Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.
Actual dollars are meaningless when comparing historical debt levels -- everybody should know that.
As for the slower growth -- it is not all that important. Japan had slower growth for decades, its population is shrinking and it has its debt rating cut way back in 2002 and its debt to GDP ratio is now at 230% GDP. Yet it borrows at lower rates than the US.
You can't declare our debt as being "unsustainable" just because it looks big to you.
You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.
Actual dollars are meaningless when comparing historical debt levels -- everybody should know that.
As for the slower growth -- it is not all that important. Japan had slower growth for decades, its population is shrinking and it has its debt rating cut way back in 2002 and its debt to GDP ratio is now at 230% GDP. Yet it borrows at lower rates than the US.
You can't declare our debt as being "unsustainable" just because it looks big to you.
You think we should become another incredibly shrinking society with Robot Companions like Japan?
The point, saveliberty, is that we were able to successfully reduce much higher debt levels. And we did all that while fighting in Korea and Vietnam and generally putting the USSR out of of business.
Of course back then we had the advantage of 70-90% marginal tax rates.
And what I should have used instead? Potato chips?
I call shenanigans. That 70-90% marginal tax rate has been debunked over and over again. The tax brackets were higher and there were tons of deductions which lowered the effective tax rate.
What deductions, can you name a single one? The effective rates are always lower than the top marginal rate, even if there are no deductions.
If your "theory" that people actually paid those high taxes were correct, tax receipts as a % of GDP would have been far higher than the typical range of 18% +/- in no recessionary periods.
That is because most people did not pay those rates, they were designed for a few super-rich.
Then if high rates on the super rich don't make much of an impact on federal tax receipts, why is that the focus of Obama's tax policy? It certainly won't have a meaningful impact on the deficit.
Then if high rates on the super rich don't make much of an impact on federal tax receipts, why is that the focus of Obama's tax policy? It certainly won't have a meaningful impact on the deficit.
Define "much impact"? Just 2 more % of GDP will bring $320 million next year -- and around $4-5 trillions in the next 10 years. The fiscal cliff negotiations are about achieving a much smaller reduction.
Then if high rates on the super rich don't make much of an impact on federal tax receipts, why is that the focus of Obama's tax policy? It certainly won't have a meaningful impact on the deficit.
Define "much impact"? Just 2 more % of GDP will bring $320 million next year -- and around $4-5 trillions in the next 10 years. The fiscal cliff negotiations are about achieving a much smaller reduction.
Then if high rates on the super rich don't make much of an impact on federal tax receipts, why is that the focus of Obama's tax policy? It certainly won't have a meaningful impact on the deficit.
Define "much impact"? Just 2 more % of GDP will bring $320 million next year -- and around $4-5 trillions in the next 10 years. The fiscal cliff negotiations are about achieving a much smaller reduction.
Oh - and the top 2% paid $500B in taxes last year. To raise $320B, you'd have to increase their taxes 64%. Good luck with that.
Define "much impact"? Just 2 more % of GDP will bring $320 million next year -- and around $4-5 trillions in the next 10 years. The fiscal cliff negotiations are about achieving a much smaller reduction.
Oh - and the top 2% paid $500B in taxes last year. To raise $320B, you'd have to increase their taxes 64%. Good luck with that.
My point was that returning to high marginal rates would make a significant impact on our debt.
The fact that everyone, including Obama thinks that we should put this burden on middle class and the poor, is baffling.
You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.
Actual dollars are meaningless when comparing historical debt levels -- everybody should know that. Even potato chips are better because they provide some sort of adjustment for inflation
As for the slower growth -- it is not all that important. Japan had slower growth for decades, its population is shrinking and it has its debt rating cut way back in 2002 and its debt to GDP ratio is now at 230% GDP. Yet it borrows at lower rates than the US.
You can't declare our debt as being "unsustainable" just because it looks big to you.
You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.
Actual dollars are meaningless when comparing historical debt levels -- everybody should know that. Even potato chips are better because they provide some sort of adjustment for inflation
As for the slower growth -- it is not all that important. Japan had slower growth for decades, its population is shrinking and it has its debt rating cut way back in 2002 and its debt to GDP ratio is now at 230% GDP. Yet it borrows at lower rates than the US.
You can't declare our debt as being "unsustainable" just because it looks big to you.
No I can't declare it unstainable just by size alone. I can however, if you stop to consider the rebounding of the US economy of old was due to manufacturing expansion. Clearly that age has passed and we now have a service economy that yeilds lower paying jobs.
Japan has lower rates because the citizens save at higher rates than we do AND they have loyalty to domestically produced goods. You make apples to oranges comparisions that no longer apply.
Is there any reason for today's Americans to care about what happens to tomorrow's Americans? After all, what have tomorrow's Americans done for today's Americans? Moreover, since tomorrow's Americans don't vote, we can dump on them with impunity. That's a vision that describes the actual behavior of today's Americans.
The federal government gets by without having to provide transparent and honest financial statements. The U.S. Treasurys balance sheet does list liabilities such as public debt, but it does not include the massive unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and other federal future obligations. A conservative estimate of Washingtons unfunded liabilities for the year ending in 2011 is $87 trillion. Thats more than 500 percent of our 2011 GDP of $15 trillion.
America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. If Congress fleeced them of their assets, stocks, bonds, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry, it would get us to at least late fall.
The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress voracious spending appetite. The true tragedy for our future is that there are millions of uninformed Americans who will buy the political demagoguery and treachery that our problems can be solved by taxing the rich.
Future generations will pay for our trillions - Conservative News
