The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

Status
Not open for further replies.
jadmperry said:
Problem with the figures is that it takes into account the revenues during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. (Plus, I am not sure that the tax code changes in the differing years are accurately controlled for...not saying that this is an apple and oranges comparison...maybe a "Granny Smith" and "MacIntosh Apple" comparison). As President Clinton's presidency demonstrated, if the economy grows, so will revenue...to me, this means that the focus should be on job creation. If we can crack that nut, then the underlying assumptions would all change....(Forgive the excessive use of ellipses...ah, hell, it's late, you get the idea).

In addition, I think that you have to look at corporate taxation reform to get a whole picture.

But, yes, expenditures must be looked at, too...my point is not to disagree, just to say that revenues are part of the solution and that if we could get jobs growing, we would be in a much better place to solve our problems.
Click to expand...
That's precisely the point, our tax code is biased to place the heaviest burden on the highest earners. The very people who, as the Journal's chart shows, have seen a significant decline in their incomes over the last few years.

This divisive class warfare crap has to stop, the whole idea that we can balance the federal budget on the backs of a small minority of taxpayers is just nuts. You're about the economy though, the fastest way out of our current budget mess is growth. I don't see how we're going to get there without undertaking comprehensive, commonsense budget and regulatory reforms though.
 
Jake Bunce said:
Every year I choose to pay more in taxes by not claiming any deductions. It makes my taxes simple and helps my government to pay down its debt.
Click to expand...

I was trying to set an example. My point is that the individual needs to do their part. Politicians merely represent the interests of the people. If this thread is any indication then the people are mostly interested in casting blame so the politicians follow suit. Hence our politics. Look in the mirror.

(I am an American, btw)
 
Well, I think that long term national economic health does have some relation to jobs. But, I would caution thinking that relationship is direct and that jobs rely on having our greater macro house in order. For example, the previous real estate bubble, which was fueling both jobs directly (from construction, to mortgage and banking industries and the service industries related to home maintenance) and the economy as a whole (based on the availability of cheap credit allowing people to buy things, which in turn drove higher GDP) was not deterred by our having a high amount of national debt and unsustainable entitlement programs.

I point this out because I think that the growth (both in GDP and jobs) is the more pressing problem. I worry that some folks (read: politicians) are thinking that by fixing the long term issue will address the jobs issues. In fact, I think the reverse is true- they need to fix the jobs/employment problems in order to have a chance at the longer term problems and if they do not, then only disaster will follow. I think that jobs/employment policy and investments are the pressing issues. Not to say that they can't do both. I just have concerns that tunnel vision distracts our leaders from jobs while focusing on national debt. I don't think the two should be linked, even if they do impact each other.
 
Here's another: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv

Taxing millionaires at an effective tax rate of 50 percent would raise only $120 billion more, according to Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data.
Taxing those who make $10 million or more at an even higher rate, as Buffett advised, would also do little to reduce the deficit and debt. Tax Foundation calculations indicate that taxing these individuals at an effective rate of 100 percent would only net the government $186 billion, reducing the deficit by 12 percent and the debt by an additional 2 percent.
In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said.
“Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to takeevery single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion,” reported the Tax Foundation.
Click to expand...

Especially foreboding is the last paragraph. Taxing everyone who earns over $200,000/year at 100% only eliminates the annual $1.7 Trillion budget deficit. Thats the top 10% of the wage earners. If you consider that the top 1% make 50% of the wages, you have to ask... how will pay the debt?

it can't be done and that is why the end is a forgone conclusion with only the timeframe to collapse being in question.
 
That commission report is a joke. A 25 year plan just to bring the annual budget deficit to zero? That's 25 years of continuing to grow the debt. They're playing a shell game. They claim by 2035, the debt will "shrink" to 40% of the GDP instead of 63%. The problem is that the dollar value of the debt doesn't decrease, it increases. It only appears to decrease as a percentage of GDP, because GDP increases.

The government is so focused on the annual deficit that they ignore the $15 trillion dollar elephant in the room.

Yes, there is no way out. The final chapter is already written.

And Stalin was right. We sold them the rope with which they will hang us.
 
Wow indeed. Thats why the concept of "too big to fail" is fatally flawed. We should not have thrown $100 billion at a company too poorly managed to survive. Not to mention it is a violation of economic evolution. By putting these large, poorly managed companied on life support, you hold back the emergence of their stronger replacement. Imagine if the government had propped up Sybase in the early 90s. There would be no Oracle today. Or helped Sun Microsystems maintain its market leadership through an influx of funds? No Redhat?

Let companies fail. That is the risk of capitalism.
 
Noting how much the extreme left and right are alike, I've concluded that a more correct metaphor is a circle. At the extreme, you find both the left and right holed up in cabins in the woods, eschewing government and fending for themselves. 'Cept the righties are holding their guns and the lefties are holding their bongs!
 
The only thing the USA manufactures these days is YOUR OPINION.......

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The author of the article is wrong in his logic, because he looks as it simply as an expenditure. Its not. people have paid into Social Security their entire lives with the expectation of being paid back. What he's really saying if he dismissed that as a financial obligation, is what I believe the truth is: social security is a ponzi scheme and that there is no obligation because the mark was duped.

Thats an incredible amount of honesty and I unfortunately agree. But in this case, the mark duped themselves because they knew and allowed their money to be spent. Sorry, but thats the fact.
 
obama.for.veterans.webp


Good move I say.
 
Fred Sherman said:
The author of the article is wrong in his logic, because he looks as it simply as an expenditure. Its not. people have paid into Social Security their entire lives with the expectation of being paid back. What he's really saying if he dismissed that as a financial obligation, is what I believe the truth is: social security is a ponzi scheme and that there is no obligation because the mark was duped.

Thats an incredible amount of honesty and I unfortunately agree. But in this case, the mark duped themselves because they knew and allowed their money to be spent. Sorry, but thats the fact.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that is correct. The (so called) social security trust fund, is actually invested in treasury bills, so it's already counted in the debt. Like borrowing against your IRA, you don't count the obligation twice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom