ADVERTISEMENT

Dow Jones dropping again, jobs report not helping matter.

I believe when the fed raises interest rates that asset prices will decline which would be the opposite of inflation. If inflation does set in the fed will continue to raise rates until it subsides to more historical levels.

But yes, servicing our govt debts becomes much more difficult at higher interest rates. My guess is you see a VAT like tax introduced at that point. Listen, i am not saying i like these things, just that is what i see coming down the line.

If we would have taken our medicine 6-8 years back (or even further back really) and reduced spending and got rid of ridiculous tax deductions then our next down wouldn't have been as bad as it will be. Debt allows you to expand rapidly but it creates bigger booms and bigger busts. We decided we like the rollercoaster.
Wait a minute un, I agree with you about taking our medicine 6-8 years ago, but you were criticizing me at the time for saying we needed to swallow the pill back then. If you recall, I was a vocal critic of the bailouts (too big to fail), TARP, and the auto bailouts. I was also a vocal critic of QE and the easy money policy of the Fed. You were a big fan of TARP and the bank bailouts to get money flowing into the economy. We just kicked the can down the road. If we would have taken our medicine back then (bitter as it might have been), our economy would likely be humming along right now instead of inching along in the worst economic recovery since WWII. Plus, we have banks bigger than ever, and still making bad loans to groups favored by Congress. We have a Fed that is out of control.

Why would you pass a VAT tax? Come on, un, are you nuts? You should support NO significant tax increase unless/until Congress gets its house in order. The reason I said your proposals would lead to bigger government is because those tax revenues aren't going into a "lock box" to pay down the debt, they'll be used by both parties to bribe more constituents, securing their reign of power. I guarantee you the first call would be to use the money for "infrastructure", and we'd have people like, Torbee, calling to use the money for a train from Chi to Ia City which we need as much as we need a migraine headache. Infrastructure is loaded with pork. If state and local citizens want to upgrade their infrastructure, then do it. Stop feeding at the federal government trough where we get bridges to nowhere.

Now, you get Congress to support freezing government spending (adjusted for inflation), then I could support a tax hike of some kind. To keep Congress honest, if they spend more money than the freeze amount, the tax hike automatically is removed. This will hopefully keep them honest and spending in check. In cases of national emergency, war/recession, spending could be increased (without removal of the tax hike) only with approval of 2/3rd support of both the House and the Senate.

I'd support a tax increase, as stated above, because I know the extra money would be going to pay down the debt. We also need to have some sort of entitlement reform. Boomers are getting older and sicker.
 
Phantom...let's be honest here......Simpson-Bowles had BOTH sides of the aisle walking away from it. It had no more support from Repubbers than it had from Dems.
You think the POTUS can change this? I don't think so........Congress has been paid for a long time ago.
Fair enough but it had much more support among Republicans. Where was Obama? He should pushed hard for ACA, but he ran away from Simpson-Bowles which was the committee he set up. Obama puts any effort into his passage and it would have passed. He wanted to claim that he tried to tackle the issue but it was nothing more than a show trial. Neither side loved everything in Simpson-Bowles (I didn't like some of the recommendations), but this is why it was a palatable deal for both sides. Both sides got some of what they wanted. When it comes to entitlements you're never going to get a deal where everyone is happy, it's the nature of the beast. It was more than a good faith effort. It should have passed. Hell, they should submit tomorrow and get it passed now.
 

The US under Obama/Democrats.
house-of-cards_large.jpg
 
Wait a minute un, I agree with you about taking our medicine 6-8 years ago, but you were criticizing me at the time for saying we needed to swallow the pill back then. If you recall, I was a vocal critic of the bailouts (too big to fail), TARP, and the auto bailouts. I was also a vocal critic of QE and the easy money policy of the Fed. You were a big fan of TARP and the bank bailouts to get money flowing into the economy. We just kicked the can down the road. If we would have taken our medicine back then (bitter as it might have been), our economy would likely be humming along right now instead of inching along in the worst economic recovery since WWII. Plus, we have banks bigger than ever, and still making bad loans to groups favored by Congress. We have a Fed that is out of control.

Why would you pass a VAT tax? Come on, un, are you nuts? You should support NO significant tax increase unless/until Congress gets its house in order. The reason I said your proposals would lead to bigger government is because those tax revenues aren't going into a "lock box" to pay down the debt, they'll be used by both parties to bribe more constituents, securing their reign of power. I guarantee you the first call would be to use the money for "infrastructure", and we'd have people like, Torbee, calling to use the money for a train from Chi to Ia City which we need as much as we need a migraine headache. Infrastructure is loaded with pork. If state and local citizens want to upgrade their infrastructure, then do it. Stop feeding at the federal government trough where we get bridges to nowhere.

Now, you get Congress to support freezing government spending (adjusted for inflation), then I could support a tax hike of some kind. To keep Congress honest, if they spend more money than the freeze amount, the tax hike automatically is removed. This will hopefully keep them honest and spending in check. In cases of national emergency, war/recession, spending could be increased (without removal of the tax hike) only with approval of 2/3rd support of both the House and the Senate.

I'd support a tax increase, as stated above, because I know the extra money would be going to pay down the debt. We also need to have some sort of entitlement reform. Boomers are getting older and sicker.


Seriously how do you get that i want a VAT out of what i wrote? I said it is the most likely source of new tax revenues, meaning it will be what our law makers turn to when needed. I even stated that i don't like these things...it was more a crystal ball projection than something i want to see happen.

Also, TARP was a good idea based on where things were heading and the fact we had no way to deal with the failure of our large money center banks. Unfortunately i don't think our regulatory bodies still has a way to deal w it. I wouldn't mind seeing these mega institutions broken up...seems like we are taking on too much concentration risk.

I was never for the stimulus and QE. Rates were going to be low coming out of that deal and now we are hooked on low Cost funding that has gone on too long IMO.
 
Fair enough but it had much more support among Republicans. Where was Obama? He should pushed hard for ACA, but he ran away from Simpson-Bowles which was the committee he set up. Obama puts any effort into his passage and it would have passed. He wanted to claim that he tried to tackle the issue but it was nothing more than a show trial. Neither side loved everything in Simpson-Bowles (I didn't like some of the recommendations), but this is why it was a palatable deal for both sides. Both sides got some of what they wanted. When it comes to entitlements you're never going to get a deal where everyone is happy, it's the nature of the beast. It was more than a good faith effort. It should have passed. Hell, they should submit tomorrow and get it passed now.

I think your memory of the specifics is VERY selective. S/B called for HIGHER taxes and the GOP announced that S/B was "dead upon delivery" because of that. Dems had questions regarding SS rewrite...but the GOP and its leadership was very definate that higher taxes killed any hope of the proposition ever being discussed.
 
Really? Then with how it works and your theories, how did 2008 happen? You never answer this when I ask. I could get VERY complicated on this if you like. Your choice. Let's test who knows more than the other.

You mean ciggy hasn't cut and pasted how it works according to someone else yet?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT