital, leading to banks not lending to new businesses, and small businesses failing left and right.
  
  We would recover, but it would be 1929 all over again, perhaps worse.
  
  So saw off the arm to save a flesh wound. Ok.
• tk421

  

  lol, flesh wound? We've had a flesh wound for 30+ years. I think we've passed flesh wound and moved into fatal. So, tell me oh wise one, how exactly will we solve those issues I raised? How will we pay for our budgets of 5/6/7 trillion when we can't raise revenue enough for 3.8? How will we fund SS and all the other countless liablities that number over 100 trillion? How will we get enough jobs for a population of 450 million in 2050? Where is the money going to come from?
  
  How many generations do we have to ruin? We can't do anything but apply a bandaid to a gunshot wound. Are my great great great great great grandchildren going to have to pay for this crap?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Scary stuff, tk421. Keepin on keepin on is the highway to hell. The Tea Party is evil rotten scum for bringing this up years ago. Lets hear from Boat about how more spending is the only way out.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;1242145 wrote:lol, flesh wound? We've had a flesh wound for 30+ years. I think we've passed flesh wound and moved into fatal. So, tell me oh wise one, how exactly will we solve those issues I raised? How will we pay for our budgets of 5/6/7 trillion when we can't raise revenue enough for 3.8? How will we fund SS and all the other countless liablities that number over 100 trillion? How will we get enough jobs for a population of 450 million in 2050? Where is the money going to come from?
  
  How many generations do we have to ruin? We can't do anything but apply a bandaid to a gunshot wound. Are my great great great great great grandchildren going to have to pay for this crap?

  The system is stressed, not broken. If it took 30 years to get here, it will take 10 or more to get back. It will take tough, but forward thinking measures that will impact everyone. Not sure exactly, but it will take reform will have to come to our medical system to cover the staggering costs.
  
  Blowing the thing up makes little sense. Sure, it sounds like a good plan, but again, that is like breaking an arm, and cutting it off. Instead, it takes surgery, physical therapy and painful recovery to bring it back to health.
  
  Why risk the entire global economy? Instead, use smart, innovative, tough measures, that take both sides.
  
  Your great, great grandkids may not have an America if we blow it up.

  BGFalcons82;1242147 wrote:Scary stuff, tk421. Keepin on keepin on is the highway to hell. The Tea Party is evil rotten scum for bringing this up years ago. Lets hear from Boat about how more spending is the only way out.

  I actually think the basic ideas the Tea Party started with were good for discussions. Sure, they were simplistic in nature, but it changed the dialogue. Now, I think it was hijacked and then used to for mainly political instead of policy ideas. But, I'll give them credit.
• stlouiedipalma

  I just can't believe that anyone thinks that "blowing it up" is a viable option. I think someone is off their meds when I hear stupid talk like that.
• tk421

  

  and someone who thinks applying more money to the problem is going to magically fix it is equally off their meds. The people in D.C. have an addiction to spending, no one is ever going to cure it.
• gut

  The unfunded liabilities is scary, but you have to understand what it really means. Those numbers are subject to wild swings based on assumptions, assumptions which can be significantly off with regard to GDP growth, tax revenues, inflation, life expectancy, etc...
  
  The current debt is really just a clock keeping score, and right now we are way behind. But even if you wiped it out, without fundamental changes you're just right back where we started in 10 years.
  
  Culturally, a majority favor increased social programs - around most of the developed world and not just the US. Washington is taking its cues from the electorate (without debating the tail wagging the dog). So unless you have a cultural change, which seems unlikely, don't expect to reverse course on spending. But historically we have averaged 18% of GDP on spending despite significantly different tax regimes. And a big part of that problem is taxes on income are still somewhat voluntary, since wealthy have the ability to defer income and capital gains almost indefinitely. Obama's future budgets call for collecting 24% of GDP, and Willard's are 20%. The only way to bridge that gap is a fundamental change in taxation, which points to ADDING (not replacing) a consumption tax. People will not defer consumption significantly. It is the most effective and efficient form of taxation.
  
  And the thing I love about a consumption tax is it makes everyone pay something, which is probably crtical to changing the free-rider mindset giving everyone a vested interest in controlling wasteful and runaway govt spending. Of course, the liberals will probably bastardize this concept with rebates and handouts so that over half the country won't be paying consumption taxes, either.
• tk421

  

  and what's going to hold Washington to a budget? We add a consumption tax and they'll spend it and more. Great way to kill the economy, what's left of it. Let's tax the people who can hardly afford to buy anything some more.
• gut

  Almost half the people aren't paying taxes, so yeah they can and should pay something (plenty of them have expensive smartphone, big screen tv's and cable packages).
  
  But I agree with your point about giving Washington more to spend. Reality is something has to give because the path is not sustainable. I think any such tax increases need to be accompanied by a balanced budget amendment.
  
  You exclude food, energy and rent/mortgages (i.e. necessities) and I think you have a base of $5-7T. A 10% VAT, combined with some spending cuts (and even some - gasp, - higher taxes on the wealthy), would easily close the deficit.
• tk421

  

  haha, good luck getting any Congress to agree to a balanced budget amendment. No way Congress is going to cut their own purse strings. It's never going to happen. So, we start with 5% and when that's not enough, 10 then 15 then 20, etc. Pretty soon we have 30% tax and 30% VAT. We could make it so 100% of all income goes to the government and they would find a way to spend more than they take in.
  
  There is always some pet project that they have to have, some social issue that needs massive money. More people living off the government, free food, healthcare, housing, etc. It won't stop.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1242320 wrote:haha, good luck getting any Congress to agree to a balanced budget amendment. No way Congress is going to cut their own purse strings. It's never going to happen. So, we start with 5% and when that's not enough, 10 then 15 then 20, etc. Pretty soon we have 30% tax and 30% VAT. We could make it so 100% of all income goes to the government and they would find a way to spend more than they take in.
  
  There is always some pet project that they have to have, some social issue that needs massive money. More people living off the government, free food, healthcare, housing, etc. It won't stop.

  You're really exaggerating here. It wasn't but a little more than a decade ago that people in Washington were worried that we were going to pay down our debt too fast...so we passed budget busting tax cuts, a new prescription drug entitlement, a massive expansion of the federal police state and two wars...then the financial crisis happened and as we wallow in perpetual depression and high unemployment...tax revenue has plummeted even farther and the welfare state has expanded...and that's how you get where we are.
  
  I actually agree with Gut here and what he proposes for a solution and that it can be done
  
  Our only real differences are that I think a short term higher inflation, household debt relief, and a stimulus program that would put the people on the dole into some kind of productive capacity would be preferable in the short term to get us to potential gdp and full employment before we move into deficit reduction mode when the Fed can once again cut interest rates to offset any contractionary effects.
  
  We do what Gut proposes here and figure out a way to control our long term healthcare costs and all is not lost.
• tk421

  

  lol, you people are dreaming if you think Congress is going to hamstring itself spending wise. A VAT in this country is political suicide because you can not spin it as a tax on the rich. The poor people on welfare spend that government money, they aren't going to want to pay any taxes on it.
• gut

  tk421;1242722 wrote: The poor people on welfare spend that government money, they aren't going to want to pay any taxes on it.

  That's why you exclude food, energy and rent/mortgages. Well, the govt already taxes us out the wazoo on energy, but point being to the extent people buy "luxuries" with welfare money they SHOULD be taxed. They want to spend $200/month on cable and internet (which they theoretically shouldn't be able to afford), they SHOULD be taxed on it. I sure as heck don't want to pay MORE taxes to provide them with cable, internet and an IPhone.
  
  You can't close the budget gap simply by taxing the rich and corporations more, not even close. Either you have to cut spending or look for new revenue sources and/or expanding the tax bases. Most of the OECD countries have some sort of national VAT or sales tax. The US is an outlier in that regard.
• tk421

  

  you close the budget gap by being fiscally responsible. I don't want this country to be anything like Europe, we don't need an income tax and a VAT. The states have to balance a budget, it's time the people in D.C. have to as well. The budget could be cut right now enough to balance it if anyone in Washington had the balls to do it, no new taxes needed. Guarantee, I'll bet my life that any VAT will be promptly spent and the rate will be raised. You honestly going to tell me that you think the idiots we have in office will balance the budget when you hand them more money? That's the fucking funniest thing I've ever heard. :laugh:
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;1241863 wrote:
  I don't see things turning around with Romney, based on his business background. When he was at Bain Capital, underperforming businesses were chopped up and sold piecemeal. How can you expect that kind of management philosophy to work with the American economy? All he talks about is cutting government and cutting taxes, with no solid details on how he will do the former. It's like I said, if they go in with a hatchet, it's all bad. Unemployment will rise sharply (with all those government workers losing their jobs) and the states (which are already stretched to the max) will have to fend for themselves.

  That is actually factually not true. The majority of companies that Bain took over they turned into profitable companies. Yes, some could not be turned around and were 'chopped up and sold', but MANY were completely turned around (see Staples).
  
  Did you get your information on Bain capital from an Obama ad? MSNBC?
• gut

  tk421;1242914 wrote:you close the budget gap by being fiscally responsible. I don't want this country to be anything like Europe, we don't need an income tax and a VAT. The states have to balance a budget, it's time the people in D.C. have to as well. The budget could be cut right now enough to balance it if anyone in Washington had the balls to do it, no new taxes needed. Guarantee, I'll bet my life that any VAT will be promptly spent and the rate will be raised. You honestly going to tell me that you think the idiots we have in office will balance the budget when you hand them more money? That's the ****ing funniest thing I've ever heard. :laugh:

  I don't really disagree with any of that. But the REALITY is a huge voting contingent relies on the social insurance, and many more support some sort of redistribution via taxes and govt spending. You're not going to make a lot of headway on cutting spending until you change the culture. Like it or not, the culture is moving toward what they have in Europe, Canada and elsewhere. ALL of those countries have higher taxes, on EVERYONE.
  
  So the REALITY is we either have a surprising and herculean correction in course away from more socialization, or we need to add taxes. We don't have a tax base right now that can remotely close the budget gap. And actually something like a VAT or national sales tax would serve a dual-purpose of making things a bit more transparent and also giving everyone skin in the game - two things I believe are necessary to change the cultural attitudes.
  
  Like I said before, I don't really have a problem with social insurance. I don't really have a problem if I do well enough that I, personally, don't need or can't collect my social insurance. What I have a problem with is paying those PREMIUMS for free-riders. Right now, for example, the medicare premium is probably 1/5 of what it should be.