4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Oh, Europe's no stranger to printing funny money.
I miss the 20-million dollar lira note...
I miss the 20-million dollar lira note...
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
U
unregistered
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Instead of thinking what Sean Hannity told you to think, why not go look for facts on your own?
So there you go Vette. Seems like you were bitching out of willful ignorance again. Every single thing you've said in the past two pages has actually been completely wrong. In fact I just quoted a Republican saying how wrong you are.
U
unregistered
Guest
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
So, how does a cut one trillion and a tax increase of one trillion amount to a cut?
Not following you. It's a deficit cut of that amount.
And as you just saw only $200 billion of that is in defense, contrary to what you falsely claimed a moment ago.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
clearly you can't be this stupid! or maybe
fact is, giving more money is like giving a junkie more drugs. until fucktards like yourself understand that, there is no hope for America.
we must educate our teachers, and government workers/leaders!
fact is, giving more money is like giving a junkie more drugs. until fucktards like yourself understand that, there is no hope for America.
we must educate our teachers, and government workers/leaders!
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
Your article was only reported 22 hours ago, and my posts go back three days.
I see that the Merc loves to make the shit up as it goes. we must spend more! tax more!
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Your article was only reported 22 hours ago, and my posts go back three days.
Your posts from today and yesterday don't go back three days dude. This stuff has been all over the news except not Fox News. How come you didn't hear about it?
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
In post #11381 I quoted you on your false claims that:
1) Dems are seeking to emasculate the military.
2) Dems are not seeking cuts other than the military.
3) Dems are not seeking cuts to things that their constituency uses.
4) Dems are not seeking budget cuts
I proved all four of your claims to be patently false and backed my comments with fact. Meanwhile you still haven't managed to provide a single fact of your own.
U
unregistered
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Did you read the article I posted? It proves everything I just said and disproves everything you just said, at the same time.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
Pardon the skepticism, but Democrats offers to cut spending are usually illusory. They have a penchant for offering fuzzy reductions are scheduled to take place at some misty time in the future while tax increases are concrete and immediate.
It looks like the current "offer" is in the same vein so excuse me while I yawn.
I like this plan even though it doesn't go far enough (below). I believe that I read that the US Government is slated to spend something like $24-28T in the next decade and the dems are unable to find even more than $1 or $1.5T in savings?
NOVEMBER 11, 2011
Wall Street Journal
Today.
A Super Offer Rejected
Republicans bid $500 billion in new revenues. Democrats want more..
Pessimism is growing about the Congressional super committee on deficit reduction, so we were eager to listen yesterday when Pat Toomey called with the latest lowdown. Most notably, the Pennsylvania Senator explained why he and his five fellow Republicans have decided to put new tax revenues on the table.
The rap from Democrats has been that Republicans refuse to touch revenues, preferring only to cut spending. But Mr. Toomey explained that this week the GOP Six offered to raise revenues by $500 billion over 10 years as part of a tax reform that would lock in lower tax rates in return for giving up deductions. Democrats have rejected it, which is puzzling since it would achieve so many of their stated goals.
The GOP offer would raise about $250 billion over 10 years by using some variation of economist Martin Feldstein's proposal that no combination of deductions could exceed, say, 2% of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income. (See Mr. Feldstein's Journal op-ed, "The Tax Reform Evidence From 1986," Oct. 24.) That's a big revenue hit, especially for earners in the top tax brackets who benefit more from tax breaks. Grover Norquist of tax-pledge fame would probably not be pleased.
In return for these cuts in deductions, Mr. Toomey says the top individual tax rate would fall to 28% from 35%, with the other tax-rate brackets falling by similar proportions. The current top rates for capital gains and dividends (15%) and the estate tax (35%) would remain unchanged. The GOP negotiators agreed to the Democrat request that these tax changes be statically scored—which assumes no revenue gains from economic growth—yet they would still yield $250 billion in additional revenue over a decade even with the lower tax rates.
"It's a bitter pill to accept new statically scored revenue," says Mr. Toomey, "but I think it's justified to prevent the tax increase that's coming" in 2013. Given the history of revenue gains after marginal-rate tax cuts, the tax windfall for the Treasury would likely far exceed $250 billion over a decade.
Another $40 billion or so in new revenue would come from changing the formula for adjusting tax brackets for inflation. And $200 billion more would come from a variety of asset and spectrum sales, user fees, tax compliance and other things—all scored on a static basis by the Joint Tax Committee. Mr. Toomey says the Members have also made progress on a corporate tax reform that would cut the rate to 25% in return for eliminating deductions, though any agreement would probably have to be done in two stages to work out the details.
As for spending cuts, Democrats would only have to agree to $750 billion over 10 years. About $180 billion of that would come from changing the inflation calculation for benefits, so the other reductions would hardly be extreme. Keep in mind that any changes in ObamaCare (with its 3.8-percentage point payroll tax increase) and major reform of Medicare and Medicaid were long ago ruled out by Democrats.
Despite the modest spending cuts, the deal Mr. Toomey describes would be a big political win for all concerned. It would give the economy a major lift by taking the tax increase now scheduled for 2013 off the table, and it would show that Congress can at least make some progress toward controlling federal spending. With a ratio of $1.50 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases, the offer is far better for Democrats than the $3 to $1 ratio that President Obama's own Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommended.
Mr. Toomey says Democrats nonetheless rejected this offer on Tuesday night, a fact that leaves him "enormously frustrated." He says Democrats are insisting on at least $1 trillion in new revenues while refusing to allow any reduction in tax rates or to stop the tax increase that will hit in 2013. The freshman Republican now fears the talks will end with a whimper of small revenue and spending measures that will do little to help the economy or the federal fisc.
We report all this because it's news and because it illustrates the real political obstacles to more sensible economic policy in Washington. In media mythology, the only barrier to a budget deal is conservative opposition to raising taxes. But even when Republicans put $500 billion in statically scored new revenues on the table, at the risk of upsetting their political base, Democrats declare that tax reform without higher tax rates is impossible. So who are the real "ideologues" here?
Democrats must believe they can blame Republicans if the super committee fails, riding their campaign against "millionaires and billionaires" back to complete power in Washington. It's a reckless bet, but the American public may have to call it.
It looks like the current "offer" is in the same vein so excuse me while I yawn.
I like this plan even though it doesn't go far enough (below). I believe that I read that the US Government is slated to spend something like $24-28T in the next decade and the dems are unable to find even more than $1 or $1.5T in savings?
NOVEMBER 11, 2011
Wall Street Journal
Today.
A Super Offer Rejected
Republicans bid $500 billion in new revenues. Democrats want more..
Pessimism is growing about the Congressional super committee on deficit reduction, so we were eager to listen yesterday when Pat Toomey called with the latest lowdown. Most notably, the Pennsylvania Senator explained why he and his five fellow Republicans have decided to put new tax revenues on the table.
The rap from Democrats has been that Republicans refuse to touch revenues, preferring only to cut spending. But Mr. Toomey explained that this week the GOP Six offered to raise revenues by $500 billion over 10 years as part of a tax reform that would lock in lower tax rates in return for giving up deductions. Democrats have rejected it, which is puzzling since it would achieve so many of their stated goals.
The GOP offer would raise about $250 billion over 10 years by using some variation of economist Martin Feldstein's proposal that no combination of deductions could exceed, say, 2% of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income. (See Mr. Feldstein's Journal op-ed, "The Tax Reform Evidence From 1986," Oct. 24.) That's a big revenue hit, especially for earners in the top tax brackets who benefit more from tax breaks. Grover Norquist of tax-pledge fame would probably not be pleased.
In return for these cuts in deductions, Mr. Toomey says the top individual tax rate would fall to 28% from 35%, with the other tax-rate brackets falling by similar proportions. The current top rates for capital gains and dividends (15%) and the estate tax (35%) would remain unchanged. The GOP negotiators agreed to the Democrat request that these tax changes be statically scored—which assumes no revenue gains from economic growth—yet they would still yield $250 billion in additional revenue over a decade even with the lower tax rates.
"It's a bitter pill to accept new statically scored revenue," says Mr. Toomey, "but I think it's justified to prevent the tax increase that's coming" in 2013. Given the history of revenue gains after marginal-rate tax cuts, the tax windfall for the Treasury would likely far exceed $250 billion over a decade.
Another $40 billion or so in new revenue would come from changing the formula for adjusting tax brackets for inflation. And $200 billion more would come from a variety of asset and spectrum sales, user fees, tax compliance and other things—all scored on a static basis by the Joint Tax Committee. Mr. Toomey says the Members have also made progress on a corporate tax reform that would cut the rate to 25% in return for eliminating deductions, though any agreement would probably have to be done in two stages to work out the details.
As for spending cuts, Democrats would only have to agree to $750 billion over 10 years. About $180 billion of that would come from changing the inflation calculation for benefits, so the other reductions would hardly be extreme. Keep in mind that any changes in ObamaCare (with its 3.8-percentage point payroll tax increase) and major reform of Medicare and Medicaid were long ago ruled out by Democrats.
Despite the modest spending cuts, the deal Mr. Toomey describes would be a big political win for all concerned. It would give the economy a major lift by taking the tax increase now scheduled for 2013 off the table, and it would show that Congress can at least make some progress toward controlling federal spending. With a ratio of $1.50 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases, the offer is far better for Democrats than the $3 to $1 ratio that President Obama's own Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommended.
Mr. Toomey says Democrats nonetheless rejected this offer on Tuesday night, a fact that leaves him "enormously frustrated." He says Democrats are insisting on at least $1 trillion in new revenues while refusing to allow any reduction in tax rates or to stop the tax increase that will hit in 2013. The freshman Republican now fears the talks will end with a whimper of small revenue and spending measures that will do little to help the economy or the federal fisc.
We report all this because it's news and because it illustrates the real political obstacles to more sensible economic policy in Washington. In media mythology, the only barrier to a budget deal is conservative opposition to raising taxes. But even when Republicans put $500 billion in statically scored new revenues on the table, at the risk of upsetting their political base, Democrats declare that tax reform without higher tax rates is impossible. So who are the real "ideologues" here?
Democrats must believe they can blame Republicans if the super committee fails, riding their campaign against "millionaires and billionaires" back to complete power in Washington. It's a reckless bet, but the American public may have to call it.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
Your articles typically prove nothing except that you have an overdeveloped imagination or blind spot.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
I sometimes think that whacking the military is the raison d'etre for the democrats .....that somehow capitulation to anyone in a foreign nation on any topic is something noble in their hearts.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
I can understand the dems reluctance to cut spending. They depend so heavily on unions for their campaign donations and the unions are so insistant. If they didn't continue to send taxpayer money to the unions, they'd not be able to continue to do things like described in the article below.
Note: I think that teachers and people actually working in this nation are for the most part noble, I think that the union leaders and the lawyers who support them are doing a great disservice to our nation and it leads to behaviours like those listed in this article"
The Public-Union Albatross
What it means when 90% of an agency's workers retire with disability benefits..
By PHILIP K. HOWARD
Wall Street Journal
Today
The indictment of seven Long Island Rail Road workers for disability fraud last week cast a spotlight on a troubled government agency. Until recently, over 90% of LIRR workers retired with a disability—even those who worked desk jobs—adding about $36,000 to their annual pensions. The cost to New York taxpayers over the past decade was $300 million.
As one investigator put it, fraud of this kind "became a culture of sorts among the LIRR workers, who took to gathering in doctor's waiting rooms bragging to each [other] about their disabilities while simultaneously talking about their golf game." How could almost every employee think fraud was the right thing to do?
The LIRR disability epidemic is hardly unique—82% of senior California state troopers are "disabled" in their last year before retirement. Pension abuses are so common—for example, "spiking" pensions with excess overtime in the last year of employment—that they're taken for granted.
Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio this year have led well-publicized showdowns with public unions. Union leaders argue they are "decimat[ing] the collective bargaining rights of public employees." What are these so-called "rights"? The dispute has focused on rich benefit packages that are drowning public budgets. Far more important is the lack of productivity.
"I've never seen anyone terminated for incompetence," observed a long-time human relations official in New York City. In Cincinnati, police personnel records must be expunged every few years—making periodic misconduct essentially unaccountable. Over the past decade, Los Angeles succeeded in firing five teachers (out of 33,000), at a cost of $3.5 million.
Collective-bargaining rights have made government virtually unmanageable. Promotions, reassignments and layoffs are dictated by rigid rules, without any opportunity for managerial judgment. In 2010, shortly after receiving an award as best first-year teacher in Wisconsin, Megan Sampson had to be let go under "last in, first out" provisions of the union contract.
Even what task someone should do on a given day is subject to detailed rules. Last year, when a virus disabled two computers in a shared federal office in Washington, D.C., the IT technician fixed one but said he was unable to fix the other because it wasn't listed on his form.
Making things work better is an affront to union prerogatives. The refuse-collection union in Toledo sued when the city proposed consolidating garbage collection with the surrounding county. (Toledo ended up making a cash settlement.) In Wisconsin, when budget cuts eliminated funding to mow the grass along the roads, the union sued to stop the county executive from giving the job to inmates.
No decision is too small for union micromanagement. Under the New York City union contract, when new equipment is installed the city must reopen collective bargaining "for the sole purpose of negotiating with the union on the practical impact, if any, such equipment has on the affected employees." Trying to get ideas from public employees can be illegal. A deputy mayor of New York City was "warned not to talk with employees in order to get suggestions" because it might violate the "direct dealing law."
How inefficient is this system? Ten percent? Thirty percent? Pause on the math here. Over 20 million people work for federal, state and local government, or one in seven workers in America. Their salaries and benefits total roughly $1.5 trillion of taxpayer funds each year (about 10% of GDP). They spend another $2 trillion. If government could be run more efficiently by 30%, that would result in annual savings worth $1 trillion.
What's amazing is that anything gets done in government. This is a tribute to countless public employees who render public service, against all odds, by their personal pride and willpower, despite having to wrestle daily choices through a slimy bureaucracy.
One huge hurdle stands in the way of making government manageable: public unions. The head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees recently bragged that the union had contributed $90 million in the 2010 off-year election alone. Where did the unions get all that money? The power is imbedded in an artificial legal construct—a "collective-bargaining right" that deducts union dues from all public employees, whether or not they want to belong to the union.
Some states, such as Indiana, have succeeded in eliminating this requirement. I would go further: America should ban political contributions by public unions, by constitutional amendment if necessary. Government is supposed to serve the public, not public employees.
America must bulldoze the current system and start over. Only then can we balance budgets and restore competence, dignity and purpose to public service.
Note: I think that teachers and people actually working in this nation are for the most part noble, I think that the union leaders and the lawyers who support them are doing a great disservice to our nation and it leads to behaviours like those listed in this article"
The Public-Union Albatross
What it means when 90% of an agency's workers retire with disability benefits..
By PHILIP K. HOWARD
Wall Street Journal
Today
The indictment of seven Long Island Rail Road workers for disability fraud last week cast a spotlight on a troubled government agency. Until recently, over 90% of LIRR workers retired with a disability—even those who worked desk jobs—adding about $36,000 to their annual pensions. The cost to New York taxpayers over the past decade was $300 million.
As one investigator put it, fraud of this kind "became a culture of sorts among the LIRR workers, who took to gathering in doctor's waiting rooms bragging to each [other] about their disabilities while simultaneously talking about their golf game." How could almost every employee think fraud was the right thing to do?
The LIRR disability epidemic is hardly unique—82% of senior California state troopers are "disabled" in their last year before retirement. Pension abuses are so common—for example, "spiking" pensions with excess overtime in the last year of employment—that they're taken for granted.
Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio this year have led well-publicized showdowns with public unions. Union leaders argue they are "decimat[ing] the collective bargaining rights of public employees." What are these so-called "rights"? The dispute has focused on rich benefit packages that are drowning public budgets. Far more important is the lack of productivity.
"I've never seen anyone terminated for incompetence," observed a long-time human relations official in New York City. In Cincinnati, police personnel records must be expunged every few years—making periodic misconduct essentially unaccountable. Over the past decade, Los Angeles succeeded in firing five teachers (out of 33,000), at a cost of $3.5 million.
Collective-bargaining rights have made government virtually unmanageable. Promotions, reassignments and layoffs are dictated by rigid rules, without any opportunity for managerial judgment. In 2010, shortly after receiving an award as best first-year teacher in Wisconsin, Megan Sampson had to be let go under "last in, first out" provisions of the union contract.
Even what task someone should do on a given day is subject to detailed rules. Last year, when a virus disabled two computers in a shared federal office in Washington, D.C., the IT technician fixed one but said he was unable to fix the other because it wasn't listed on his form.
Making things work better is an affront to union prerogatives. The refuse-collection union in Toledo sued when the city proposed consolidating garbage collection with the surrounding county. (Toledo ended up making a cash settlement.) In Wisconsin, when budget cuts eliminated funding to mow the grass along the roads, the union sued to stop the county executive from giving the job to inmates.
No decision is too small for union micromanagement. Under the New York City union contract, when new equipment is installed the city must reopen collective bargaining "for the sole purpose of negotiating with the union on the practical impact, if any, such equipment has on the affected employees." Trying to get ideas from public employees can be illegal. A deputy mayor of New York City was "warned not to talk with employees in order to get suggestions" because it might violate the "direct dealing law."
How inefficient is this system? Ten percent? Thirty percent? Pause on the math here. Over 20 million people work for federal, state and local government, or one in seven workers in America. Their salaries and benefits total roughly $1.5 trillion of taxpayer funds each year (about 10% of GDP). They spend another $2 trillion. If government could be run more efficiently by 30%, that would result in annual savings worth $1 trillion.
What's amazing is that anything gets done in government. This is a tribute to countless public employees who render public service, against all odds, by their personal pride and willpower, despite having to wrestle daily choices through a slimy bureaucracy.
One huge hurdle stands in the way of making government manageable: public unions. The head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees recently bragged that the union had contributed $90 million in the 2010 off-year election alone. Where did the unions get all that money? The power is imbedded in an artificial legal construct—a "collective-bargaining right" that deducts union dues from all public employees, whether or not they want to belong to the union.
Some states, such as Indiana, have succeeded in eliminating this requirement. I would go further: America should ban political contributions by public unions, by constitutional amendment if necessary. Government is supposed to serve the public, not public employees.
America must bulldoze the current system and start over. Only then can we balance budgets and restore competence, dignity and purpose to public service.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
If the government is looking for me to pay more in taxes to preserve this sort of spoils program, then I fully support the Republicans efforts to put new spending cuts in place and have NO NEW TAXES.
After all, what has all this new spending that we've had from the Dems over the past 3 years done for us?
After all, what has all this new spending that we've had from the Dems over the past 3 years done for us?
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,599
Stopped losing jobs and started creating them, albeit slowly. Damn near doubled the DOW. Probably prevented some serious riots. Can you imagine what would have happened if we'd both had mass lay offs AND cut welfare at the same time? The country would have been on fire.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Republicans have long told Democrats that eliminating deductions and loopholes is the same as a tax increase - and that it will kill jobs and move our companies overseas. But now you're saying that this was never the case at all.
Please explain.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
It was one article, not "articles". It was from the AP. Are you saying that the article lied? If so then please expose the lies in your next post.
Your article is a mere conservative opinion piece though. "WHAAA!!! Why won't the Dems accept the Republican offer of a puny $500 billion in revenue increases that are reduced to a miniscule $250 billion AFTER THE RICHEST TAX BRACKET GOES FROM 35% to 28%????" Gee I wonder why the Dems balked at that. Your author tries to sound surprised though.
It's a dumbshit proposal. Eliminate tax breaks for the middle class and poor while handing the rich mega-billions in tax breaks? This is pure trickle-down economic ideology being pushed in a place where it never should be. The committee needs to get to work and stop fucking around with extremist bullshit.
And you need better sources of information.
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
- Status
Similar threads
