Check out this piece from former Labor Secretary Robert Riech, which reads in part:
Nearly all of the increase in public debt over the last four years — some 1 trillion dollars — has been financed by foreigners, lending us the money. But who wants to lend more and more to a drunken sailor? Foreigners are bailing out of dollars. Even the Chinese and Japanese, who have kept lending so we’ll keep buying their exports, are starting to wise up.
And in fact, the Wall Street Journal just had a big article last week on how Chinese citizens are trying to convert the dollars they once hoarded back into their own currency.
Uh oh.
Which points up one of the fallacies of the tax-cutting principles: that the wealthy who benefit will re-invest in the US economy. In fact, right now the US economy is not the best place to invest. People are putting their money in overseas banks; buying real estate abroad; and generally diversifying their portfolio right out of the US of A…
D, Tax cuts are not the panacia here for me but I still like that concept as a part of bigger plan. Dems would tax the rich as there as their answer. I just flat do not agree with that way and nothing can really change me from it. I agree with you and your thoughts about the rich team owner but States agree to these agreements. Yes the rich have there ways. I’ll give you that. Long live capitalism. Both sides of the aisle have command in Congress, the one party in place wins this one.
“Tax cuts are not the panacia here for me but I still like that concept as a part of bigger plan.”
——————————————————-
What’s the bigger plan? Impoverish the nation?!?!?
“Dems would tax the rich as there as their answer. I just flat do not agree with that way and nothing can really change me from it.”
——————————————————-
A progressive tax policy is the linch-pin of a liberal democracy. Adam Smith was a proponent of the progressive tax plan not Karl Marx.
Yes, the rich pay more in taxes, but they aren’t taxed into the poor house. The reason the conservatives don’t want to pay higher taxes is because they can “win” elections that way, but in reality we all lose because of the defecit.
I have a gift for all who want it. I can’t believe these links still work but they do. This is the web material to compliment a year of University economics. Just click on the chapter to the left, then download the powerpoint presentation. Each one presents each chapter of the text. I barely used the books at the time due to this resource. If you were really interested you could probably get through the courses in about a month.
MicroEconomics:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.co...../chapter1/
MacroEconomics:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.co.....index.html
Grab it while you can… saves about $300 in books and another grand in classes!
AH, THE MIGHTY US DOLLAR. ALL I CAN SAY IS THE DOLLAR ISN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE
CLEVER CYNIC IS FULL OF BULL____!!!
D. IS RIGHT; THE USA NOW CONSISTS OF A SMALL GROUP OF VERY WEALTHY,WHO OWN EVERYTHING,AND ALL THE REST OF US,WHO HAVE NOTHING,NO MONEY,AND NO POWER. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE. IT’S AN OLIGARCHY, A NATION OWNED AND COMMANDED BY A SMALL GROUP OF WEALTHY PEOPLE AT THE TOP,TELLING ALL US PEASANTS,AND HOMELESS,AND BROKE TAXPAYERS,WHAT TO DO. FORGET DEMOCRACY;WE NO LONGER HAVE ONE IN AMERICA. WE HAVE A TSAR,AND A ROYAL FAMILY,AND WE ARE A BUNCH OF POWERLESS,TAX PAYING PEASANTS.
There’s no bull or particularly any party angle in what I said at all. 1998, 99, were the only years last century that we didn’t deficit spend, well one year in late 60’s too I don’t remember which one but its hardly important. The defecit thing I always kind of thought was just talked about to incite young voters, most of us should know better. Most people also seem to think the deficit is owed overseas which is also not true, the overwhelming portion is internal, owed to the reserve, the public in bonds, the social security fund, etc. It’s largely abstract in those areas and provides economic stimulus.
Find something you really like and pursue it with everything you have. This is a great country for the motivated and you don’t have to have money to do it. The problems most people have with this country internally really are their fault for the most part. I don’t even mean laziness. Women lobbied forever to join the work force and it was granted. There is no period of explosive GDP to cover it, and now we all make half what we used to and no one has the choice to stay home anymore. Just be careful of everything you wish for, you just might get it. The problem is not the ideas, its the consequences which is why liberalism sounds prudent but has a terrible effect on everyone in the long run.
‘Women lobbied forever to join the work force and it was granted.”
This is a false statement. Women have always worked. Maybe not on wall street or corp america, but women worked. The 60’s changed what was considered appropriate work for women and forced all of the USA to focus on what kind of society we want to be. What was meant by “equality and justice for all” and “we the people” if only some of the people can do make decisions and the rest are relegated to second class citizens, not because of any mental deficit but by a chance of birth.
You also seem to forget that during the 60’s through 80’s was when the manufacturing sector of our economy moved overseas. In 1960 you could drop out of high school and still get a good paying job, buy a house and take care of a family.
Now, our economy is service based. Which demands more education and less physical manpower. You gotta have a master or Ph.D to earn enough to be a sole provider of a family of four. That’s not the fault of women’s lib or feminism.
My statement wasn’t inherently anti-woman. I’m not in the least bit sexist I assure you. I just think it would have been better if we had traded off or simply reversed roles. My point is exactly that in the 50’s you could pick any job and support a family. Manufacturing was still only a segment of the economy, and I don’t agree that services require more education overall. They are still mostly fast food, carpet steamcleaning, lawn services, domestic work, extermination etc… Really there are very few services requiring much education at all. I’m also saying that there was no one year or one decade from then to now that GDP grew more than the usual 3%, and if you look at GDP growth and per capita wages graphs superimposed, you’d be more likely to agree with me. If you don’t want to just take my word, it was one of several projects required in economics and it was a large factor that had to be discussed. The instructor in that particular course was a tiny Italian lady that didn’t put up with any bull.
I’m not arguing with your statement about GDP growth. My point is that you can’t support yourself on these lesser services jobs that you mentioned. The avg. earner brings home less not because of women in the workplace but because companies moved the higher paying jobs overseas.
Well I am pretty pissed off about the smallmindness of politics and people with power.
For example – how come gay-marriage should be such an issue?
If two adult human being love each other and want to married the the world is only to congratulate.
I will not be a worse place but the opposite.
I would think that anyone could see the logic in that but apparently not.
I am not gay and I do not live in USA but in Sweden where I guess the situation is better.
But still there are reverends raging about gays in general and marriage especially.
And that makes me feel that they should take a spiritual timeout.
And consider plain humanity as a alternative instead of a misused (in my opinion) religious belief.
sincerely