1 of 4
1
Role of gov’t in the economy.
Posted: 20 March 2013 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22

EOC, this one’s for you.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21573280-reforms-state-and-local-level-point-way-improving-national-business

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2013 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I’m well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it’ll do enormous damage.

Each side has half the solution.

Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it’s means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse.

The Tea Party has this much right.

Yes, for the near term, we’re going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes.

The left has this much right.

What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they’re going to have to do both.

They could learn something from Clinton’s playbook. “Slick Willie” may have been a piece of work, but it’s interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face.

But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2013 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:29 PM

I’m well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it’ll do enormous damage.

Each side has half the solution.

Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it’s means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse.

The Tea Party has this much right.

Yes, for the near term, we’re going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes.

The left has this much right.

What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they’re going to have to do both.


—-True, but we have a stalemate, one side won’t make any more cuts to programs,  one side won’t raise taxes and refuses to cut defense spending.  So where do we go from here?


They could learn something from Clinton’s playbook. “Slick Willie” may have been a piece of work, but it’s interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face.


—Bush made sure he took care of THAT! No surpluses for him!

....
But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2013 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:29 PM

I’m well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it’ll do enormous damage.

Each side has half the solution.

Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it’s means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse.

The Tea Party has this much right.

Yes, for the near term, we’re going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes.

The left has this much right.

What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they’re going to have to do both.

They could learn something from Clinton’s playbook. “Slick Willie” may have been a piece of work, but it’s interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face.

But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?

In general I don’t disagree with what you are saying, the questions is where are the tax increases and spending cuts to take place, and how to we do it such a way that demand in increased for the immediate future while over the long term inflation is kept under control. 

I have posted many of these ideas before.  Tax capital gains at the same rate as wages,  make all wages including gains from stock option bonuses subject to FICA, get control of Medical costs, also raise the minimum wage and find a way to control the costs of higher education, and cut the military budget in half and but the costs of the VA back in the military budget when you do these calculations (and increase the care for our veterans as necessary).  Also if we cannot not eliminate the subsidy to the real estate industry - the home mortgage credit limit to one home at a time and cap it at say 500,000. per lifetime.  Also eliminate farm subsidies and set the estate tax exemption cut off at a level that equals the value of the estates at the amount that covers say the bottom 90% of estates.

On the state and local levels much more can be done, such as eliminating FDAs which only serve to steal companies from one local jurisdiction to another by competing to give tax breaks to favored businesses.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

The Government is the economy!  Everywhere!
Only the wealthy ever want to frame the dichotomy of government verses economy(ie. private sector etc ...)
The Government is the economy.
This can be summed up in this simple dictum:
When people petition the govt. through lobbying, voting, bribery, blackmail, referendums, policy organizations, gerrymandering, etc…they are trying to
mold the government in their best private interests.
This is government! That is government!
What do many of these invalids think? That govt is some outside force? No the govt is being steered by the people. It is the people.
We get the friggin’ government we deserve!
And the wealthy get the government they pay for.
And when you hear talk about…“big government” or govt. vs. private sector…that’s the wealthy and the powerful interests being the squeaky wheel.
They are the friggin’ govt!  And they want their govt.  Not our government!
They’re absolutely happy when it’s their government(a big friggin’ govt I might add!!)
But when the people(the underrepresented, disenfranchised people) start to reach for a piece of their own government, well then…
Government is too big!  It’s government verses the people! 
The government is the economy!  Wake up!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

double post delete. corrected grammar and spelling errors.

[ Edited: 23 March 2013 09:41 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

And for any “less attenuated” folks who rebut: “We know the govt is the people! But is the government getting in the way of the economy?
Or does the govt have a role in the economy?”
1.  If the FDA, The EPA, and the FCC for example, all got defunded and closed, then That’s government! That’s a government in action!
2.  The role of government in economy(ie:the govt is the economy) is: whatever interest can wrest enough control over the economy gets to form or partake in the government.  Or it could be equally stated in the inverse…..whatever interest can control the government gets to partake in the economy or form the economy.
3. Hey!  When there are multiple interests then economy/government is varied and complex. That’s government! ooorrrrrr…that’s the economy! It’s the same shit!
To get to the crux one more time….if Ayn Rand came back from the dead and become dictator.  And she instituted a complete capitalistic, rugged individual, libertarian, system.  Guess what…......wait for it! That’s Government! Or, as I said earlier…that would be the economy in action!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
garythehuman - 23 March 2013 02:59 PM

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph

Yes Gary-maybe it always has been the theology.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
garythehuman - 23 March 2013 02:59 PM

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph

This must be one of the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
garythehuman - 21 March 2013 08:00 AM
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:29 PM

I’m well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it’ll do enormous damage.

Each side has half the solution.

Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it’s means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse.

The Tea Party has this much right.

Yes, for the near term, we’re going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes.

The left has this much right.

What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they’re going to have to do both.

They could learn something from Clinton’s playbook. “Slick Willie” may have been a piece of work, but it’s interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face.

But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?

In general I don’t disagree with what you are saying, the questions is where are the tax increases and spending cuts to take place, and how to we do it such a way that demand in increased for the immediate future while over the long term inflation is kept under control. 

I have posted many of these ideas before.  Tax capital gains at the same rate as wages,  make all wages including gains from stock option bonuses subject to FICA, get control of Medical costs, also raise the minimum wage and find a way to control the costs of higher education, and cut the military budget in half and but the costs of the VA back in the military budget when you do these calculations (and increase the care for our veterans as necessary).  Also if we cannot not eliminate the subsidy to the real estate industry - the home mortgage credit limit to one home at a time and cap it at say 500,000. per lifetime.  Also eliminate farm subsidies and set the estate tax exemption cut off at a level that equals the value of the estates at the amount that covers say the bottom 90% of estates.

On the state and local levels much more can be done, such as eliminating FDAs which only serve to steal companies from one local jurisdiction to another by competing to give tax breaks to favored businesses.


Or just stop all tax breaks and have everyone, individuals and corporations pay the same rates. Besides being fairer and easier to administer we wouldn’t have the ridiculously complicated tax code we have that even the IRS can’t figure out and which forces people to hire accountants to wade through.  If tax collection were simplified every one of us (who are below the 2 percent) would wind up paying less and paying a fairer rate, and collection would not be the problem it is now.  The problem is that manipulating the tax code is an excellent way for politicians to buy and sell votes.  Think of that the next time your taxes are due.  There is no need for a complicated tax code except to line someone’s pockets. We know it costs the rest of the population untold misery and represents an overwhelmingly unfair burden, especiallly on the bottom segment of the economy.  Will it be changed?  Of course not.  If the tax burden were fair the rich would pay more.  We can’t have that. Keep the tax code impenetrable and allow the burden to continue falling on the ones who have the least power. Isn’t that what American democracy is all about?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2013 10:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5190
Joined  2010-06-16

I agree with your plan, Lois, except for one thing.  I think we have to assign a minimum adequate living income for everyone to help keep them out of poverty, say, the first $50,000 of income would not be taxed.  That way we wouldn’t be penalizing those who can hardly survive on their incomes.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 23 March 2013 10:47 PM

I agree with your plan, Lois, except for one thing.  I think we have to assign a minimum adequate living income for everyone to help keep them out of poverty, say, the first $50,000 of income would not be taxed.  That way we wouldn’t be penalizing those who can hardly survive on their incomes.

Occam

I have no problem with that plan.  There is also no reason it couldn’t be imposed across the board.  We should figure out the minimum amount of money for a person and his or her dependent family members to live on and make anything above that amount the base for taxation.  This would apply to the wealthy as well as the poor.  As the tax system works now people at the bottom pay far more in taxes as a percentage of their income than do those at the top..  Most tax avoidance schemes are available only to the wealthy.  In fact, our taxation system is designed (rather it has developed) to wring as much as possible from the people at or near the bottom so the wealthy can keep an increasingly larger portion of their income. If taxes were imposed as a percentage of discretionary funds rather than income, we’d have a fairer system.  Of course this is unlikely to happen for the simple reason that the wealthy write the tax code.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22
George - 23 March 2013 05:32 PM
garythehuman - 23 March 2013 02:59 PM

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph

This must be one of the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.

It may be silly but it is fairly close to the truth.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22
Occam. - 23 March 2013 10:47 PM

I agree with your plan, Lois, except for one thing.  I think we have to assign a minimum adequate living income for everyone to help keep them out of poverty, say, the first $50,000 of income would not be taxed.  That way we wouldn’t be penalizing those who can hardly survive on their incomes.

Occam

That is actually the way the income tax started out.  No one below $5,000. a year back in the 19 teens had to file or pay.  I would be more specific but I can’t find the copy of the orginal income tax return I used to have.  hmmm  hmmm

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
garythehuman - 24 March 2013 10:42 AM
George - 23 March 2013 05:32 PM
garythehuman - 23 March 2013 02:59 PM

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph

This must be one of the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.

It may be silly but it is fairly close to the truth.

Theology is the study of something that doesn’t exist. Economy, OTOH, is real. Just like with most social sciences, economics is far from perfect, but I believe we’ll get there eventually.

I know Stiglitz is only having fun here, but as smart as he can be, he is no Oscar Wilde. His attempt at trying to sound witty here doesn’t seem to work at all. At least for me it doesn’t.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1