The Socialist Senator from Oklahoma?

[^_^ 5,021]

Washington (CNN) - In a significant development in the fiscal cliff standoff, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a leading deficit hawk, said Wednesday he would support higher tax rates on wealthier Americans as part of a broader deal with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to avoid the crisis.

"I know we have to raise revenue," the senator from Oklahoma told MSNBC. "I don't really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future."

...

Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans from Maine, said later Wednesday they, too, would support the tax rate increase on the wealthy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/05/gop-senator-backs-tax-rate-hike-on-wealthy/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The tax rate increase is going to happen anyways, along with all the rest of the revenue measures the Republicans are proposing as alternatives. The Democrats think of it as found money, and an excuse to spend even more money on new programs without any new spending cuts anywhere else, rather citing current law as proof of their fiscal responsibility. Most telling is the Administration's insistence that they will not be blackmailed into any further spending cuts as a condition of raising the debt ceiling. More of the same, I am afraid.

Edited December 6, 2012 by The Patriot

[Póg mo 1,749]

The tax rate increase is going to happen anyways, along with all the rest of the revenue measures the Republicans are proposing as alternatives. The Democrats think of it as found money, and an excuse to spend even more money on new programs without any new spending cuts anywhere else, rather citing current law as proof of their fiscal responsibility. Most telling is the Administration's insistence that they will not be blackmailed into any further spending cuts as a condition of raising the debt ceiling. More of the same, I am afraid.

Ya, the Dems are to blame. Remember when Bush II campaigned on making sure the national debt wasn't eliminated? She sure fixed that problem alright!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ya, the Dems are to blame. Remember when Bush II campaigned on making sure the national debt wasn't eliminated? She sure fixed that problem alright!

Bush hasn't been President for 3 years 10 months and 2 weeks. Obama signed the tax cut extensions, so they are now the Obama Tax Cuts, which he was more that willing to take credit for during his campaign. Obama now has the distinction of being the President that has borrowed more money under his watch, than any other President.

Edited December 6, 2012 by The Patriot

[bsd058 296]

Bush hasn't been President for 3 years 11 months and 2 weeks. Obama signed the tax cut extensions, so they are now the Obama Tax Cuts, which he was more that willing to take credit for during his campaign. Obama now has the distinction of being the President that has borrowed more money under his watch, than any other President.

The middle class needs this cushion. At least until Real GDP increases to an appropriate level. Potential is still there with so many resources not employed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The middle class needs this cushion. At least until Real GDP increases to an appropriate level. Potential is still there with so many resources not employed.

Growth in government spending needs to keep pace with growth in GDP. As any businessperson, or any head of household soon realizes, you can't keep putting stuff on the credit card. If we just limit growth in spending, including entitlements, to less than 2 percent a year for the next 10 years, government spending would keep pace with projected growth in the economy.

[bsd058 296]

Growth in government spending needs to keep pace with growth in GDP. As any businessperson, or any head of household soon realizes, you can't keep putting stuff on the credit card. If we just limit growth in spending, including entitlements, to less than 2 percent a year for the next 10 years, government spending would keep pace with projected growth in the economy.

The Government is a large spender in the economy. When they spend at home during high unemployment the economy uses that money as a cushion. When they spend on infrastructure, health care, etc., the employees of those services/producers are able to spend more on things they need and desire. If the government stops spending before the economy's resources are employed at adequate levels, they may end up putting us back into recession. That's partly why the Great Depression became so deep. Just a theory, but I think spending should remain at the current rate (at home, mind you) until unemployment has reached around 6.5% - 7%. This way, more resources won't be wasted in an already tough time by consumers being too frugal. If people are too frugal in large amounts, spending goes down and then say goodbye to Real GDP and cash flow. And then Government revenues are pushed down even further.

The government needs to spend. Just how long is the question. Right now it might actually hurt us bad if they stop spending at the current rate.

Let business capital waste until businesses are forced to invest in their businesses by buying new vehicles, new equipment, etc., and employ manufacturers in making this new stuff. This will help boost the economy as well.

We've got some time left before businesses are forced to invest, but once unemployment reaches adequate levels, they'll be forced to be the ones to invest, instead of the Government.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[Póg mo 1,749]

Growth in government spending needs to keep pace with growth in GDP. As any businessperson, or any head of household soon realizes, you can't keep putting stuff on the credit card. If we just limit growth in spending, including entitlements, to less than 2 percent a year for the next 10 years, government spending would keep pace with projected growth in the economy.

Great, lets do what my country did, by cutting spending! it's only on Austerity budget number 6. Perhaps in about four more years, it'll have cut enough from spending and raised taxes enough, it may even manage to actually balance its budget.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Government is a large spender in the economy. When they spend at home during high unemployment the economy uses that money as a cushion. When they spend on infrastructure, health care, etc., the employees of those services/producers are able to spend more on things they need and desire. If the government stops spending before the economy's resources are employed at adequate levels, they may end up putting us back into recession. That's partly why the Great Depression became so deep. Just a theory, but I think spending should remain at the current rate (at home, mind you) until unemployment has reached around 6.5% - 7%. This way, more resources won't be wasted in an already tough time by consumers being too frugal. If people are too frugal in large amounts, spending goes down and then say goodbye to Real GDP and cash flow. And then Government revenues are pushed down even further.

The government needs to spend. Just how long is the question. Right now it might actually hurt us bad if they stop spending at the current rate.

Let business capital waste until businesses are forced to invest in their businesses by buying new vehicles, new equipment, etc., and employ manufacturers in making this new stuff. This will help boost the economy as well.

We've got some time left before businesses are forced to invest, but once unemployment reaches adequate levels, they'll be forced to be the ones to invest, instead of the Government.

Great, lets do what my country did, by cutting spending! it's only on Austerity budget number 6. Perhaps in about four more years, it'll have cut enough from spending and raised taxes enough, it may even manage to actually balance its budget.

These are two examples of the mentality that is exacerbating the economic situation we are in now.

[bsd058 296]

These are two examples of the mentality that is exacerbating the economic situation we are in now.

I gave a good explanation of why it's a bad idea, and all you can say is that it's my mentality that got us here. And then you posted a picture. No explanation of why my ideas are wrong.

I don't know if you read my post all the way through or not.

But I didn't say the Government needs to keep spending forever. if you'll notice I said that once businesses are forced to invest and unemployment are at adequate levels, the government should then slow down spending. To do so now could hurt the economy even more and cause a large loss in Government revenues which would defeat the purpose of slower spending.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I gave a good explanation of why it's a bad idea, and all you can say is that it's my mentality that got us here. And then you posted a picture.

I don't know if you read my post all the way through or not.

But I didn't say the Government needs to keep spending. if you'll notice I said that once businesses are forced to invest and unemployment are at adequate levels, the government should then slow down spending. To do so now could hurt the economy even more and cause a large loss in Government revenues which would defeat the purpose of slower spending.

I stand by my statement. You don't have the slightest clue of what you are trying to talk about. You can't force businesses to invest, or to hire. You can make the climate so severe they will take their capital and expertise elsewhere, or you can create a friendly climate that they would be more than happy to do business in.

[bsd058 296]

I stand by my statement. You don't have the slightest clue of what you are trying to talk about. You can't force businesses to invest, or to hire. You can make the climate so severe they will take their capital and expertise elsewhere, or you can create a friendly climate that they would be more than happy to do business in.

Sorry. I assumed you had training in economics. I might be mistaken. Have a good day anyways. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sorry. I assumed you had training in economics. I might be mistaken.

If you paid for that training, you should ask for a refund. Yes, you are totally mistaken. Go start your own business, and learn something about "economics" in the real world.

[bsd058 296]

If you paid for that training, you should ask for a refund. Yes, you are totally mistaken. Go start your own business, and learn something about "economics" in the real world.

We're talking macroeconomics, not microeconomics. Though related, they aren't the same thing. And it's good enough training for the SOA (if you know what that is).

Edited December 6, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

We're talking macroeconomics, not microeconomics. Though related, they aren't the same thing. And it's good enough training for the SOA (if you know what that is).

I wouldn't call what an actuary does economics by any means.