• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

From your article:

"Norway leads the 2010 list ranking the prosperity of 110 of the world's nations by the London analytical center Legatum Institute.

Norway also topped the 2009 rankings.

amazing. you mean a nation tapped it's abundant natural resources by drilling for oil and it made it's citizenry wealthier?

:shock: i'm astonished, simply astonished.
 
Does the opinion of the London analytical center Legatum Institute outweigh the UN and OECD combined?

No but the UN and OECD does not do what the Legatum does. Having higher GDP per captia does not mean the population is more phosphorous. The US GDP per capita is highly skewed due to massive wealth among few and massive poverty among many... it is called income inequality. That is why countries in Europe are higher on the prosperity index because their income inequality is so much better than the US and it shows.
 
No but the UN and OECD does not do what the Legatum does. Having higher GDP per captia does not mean the population is more phosphorous.

:lol: one would rather hope that they would be less so :)

The US GDP per capita is highly skewed due to massive wealth among few and massive poverty among many... it is called income inequality.

really. is that why the poor in America are comparable to the middle class in Europe?
 
:lol: one would rather hope that they would be less so :)



really. is that why the poor in America are comparable to the middle class in Europe?

Give your conservative tea party pit bulls buddies time and they will be able to lower the living standards of the poor, the deficit deal should help the poor get poorer and the rich get richer
 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."


Very good, you can cut and paste. This however, doesn't mean you understand, or apply the clause properly.

J-mac
 
Give your conservative tea party pit bulls buddies time and they will be able to lower the living standards of the poor, the deficit deal should help the poor get poorer and the rich get richer

Your post would probably get accolades over at DemocratUndergroud or Daily Kos, but here it will be snickered at due to its reliance on the latest far left platitudes.
 
It just like those that seem to dislike this country of ours to compare it to a country(Norway) a country who is about the same size as New Mexico, the population of Minnesota, and the GDP of Rhode Island. A country who's GDP is dependent on oil and gas exportation to the tune of 22% of it's GDP

Seeing the GPD percentage related to gas and oil here in America is 7.5% I guess those same people are basically asking that we increase our drilling and oil output by 3 fold just like Norway right ?

It's easy to cherry pick other countries and point out their good points, but a comparison between them and us, is only useful when you consider everything that country does. What I fail to understand is why it “seems” that liberals always want to run down our country, and forget the good in it, why always point to the bad in our history, and never mention the good we have given to the world ? Then wonder in the next breath, why people get the opinion of them that they hate our country. Maybe if you mentioned the USA more often in a good light, people wouldn't get that opinion of you that they do.
 
really. is that why the poor in America are comparable to the middle class in Europe?

Seriously? On what planet are you?

First off all, comparing a country to a continent is arsine at best.

As for the attack it self... prove it. Prove that the middle class of Germany, France, Spain, UK are people that live on 11k US dollars a year.... which is the official poverty threshold of the US.
 
I hate half-assed analysis in newspapers that is published in order to foster an agenda.

There is a relationship between tax rates and economic growth that is completely ignored by this G&M article.

Let's look at the whole picture and let's begin the comparison in 1981 when Reagan took the US on a different course from the rest of the major Western economies.

In 1981, the GDP per capita of the US was $26,005
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Canada was $23,708
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Germany was $21,243
In 1981, the GDP per capita of France was $20,325
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Italy was $18,973

Let's normalize the numbers with the US set to 100.

In 1981, the GDP per capita of the US was normalized to 100
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Canada was 91.17
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Germany was 81.69
In 1981, the GDP per capita of France was 78.16
In 1981, the GDP per capita of Italy was 72.96

In 2008, the GDP per capita of the US was $43,250 (normalize to 100)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Canada was $36,123 (83.52)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Germany was $33,663 (77.83)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of France was $30,624 (70.81)
In 2008, the GDP per capita of Italy was $28,245 (65.31)

So, to put the numbers into perspective.

If the US had instituted Canadian policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Canada implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $39,622, an 8.5% reduction in income.

If the US had instituted German policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Germany implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $41,209, an 4.75% reduction in income.

If the US had instituted French policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that France implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $39,182, a 9.4% reduction in income.

If the US had instituted Italian policies and tax rates back in 1981 and followed the same policies and tax rates that Italy implemented in the period between 1981 and 2008, the present US per capita income of $43,250 would be $38,713, a 10.5% reduction in income.

Look at how far each of those countries has slipped over the last generation, especially Canada, which had a 1981 per capita income that was 91.17% of the US level and in 2008 it had slipped to an income level that was only 83.52% of American levels.

TAX RATES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH.

The US and Mexico, back in colonial days had nearly identical GDP per capita figures. We were equally wealthy. Over the ensuing two hundred and fifty years the US simply grew its economy a half percent or so faster than Mexico and look at the result today. We started off with equal levels of wealth and today the

Using 1981 to "normalize" income and then apply it 2008 income is "playing with statistics"

Here's a better look at what happened in the US

180px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png


IOW, nearly all that growth in GDP went to the upper bracket
 
Does the opinion of the London analytical center Legatum Institute outweigh the UN and OECD combined?

Yes, because Standard of Living measures are more relevant than GDP growth figures. SoL depend on a more detailed set of data than just income and economic stats
 
Seriously? On what planet are you?

First off all, comparing a country to a continent is arsine at best.

As for the attack it self... prove it. Prove that the middle class of Germany, France, Spain, UK are people that live on 11k US dollars a year.... which is the official poverty threshold of the US.

In most of Europe, the poor get the same medical care that the middle class do. In the US, they just die
 
I value our seniors, I don't value the unnecessary optional GOP war in Iraq. The GOP wanted it, now let them pay for it by giving up their precious tax cuts.
As I said we have different priorities. :sun
Irrelevant to the issue -- you stated that the war in Iraq is the biggest part of the increase in the debt.
This is demonstrably false, as noted.
So... you're either lying, or you do not know any better.
 
Congress can increase the FICA cap and lock the funds from general fund use. No need to increase the deficit whatsoever. :sun
There is if you want to cash in any of the $2.6T in SSTF IOUs.
The money to make good on those IOUs can only come from the general fund or borrowing; either will increase the deficit.
 
Irrelevant to the issue -- you stated that the war in Iraq is the biggest part of the increase in the debt.
This is demonstrably false, as noted.
So... you're either lying, or you do not know any better.

The wars in Iraq and Afgh are the 3rd largest cause of the deficits and increase in the debt

deficit.jpg
 
There is if you want to cash in any of the $2.6T in SSTF IOUs.
The money to make good on those IOUs can only come from the general fund or borrowing; either will increase the deficit.

No, raising the FICA cap is another way. Your response completely ignored the point in the post it responded to
 
In most of Europe, the poor get the same medical care that the middle class do. In the US, they just die

uva study cited by the asa finds that americans with NO INSURANCE actually fare better (shorter stays, lower costs, reduced mortalities) than their unfortunate friends whose primary pay status is medicaid

of course, americans with private insurance enjoyed significantly better results---after controlling for age, gender, geography, race, income and 30 comorbid conditions, that is

From 2003-2007, 893,658 major surgical operations were evaluated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database: lung resection, esophagectomy, colectomy, pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, hip replacement, and coronary artery bypass. Patients were stratified by primary payer status: Medicare (n=491,829), Medicaid (n=40,259), Private Insurance (n=337,535), and Uninsured (n=24,035).

Importantly, after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs. In addition, Medicaid and Uninsured payer status independently conferred the highest adjusted risks of mortality.

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

nothing but your unsubstantiated claims

LOL!
 
Very good, you can cut and paste. This however, doesn't mean you understand, or apply the clause properly.
J-mac
As evidenced by his lack of response to my response to this post.
 
uva study cited by the asa finds that americans with NO INSURANCE actually fare better (shorter stays, lower costs, reduced mortalities) than their unfortunate friends whose primary pay status is medicaid

of course, americans with private insurance enjoyed significantly better results---after controlling for age, gender, geography, race, income and 30 comorbid conditions, that is

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

LOL talk about biased statistics, not to mention it does not even reflect what he was talking about......
 
LOL talk about biased statistics, not to mention it does not even reflect what he was talking about......

I find that most of his posts have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I ignore the distracting posts
 
Back
Top Bottom