Karl
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,561
- Reaction score
- 1,589
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yes. It means a fanatic is talking :mrgreen:Do you know what the word "unsustainable" means?
Yes. It means a fanatic is talking :mrgreen:Do you know what the word "unsustainable" means?
Indeed it does, which destroys your earlier point....actually, your chart shows that corporate revenues were pretty much comparatively flat throughout the entire time that individual incomes fluctuated significantly, again, agreeably, with the exception of the 2004-2008/09 period.
The point is that tax revenues increased so dramatically because the business base was so stoked. After 1/1/00, the bottom fell out of the boom economy and the tax revenues immediately started to fall.
Before you go wild and find that the revenues of 2000 were good, recall that the revenues received in 2000 were generated by activities in 1999.
:dohAs your screen name would indicate, you have proposed a remedy that could have come directly from the Communist manifesto.
Competition makes things better. Competition in the marketplace increases the value of products and the range of products available.
Your system implemented in the 50's would result in our country today driving Edsels designed by folks using slide rules.
That would only work in the long term. For an immediate solution, substitute rich people for old people in your formulaStop all our wars and kill all our old people.
Grandpa was a wise man.When you have a divet, fill it with dirt.
That's what grandpa always said.
Yes. It means a fanatic is talking :mrgreen:
Promoting a fair trade, protectionist policy, does not get rid of "competition"
You mean fanatics like the CBO? Or the IMF? Perhaps you mean someone like Ben Bernanke? Or Crazy Conservative Fanatics like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton?
:roll:
The notion that we can ignore the slowest-moving, most obviously coming Fiscal Train Wreck In History and just keep on hiking up spending strikes me as the notion perhaps more congruent with the descriptor of "fanatical".
What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?
Or anyone that doesnt say exactly what CPWILL wants to hear...lol
...you realize that's pretty much the Ryan Plan's approach to taxation?
...you realize that's pretty much the Ryan Plan's approach to taxation?
No, fanatical is posting links to support one's fanatical claims while ignoring what the link actually says. For example, from your IMF link:You mean fanatics like the CBO? Or the IMF? Perhaps you mean someone like Ben Bernanke? Or Crazy Conservative Fanatics like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? :roll:
The notion that we can ignore the slowest-moving, most obviously coming Fiscal Train Wreck In History and just keep on hiking up spending strikes me as the notion perhaps more congruent with the descriptor of "fanatical".
Now we all well know that the Tea Party fanatics, which now includes GOP leadership (both Boehner and McConnell signed the Norquist pledge), refuse to acknowledge that "revenue increases" are words that even co-exist in this galaxy, much less implement them. Just like the fanatical right wing argument, which you and others present here, that the only way to reduce the deficit is to cut spending; raising taxes is not only not an option, it simply does not exist. Weird.The IMF said the plan should include spending cuts, entitlement reform - a reference to the long-term burden of promised health and retirement benefits to seniors - as well as revenue increases.
Bill Clinton doesn't agree with you. That you think he does says something. . . . . . .do you think Bill Clinton is a right-wing fanatic?
Do you agree with 10%, 50%, or 90% of that? :2razz:Now, that portion of the deficit annually attributable to the stimulus will go away when normal economic growth returns. About half of the annual deficit will go away. The rest of it is embedded again.
And since upper-incomes people's relevant tax burden was raised to help pay for health care, it's unrealistic to think that we can basically solve this whole thing from cutting spending and just raise an upper-income taxes. We're going to have to have more growth. I think we're going to have to have more taxpayers, which is why I favor, in a disciplined way, a immigration reform and letting more immigrants come to the country. I think it would make more jobs for people who are unemployed, not fewer. We're going to have to look at different tax systems that are not easily evadable, and that make us more competitive.
I think they ought to look at a progressive value-added tax, just because--and I think it's important the American people understand this--most of our competitors have tax systems like this.
CNBC News Headlines
I suspected that chart may have been too complicated. Oh well -- pictures are as simple as I can make it :shrug:
You would expect spending to remain at 2000 levels? Why in the world would you expect that?
Let's say you have a livestock farm. Over the course of 12 years, your livestock grows and multiplies. Also over the course of that 12 years, your feedgrass grows to replenish itself, but you also have to plant more feedgrass to keep pace with the increased births of livestock. You also need increased barn and corral space, which costs money.
Around year 8, your area experiences a severe drought. Feedgrass dies. Your livestock looses weight, has fewer births, and you even have a few deaths -- therefore your income is reduced, complicating the feedgrass problem... you can't afford to buy as much new feedgrass acreage as you did in the past. Do you:
a) figure that you have slightly more feedgrass now than you did in 2000, despite the size of your operation increasing by some 25%, and blame the situation on your livestock multiplying?
b) slaughter some of your livestock, at a loss, to reduce feedgrass consumption (spending) to available supply?
c) borrow some money to buy additional feedgrass to keep your livestock alive until the drought passes and feedgrass growth returns to normal?
That was the expected response. Well done :2razz:b) SLAUGHTER them till you are profitable again. You have no idea how long the drought is going to last. Otherwise not only are you putting yourself in debt now, It will be harder to recover after the drought.
...you realize that's pretty much the Ryan Plan's approach to taxation?
do you think Bill Clinton is a right-wing fanatic?
No, it just reduces it, thus reducing growth.
"Reducing growth"? Where is the growth now? Where has been the US job growth for the bast 20 years here?