America is closing for business, does anyone really care?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by bennyhill, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Repubicans and their Tea-bagger voters want to ruin the US government in order to win elections next year. Their willing to drive America against the wall, to achieve their poltical goal.

    I wonder what all the voters who receive social security checks or college gov. grants will say, when they have no money. They surely won´t vote Republican. So the way I see it, the more the Republicans (*)(*)(*)(*) America, the better it is for Obama and the Democratic Party.

    So Reps keep on (*)(*)(*)(*)ing your lovely country and you will be out of a job!:mrgreen:
     
  2. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have a $14 Trillion GDP. We have a $14 Trillion Debt. We have $1.5 Trillion Deficit.

    In ten years, our debt will more than double, but our GDP might only increase by $5 Trillion.

    So, in ten years (estimated) our Debt will be $29 Trillion, while our GDP will be $19 Trillion.

    That's assuming our currency doesn't collapse due to inflation, debt payment increases and our economy.

    --

    I'm no fan of the GOP, but the DNC is doing virtually NOTHING to balance the budget. At least the GOP proposes plans to met this crisis.

    Also, the GOP is going to allow the debt limit to increase, no one is saying they wont.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Balancing the budget when severe macroeconomic problems continue to exist makes no sense.
     
  4. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then why is the IMF, ECB, etc forcing austerity on any nation that takes a bailout then?

    If balancing the budget during severe macroceconomic problems makes no sense, why isn't Greece seeing a huge infusion of unlimited debt then until they fix their macroeconomic problems?

    It seems to me some economists somewhere disagree with you Reiver.
     
  5. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Eventually, even the most dense will note that we HAVE no money.
    Seems the ignorant tea partiers have caught on first, now we have to explain it to the rest.
     
  6. Travis Bickle

    Travis Bickle Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tea-bagger is a pejorative, Benny. Play nice.
     
  7. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what would you suggest? And why?
     
  8. loosecannon

    loosecannon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While this is true I also wonder if any of those economists can plot a path out of the impasses we face. You notice that all the nations in deep trouble are those who modeled their financial architecture after our Federal Reserve system.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd suggest a significant change in the nature of expenditures, an increase in some forms of tax and only a reduction in the deficit when the risks of crisis are suitably low
     
  10. dixiehunter

    dixiehunter Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I always say this - "To crap with all todays Democrats and Republicans"!!!

    America needs a NEW Party in Washington. A party that is for the people.​
     
  11. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One can play with the numbers all you want, but at the end of the day China owns America. This dependency has been caused by american governments being to lazy to cut spending and commitments abroad. The beleif that America can grow out of its debt has proven to be false.

    In Europe some politicians make the same mistake. Namely hoping that economic growth will solve their problems, without trying to hurt voters or industry by necessary cuts. Why does the tax payer subsidize US business?
    For example, the farming industry, the defence industry, the banking system, the automobile industry. If social spending should be cut, like the tea-baggers want, then why should the same tax payers support Big Business?

    I beleive that on the 3rd of August America will close down for business as it did during the 80s under Clinton. After a few weeks, the Republicans will pee in their pants and sign on the dotted line. Yes, thank that Tea-Bagging Republicans dont have morals either. :fart:
     
  12. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, the primary owners of our debt are retirement funds, the Fed is second. China is a couple of notches down from that.

    It isn't the government is lazy, the voters had been getting lazy, and allowing their childern to pay their taxes by accepting ever larger deficits, until the 2010 election.

    Every dollar big business pays in taxes comes from the consumer, so the taxpayer already subsidized business, big and small. Raising taxes on business, just raises prices from those businesses, making imported products cheaper still.

    Then the debt will grow, the Tea Party will be energized, as will many independants.
     
  13. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not Amused
    doese this mean that zero taxing of business would boost employement and lower the deficit?

    Politicians the world over make the mistake by not paying of the debt when times are good, because business is afraid that the economy could fall into a economic down turn. On the other hand saving when the economy is in trouble tends to make things even worse.

    Politicians never find the right time to pay off the debt? Why?
     
  14. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Economics aren't so simple.

    A lot of CPA's and tax attorneys would need to find other (productive) work, as would those directly employed by companies to deal with taxes.

    Taxes would be shifted from business to consumers, which wouldn't effect the prices of imported goods - effectively this becomes a tarrif. Tarrifs / protectionism cost jobs every time it has been tried.

    Othere countries could follow suit.

    A lot of companies have cash on hand. It is also government regulation on the books, and being implemeneted that makes it more difficult and expensive to do business in the US (without improving safety or reducing pollution).

    You want to increase business:

    1. Reduce the size of government
    a. Less money going into government, means more into the productive economy
    b. Those people working for government have to prove their worth by bothering someone)​
    2. Eliminate any regulation that doesn't prevent tragedy of the commons.

    People and businesses save to cope with uncertainty.

    Borrowing creates money (how much depends on the retained amount - 5%, 20X), saving reduces it. This goes way beyond the fallacy of thrift that Keynes talks about.

    That is our (the voters) fault. We reward them by putting idiots back in office.
     
  15. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Doesnt the government invest a lot of capital in military spending, road construction, education K-12, Atomic Energy, etc.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You'd have to adopt a rather naive understanding of crowding out


    Just picking out the tragedy of the commons, given the numerous other market failure that exist, makes no economic sense
     
  17. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You only think crowding out is the issue? When 1 in 3 is getting money from the government, there is a multiplier effect when a person moves from public to private sector.

    We have recovered from recessions far faster when those market failures were allowed to fail, and the market knew they wouldn't get bailed out. This last round of risky behavior was a result of the certainty of personal gain, tax payer loss.

    Oh, but what about Lehman Brothers? The market reaction was utter shock that too big to fail, wasn't. But, then the politicians realized they were killing the geese that laid many golden eggs, and stuck the tax payer (actually, the taxpayers kids).
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You continue to employ nothing more than a naive understanding of crowding out!

    This is just fluff. It continues to make zero economic sense to trumpet the tragedy of the comments whilst ignoring all other market failures
     
  19. P. Lotor

    P. Lotor Banned Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do republicans and tea partiers want to ruin the federal govt? I thought try wanted to fix the federal govt.
     
  20. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    **********s want a weak cental government, big business ownes DC already. When the goverment is weaker, then you will wont be able to defend yourself against the Mexican invasion.

    If america closes down, then lots of republicans wont be getting their social security check either.
     
  21. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thats what the GOP wants Americans to believe, there is alot of money that the rich could pay for the US debt without having to raid social security.

    what is unfortunate is that republicans on social security allow them to steal from the social security fund instead of taxing the rich..

    the DNC will redistribute wealth and make americans socialists finally.
     
  22. tksensei

    tksensei Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,980
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Oh, the drama! Stay in Europe and keep your nose out of our business. We'll be just fine, and you'll still be irrelevant.
     
  23. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We want a federal government based on the Constitution. The Federal governments purpose was to provide a common voice for the States for trade, and protection.

    Because a strong government can take away from big business, with tax and regulation. This forces big business to "invest" in lobbyist and political campaigns. With right "contributions", government gives back.

    Big business owns DC, because there is a high return on investment.

    Too late, the Federal government has let 10's of Millions of Mexicans occupy the US.

    Tea Partiers are not Republican's.

    On our current tragectory, either taxes double, or SSI / Medicare cut in half, or more.
     
  24. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets look at the math:

    A 4% tax increase on the rich yields $70B.

    The "rich" will takes steps to reduce the tax they pay, so a 4% tax increase won't net $70B. $70B buys a lot of tax attorney time, and creates a lot of "return on investment" by buying politicians.

    Why do you think the Democrats didn't raise the tax on the rich when they had no opposition to it?

    The Deficit is $1.3T.

    1300 / 70 = 18.6 * 4% = 74.3%

    74.3% + 34% (existing rate) = 108%

    What do you think happens if the tax on the rich is increased to 70% (theorically $630B).
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Typically a skewed understanding of the constitution designed only to ignore sound economic comment and the practical needs of capitalism.
     

Share This Page