What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fifths, merc, are bigger than sixths, but I don't think that that was your point, now was it?




You lie.

Merc’s Day Alt:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=33735857&highlight=physician#post33735857
The lying
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=800325

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What’s Your Plan?
By Mark Steyn, NRO
April 14, 2012 4:00 A.M.

In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the “war on women,” the Republican theocrats’ confiscation of your contraceptives, or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences. This week’s bit of ham-handed misdirection was “the Buffett Rule,” a not-so-disguised capital-gains-tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary. If the alleged Sage of Omaha is as exercised about this as his public effusions would suggest, I’d be in favor of repealing the prohibition on Bills of Attainder, and the old boy could sleep easy at night. But instead every other American “millionaire” will be subject to the new rule — because, as President Obama said this week, it “will help us close our deficit.”

Wow! Who knew it was that easy?

A-hem. According to the Congressional Budget Office (the same nonpartisan bean-counters who project that on Obama’s current spending proposals the entire U.S. economy will cease to exist in 2027) Obama’s Buffett Rule will raise — stand well back — $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526. There’s a sporting chance Joe Biden will have retired from public life by then, but other than that I’m not making any bets.

Let’s go back to that presidential sound bite:

“It will help us close our deficit.”

I’m beginning to suspect that the Oval Office teleprompter may be malfunctioning, or that perhaps that NBC News producer who “accidentally” edited George Zimmerman into sounding like a racist has now edited the smartest president of all time into sounding like an idiot. Either way, it appears the last seven words fell off the end of the sentence. What the president meant to say was:

“It will help us close our deficit . . . for 2011 . . . within a mere half millennium!” [Pause for deafening cheers and standing ovation.]

Sometimes societies become too stupid to survive. A nation that takes Barack Obama’s current rhetorical flourishes seriously is certainly well advanced along that dismal path. The current federal debt burden works out at about $140,000 per federal taxpayer, and President Obama is proposing to increase both debt and taxes. Are you one of those taxpayers? How much more do you want added to your $140,000 debt burden? As the Great Magician would say, pick a number, any number. Sorry, you’re wrong. Whatever you’re willing to bear, he’s got more lined up for you.

Even if you’re absolved from federal income tax, you too require enough people willing to keep the racket going, and America is already pushing forward into territory the rest of the developed world is steering well clear of. On April Fools’ Day, Japan and the United Kingdom both cut their corporate-tax rates, leaving the United States even more of an outlier, with the highest corporate-tax rate in the developed world: The top rate of federal corporate tax in the U.S. is 35 percent. It’s 15 percent in Canada. Which is next door.

Well, who cares about corporations? Only out of touch dilettante playboys like Mitt Romney who — hmm, let’s see what I can produce from the bottom of the top hat — put his dog on the roof of his car as recently as 1984! That’s where your gran’ma will be under the Republicans’ plan, while your contraceptiveless teenage daughter is giving birth on the hood. “Corporations are people, my friend,” said Mitt, in what’s generally regarded as a damaging sound bite by all the smart people who think Obama’s plan to use the Buffett Rule to “close the deficit” this side of the fourth millennium is a stroke of genius.

But Mitt’s not wrong. In the end, a corporation doesn’t pay tax. The marble atrium of Global MegaCorp’s corporate HQ is indifferent to the tax rate; the Articles of Incorporation in the bottom drawer of the chairman’s desk couldn’t care less. Every dollar of “corporate” tax has to be fished out the pocket of a real flesh-and-blood human being, whether shareholder, employee, or customer.

And that’s the problem. For what Obama’s spending, there aren’t enough of them, or us, or “the rich” — and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the government of the United States, they would blow through it within four and a half days. Okay, so who’s the fourth-richest guy? He’s French. And the fifth guy’s a Spaniard. Number six is Larry Ellison. He’s American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Walmart, and she’s barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren’t a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for a year.

But there are a lot of “millionaires,” depending on how you define it. Jerry Brown, California’s reborn Governor Moonbeam, defines his “millionaire’s tax” as applying to anybody who earns more than $250,000 a year. “Anybody who makes $250,000 becomes a millionaire very quickly,” he explained. “You just need four years.” This may be the simplest wealth-creation advice since Bob Hope was asked to respond back in 1967 to reports that he was worth half a billion dollars. “Anyone can do it,” said Hope. “All you have to do is save a million dollars a year for 500 years.”

It’s that easy, folks! Like President Obama says, all you have to do to pay off his 2011 deficit is save $3.2 billion a year for 500 years.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

And of course the Buffet rule is nothing except a tax increase on capital gains, when they need to be cut altogether.

Why should be being rich be the best way to get richer?

If not taxed higher than income capital gains should be at least taxed equally to it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean, you need a better education in economics. Capital gains come from investments. Whatever is taxed less of it will be produced. Put two and two together.

I'm more than willing to take the risk that the uber rich might invest less. If for no other reason than I would prefer one thousand millionaires to one billionaire.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

You have a skewed view of reality. America is about freedom, it's not about government ordained economic outcomes that always fail. There's already a thousand millionaires, maybe more, for every billionaire as we speak.

The President says he needs this extra income to "grow the economy" which is an outright infantile lie. There's nothing he's going to do with 5 billion a year to "grow the economy" it's a stupid assertion directed at the economic and politically stupid.

Masterminds like "Benito" Obama thinking his ideas are more productive than those of millions upon millions of Americans making decisions in their own best interests, which is in everyone's interest, is stunning in it's arrogance and scope.

No, your america isn't about freedom in any way, shape or form..

 

[Sean Renaud]

You have a skewed view of reality. America is about freedom, it's not about government ordained economic outcomes that always fail. There's already a thousand millionaires, maybe more, for every billionaire as we speak.

The President says he needs this extra income to "grow the economy" which is an outright infantile lie. There's nothing he's going to do with 5 billion a year to "grow the economy" it's a stupid assertion directed at the economic and politically stupid.

Masterminds like "Benito" Obama thinking his ideas are more productive than those of millions upon millions of Americans making decisions in their own best interests, which is in everyone's interest, is stunning in it's arrogance and scope.

That's just because we don't have a lot of billionaires. I know that the top 1% includes people who make 250k. That's simply counter productive. Unless you plan to claim 250k is a lot of money. I'm sticking with the standard narrative that 250k isn't a whole lot of money and in a sane world it would be upper middle class not top 1% territory.

Of course he can grow the economy with an extra 5 billion. Not as much as he could with an extra 50 billion but still. I bet you could run a medium sized military base on 5 billion and there is no argument that military bases grow the economies around them.

It's not arrogance. It's an honest look at the facts that people making personal decisions does not, and has not historically lead to people being better off. We are in a recession (and even the Republican narrative is that recessions are GOOD* for this reason) because of personal decisions getting involved.

The more I circle with people like you the more I think the money might actually be the problem.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

You argue from ignorance Sean, pure and simple. People acting in their own economic interest built this country into the greatest nation on Earth, and it remains so today in spite of the government, not because of it.

Government doesn't grow the economy, that is absurd. The private sector grows the economy. Government intervention takes resources out of the economy, it's a dead liability on the economy, period.

People with a unique opportunity made this country. If the situation was swapped and America had been civilized and Manifest Destiny had been about wiping out indigenious people from France to China instead of New York to LA things would be different.

If government doesn't grow economies explain to me what happens to all the money Marines spend. Surely it must evaporate out of the economy.

 

[richard_daily]

People with a unique opportunity made this country. If the situation was swapped and America had been civilized and Manifest Destiny had been about wiping out indigenious people from France to China instead of New York to LA things would be different.

If government doesn't grow economies explain to me what happens to all the money Marines spend. Surely it must evaporate out of the economy.

Nation building apparently lands in some amalgamated region that is somehow written into the constitution, but yet, a part of the private sector at the same time...

He's just sure of it!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

People with just a simple opportunity, and the "freedom" to pursue it, driven by the incentive for profit, built the nation. Fuck the manifest destiny, indigenous people bullshit. There hasn't been a major migration of people in history that didn't involve a more technologically advanced people displacing a lesser culture. It's the way of the world. Those that remain have benefited form it as well, to a degree of their own choosing.

If you think about it for a minute, you'd realize it just amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money the government sucks out of the economy to pay Marines is put back into the economy for sure, but in a much less efficient manner than if the money had been left to the private sector to begin with. Granted, we need our military but that doesn't mean the government is a more efficient allocator of resources than the private sector, which is never the truth regardless of reason.

No small part of that opportunity of which you speak was because the only thing they had to do get more land is shoot the Indians. I'm no apologist, personally I think we give Native Americans far too much and we should treat them the same way Europe treats every other part of Europe. I won, you lost, suck it. It doesn't change the fact that 1700 Europe had the same problem as Modern America. The rich had won the game and the poor couldn't do shit about it.

Clearly judging by the military robbing Peter to pay Paul allows paul to bpay Tom, Dick and Harry. We could always got back to a draft military and shrink it down to bare bones if you really believe what your saying. I'd be annoyed but I wouldn't stop you if you wanna take that path. We'd all be worse off but then I could rub it in your face.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

No you couldn't. I grew up under the shadow of the draft. We didn't whine about it, leftists and weak sisters whined about it. I volunteered to join the Marines Corps, draft notwithstanding. The all volunteer military is one of the reasons why we can't afford it.

Why couldn't we afford it?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Tell me could we afford to pay 12 million men under arms like we did in WWII? We can't afford the 2.5 million we have now. Soldiers of today make many times the rate of inflation when salaries are compared.

So decrease their pay. They get free room, board and health care. They could probably get buy on less than half what we pay them now. Sure it would be mean and we'd get less volunteers but we could always do that.

Which doesn't change the fact that until Reagans tax cuts we were affording it and cutting the debt every year. We could go back to that, or hell just go back to the Clinton plan which was if not running a surplus certainly better than what we have today.

 

[eyer]

Stop taking me out of context, liar.

It's completely in context...

...anything else is simply what you've attempted to add as you backtrack on your knees away from it, putz.

 

[mercury14]

I'm not going to answer the charge of lying from a known liar who is proud of his abilities to do so...



17% (almost 1/5) in 2010
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010...ing-17-percent-of-economy/UPI-26041265295497/

Obama

We are here

We are heading here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/health-care-costs-economy-us_n_911917.html

Your link says "healthcare" accounted for 17% of GDP. Obamacare does not take over all aspects of healthcare, now does it? Not even close. Even your own health coverage will be largely unchanged.

Therefore you're just plain lying in your claim that Obamacare is going to take over 1/6th of the economy. And by the way, next time be sure to specify that you're referring to GDP and not the broader "economy".

 

[mercury14]

It's completely in context...

...anything else is simply what you've attempted to add as you backtrack on your knees away from it, putz.

You're taking me out of context and making sure not to post my comments that prove I'm right.

And you're frantically cross-posting this. Why are you so excited?

 

[mercury14]

And of course the Buffet rule is nothing except a tax increase on capital gains, when they need to be cut altogether.

Oh so that way the rich can pay effective income tax rates as low as 0% when working-class families living paycheck-to-paycheck get taxed at 25% (plus state and local taxes).

This is the America you envision?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Having found a cheaper source of energy which would help the economy, we now have to make it more expensive to help our political allies...

I said in the Coal thread, that the next war would be on Natural Gas, well, here's an opening salvo:

Bad stuff always happens on Friday the 13th. So it was on Friday that BrightSource Energy, the large solar energy company that has already received $868 million of a $1.6-billion loan guarantee, canceled its IPO application. And that same day, President Obama appointed Heather Zichal to head a new high-level task force to coordinate regulation of hydraulic fracking. The two events, both highly inauspicious, were not unrelated.

The connection is simple and obvious: in order to prop up failing solar companies, Obama needs to force natural gas prices higher.

Solar energy companies like BrightSource can't seem to compete without government subsidies, loan guarantees, and mandates. Left to their own devices, without a trillion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, state mandates requiring the purchase of green energy at whatever price, and the support of environmentally active nonprofits, companies like BrightSource might not have gotten off the ground in the first place. One has to assume that the withdrawal of Friday's IPO occurred because private investors were skeptical of the ability of BrightSource to produce a profit. To date, the company has generated only large losses of $71.6 million in 2010 and $111 million in 2011. That might have something to do with the market's skeptical outlook, even though at least one major investor claims that the failed IPO will not affect the company's work on the Ivanpath solar-thermal plant, one of its major projects.

It was not just Friday the 13th for BrightSource -- other solar companies had a rough day in the markets as well. First Solar, whose stock price has fallen over 90% off its peak, fell another 5.4% Friday. Others solar firms dropped as well, with the global market index of solar companies having fallen 74% in the past two years. It would appear that without much larger subsidies and mandates, green energy is going the way of the dodo. Obama would love to be able to write another $100-billion check to green energy, but in the post-Solyndra era, he is unable to do so. That's where regulating fossil fuels out of business comes in.

Administration officials have known since last Wednesday that BrightSource planned to withdraw its IPO. That might not be the reason for Obama's creation of the fracking task force, but it might have something to do with the timing of his announcement. It is always a bit embarrassing, or it should be, when a company to which one has committed $1.6 billion faces a setback in the markets. It is all too reminiscent of Solyndra, in which Obama's $528-million politically motivated "investment" went belly-up and taxpayers were left with the tab. Obama needed a distraction from the bad news of BrightSource's IPO withdrawal. So why not announce the creation of a federal task force to coordinate regulating of fracking that same day?

More regulation of fracking is sure to shore up Obama's election-year backing by environmental groups. It will help to boost campaign contributions. It may reignite a bit of enthusiasm from younger voters. But it will do a great deal of harm to the American people.

So what? When is the last time Obama expressed concern for the American people? Those are the folks he considers the bigoted ones "clinging to their guns and religion." Those are the ones who caused his wife to never be proud of America until they elected her husband president. Who cares if an unemployment rate above 8% becomes the "new normal"? Who cares if they have to pay more for heating and electricity?

Those will surely be the effects of a nationwide tightening of regulation on fracking. At the same time, by forcing natural gas prices higher, the president's policies are designed to make solar and wind more affordable. Solar and wind cannot compete with natural gas selling at below $2 per mBtu, as it now is. It cannot even compete with gas selling at $4. The only way to stop natural gas from driving solar and wind out of the marketplace -- as is now happening -- is to stop American energy companies from producing cheap gas. Maybe then the American public won't mind paying more for electricity and home heating. Or maybe not.

In any case, Obama thinks that if he can drive natural gas prices higher, the public will agree to pay higher prices for green energy. The creation of a national fracking task force appears to have only one purpose: to drive up the price of fossil fuels. That, of course, is the same motive behind Obama's veto of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought plentiful supplies of Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. Now, all that oil is headed for China (the same country that appears to be doubling its strategic petroleum reserves just as Obama talks of gutting our own).

Obama's plan all along has been to drive up fossil fuel prices in the U.S., subsidize wind and solar with extraordinarily large subsidies and mandates, and collect his own election-year bounty from well-funded environmental groups and green energy investors. The only ones who'll be hurt are those boobs all over America who are still toting their guns and clinging to their religion. But Obama has nothing but contempt for ordinary citizens who will be paying higher energy prices.

And he has nothing but contempt for the free market. The creation of a fracking council headed by an environmental activist is one more example of this contempt. Instead of allowing markets to work -- and they are working very well, with the production of natural gas increasing by 40% and prices for consumers near all-time lows -- the president believes that a single task force, composed of environmental activists and operating under his direct control, should have the power to regulate oil and gas drilling throughout the U.S.

The creation of a task force to regulate fracking should be seen for what it is: an unprecedented power-grab at the expense of the nation's states, which have always enjoyed the prerogative of regulating drilling within their borders.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/brightsource_and_the_fracking_task_force.html#ixzz1sCeuQ6OK

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=803947

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh so that way the rich can pay effective income tax rates as low as 0% when working-class families living paycheck-to-paycheck get taxed at 25% (plus state and local taxes).

This is the America you envision?

The middle class bears the brunt of all taxation.

I do not know, for the life of me, why you cannot grasp this single fact.

Buffet Rule

I pay myself 100K so that I can pay less tax and I pay my secretary 300+K, but I don't tell you that, instead, I say my secretary instead of saying my fellow 1%ers...



In this manner, I inoculate myself from criticism and put the target on someone else's back...

 

[unregistered]