OT: So the debt grows…

[ocrenter]

[quote=nocommonsense]

Not trying to attack you–just using your comment to make a point. Whatever one does with his income (above $250K or not) is not the government’s damn business, and is no excuse to use to rob his money via unfair and excessive taxation.

It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

every issue in this country is now reduced to communist this or fascist that…

very sad

[Anonymous]

[quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.

[Anonymous]

[quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.

[Anonymous]

[quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.

[Anonymous]

[quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.

[Anonymous]

[quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.

[ltokuda]

One major concern I have about the US economy is the trade imbalance we have with China. A large part of the problem is that China pegs its currecy to the US dollar to keep its currency artificially low and give it an “unfair” trade advantage. However, one weapon the US seems to have against this is the printing press. In order for China to maintain the currency advantage, they will have to continuously buy more US treasuries. So it seems like we can run up the debt and effectively “force” China to buy it. This lets us export much of the inflationary effects to them. I’m not completely sure but I think this might actually work in our favor.

[ltokuda]

One major concern I have about the US economy is the trade imbalance we have with China. A large part of the problem is that China pegs its currecy to the US dollar to keep its currency artificially low and give it an “unfair” trade advantage. However, one weapon the US seems to have against this is the printing press. In order for China to maintain the currency advantage, they will have to continuously buy more US treasuries. So it seems like we can run up the debt and effectively “force” China to buy it. This lets us export much of the inflationary effects to them. I’m not completely sure but I think this might actually work in our favor.

[ltokuda]

One major concern I have about the US economy is the trade imbalance we have with China. A large part of the problem is that China pegs its currecy to the US dollar to keep its currency artificially low and give it an “unfair” trade advantage. However, one weapon the US seems to have against this is the printing press. In order for China to maintain the currency advantage, they will have to continuously buy more US treasuries. So it seems like we can run up the debt and effectively “force” China to buy it. This lets us export much of the inflationary effects to them. I’m not completely sure but I think this might actually work in our favor.

[ltokuda]

One major concern I have about the US economy is the trade imbalance we have with China. A large part of the problem is that China pegs its currecy to the US dollar to keep its currency artificially low and give it an “unfair” trade advantage. However, one weapon the US seems to have against this is the printing press. In order for China to maintain the currency advantage, they will have to continuously buy more US treasuries. So it seems like we can run up the debt and effectively “force” China to buy it. This lets us export much of the inflationary effects to them. I’m not completely sure but I think this might actually work in our favor.

[ltokuda]

One major concern I have about the US economy is the trade imbalance we have with China. A large part of the problem is that China pegs its currecy to the US dollar to keep its currency artificially low and give it an “unfair” trade advantage. However, one weapon the US seems to have against this is the printing press. In order for China to maintain the currency advantage, they will have to continuously buy more US treasuries. So it seems like we can run up the debt and effectively “force” China to buy it. This lets us export much of the inflationary effects to them. I’m not completely sure but I think this might actually work in our favor.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]The national debt is far from dire yet since the US government can borrow at 2.5%.[/quote]

That doesn’t prove anything except that people are still willing to pay a lot for our debt (the way they did for houses in 2005, etc etc).[/quote]

“A lot” is a relative amount.

The fact that there once was a bubble in the price of one type of asset doesn’t tell us anything about whether some another asset is in a bubble today.

Could we replace the words “our debt” in your sentence above with the word “gold?”

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]The national debt is far from dire yet since the US government can borrow at 2.5%.[/quote]

That doesn’t prove anything except that people are still willing to pay a lot for our debt (the way they did for houses in 2005, etc etc).[/quote]

“A lot” is a relative amount.

The fact that there once was a bubble in the price of one type of asset doesn’t tell us anything about whether some another asset is in a bubble today.

Could we replace the words “our debt” in your sentence above with the word “gold?”

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]The national debt is far from dire yet since the US government can borrow at 2.5%.[/quote]

That doesn’t prove anything except that people are still willing to pay a lot for our debt (the way they did for houses in 2005, etc etc).[/quote]

“A lot” is a relative amount.

The fact that there once was a bubble in the price of one type of asset doesn’t tell us anything about whether some another asset is in a bubble today.

Could we replace the words “our debt” in your sentence above with the word “gold?”

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]The national debt is far from dire yet since the US government can borrow at 2.5%.[/quote]

That doesn’t prove anything except that people are still willing to pay a lot for our debt (the way they did for houses in 2005, etc etc).[/quote]

“A lot” is a relative amount.

The fact that there once was a bubble in the price of one type of asset doesn’t tell us anything about whether some another asset is in a bubble today.

Could we replace the words “our debt” in your sentence above with the word “gold?”

[Author]

Posts