CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 that is of course due to the lousy economy. CBO foresees a return to 18% of GDP and higher under current tax law over the next several years, which is where it was before the recession and right around where the historical average has been. the GOP stalwarts are saying that is enough money. I am mostly inclined to agree with them, however I think it's a probably little unrealistic given the coming baby boomer entitlement explosion. it would require cuts that the american people probably don't quite have the stomach for at this point. you just can't realistically fit all the entitlements the american people have come to expect, plus defense and everything else, into 18% of GDP. We need massive defense cuts to start with. We can still protect ourselves without spending more than the rest of the world combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 We need massive defense cuts to start with. We can still protect ourselves without spending more than the rest of the world combined. I dunno, you can make a pretty good argument that we have more to protect/lose than the rest of the world combined, a bigger target on our back than the rest of the world combined (ok except for israel), etc. but at this point I do agree. a defense budget of 5% of GDP is a luxury we simply can no longer afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I dunno, you can make a pretty good argument that we have more to protect/lose than the rest of the world combined, a bigger target on our back than the rest of the world combined (ok except for israel), etc. but at this point I do agree. a defense budget of 5% of GDP is a luxury we simply can no longer afford. It's my belief, and I believe somebody high up in the military echoed it a while back though I can't remember who, is that our biggest national security threats are no longer from military agreession but rather economically, ie the rise of China etc. We need investment in R&D and our people to reestablish our place in the global arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Thanks for stopping by Zeke! Your contributions to discussion are (as always) insightful and much appreciated! Keep up the good work! Any time. Although I can't for the life of me figure out why you feel the need to give your approval. Truly comical. You have made yourself the hall monitor of this place, when in reality you are just another duuuche that adds nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 It's my belief, and I believe somebody high up in the military echoed it a while back though I can't remember who, is that our biggest national security threats are no longer from military agreession but rather economically, ie the rise of China etc. We need investment in R&D and our people to reestablish our place in the global arena. indeed. another problem where the real solution is growth. but then there are other considerations as well. it's a tricker proposition than we sometimes like to pretend. consider these paragraphs from this very good essay entitled "Keeping America's Edge": America re-emerged as the acknowledged global economic leader [during the 80s]. Economic output per person is now 20 to 25% higher in the U.S. than in Japan and the major European economies, and America's economy dominates the world in size and prestige. But it is important to see that this robust growth means only that America has not lost ground in global economic competition, not that it has gained much. From 1980 through today, America's share of global output has been constant at about 21%. Europe's share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40% of global production in the 1970s to about 25% today. Opting for social democracy instead of innovative capitalism, Europe has ceded this share to China (predominantly), India, and the rest of the developing world. The economic rise of the Asian heartland is the central geopolitical fact of our era, and it is safe to assume that economic and strategic competition will only increase further over the next several decades. It is common to think of the post-war global economy as a baseline of normalcy to which we wish to return. But it seems more accurate to see that era as an anomaly: the apogee of relative global economic dominance by the West, and by the United States within the Western coalition. The hard truth is that the economic world of 1955 is gone, and even if we wanted it back — short of emerging from another global war unscathed with the rest of the world a smoking heap of rubble — we could not have it. Yet the strategy of giving up and opting out of this international economic competition in order to focus on quality of life is simply not feasible for the United States. Europeans can get away with it only because they benefit from the external military protection America provides; we, however, have no similar guardian to turn to. We do not live in a Kantian world of perpetual commercial peace. Were America to retreat from global competition, sooner or later those who oppose our values would become strong enough to take away our wealth and freedom. .... We are between a rock and a hard place. If we reverse the market-based reforms that have allowed us to prosper, we will cede global economic share; but if we let inequality and its underlying causes grow unchecked, we will hollow out the middle class — threatening social cohesion, and eventually surrendering our international position anyway. This, and not some world-is-flat happy talk, is what the challenge of globalization means for America. But unfortunately, by a combination of carelessness and design, we appear now to be embracing a counterproductive response to this daunting dilemma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 There were two of them you ignored. What made that even funnier is you started accusing others of ignoring reality, when the questions were based on real life actions and consequences of those real life actions. The were two questions out of three sentences that you apparently missed. These questions were comprised of sentences that ended with the following symbol: (?) Were the questions about weak sarcasm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Were the questions about weak sarcasm? It was a blatant and legitimate question. You didn't notice it. I'm trying to help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 A lack of confidence in alternative investments and general fear of continued economic downturn. A lot of my clients who are sitting on cash don't know where they want to put it. The stock market is too volatile. Many fear the real estate market will continue to fall. Sometimes is better to make no investment than a bad investment. Right now cash is king and a lot of folks are enjoying the safety of liquidity, deleveraging, and waiting for the right opportunity to get back into the market. Agree. Good answers to that question and none of them involved attempting to kill the elderly and eliminate the middle class. Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Agree. Good answers to that question and none of them involved attempting to kill the elderly and eliminate the middle class. Awesome. I think you misunderstood me. Killing the elderly (at least the poor ones) should be our top priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I think you misunderstood me. Killing the elderly (at least the poor ones) should be our top priority. But if you kill the rich ones, we can collect the death tax and hope that the heirs are dumb and blow their windfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I think you misunderstood me. Killing the elderly (at least the poor ones) should be our top priority. At least the ones who wear bikinis on the beach or the speedos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 It was a blatant and legitimate question. You didn't notice it. I'm trying to help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 you just can't realistically fit all the entitlements the american people have come to expect, plus defense and everything else, into 18% of GDP. And that right there sums up why I think taxes will need to rise as well as entitlements being revamped. And defense needs to be slashed, it's beyond ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 That study was last revised in 2009, it's now 2012. We have long term empirical evidence in how tax cuts "help" the economy and how they "increase" revenue. It was a very legitimate question. I'm not sure what you are rolling your eyes about, unless you looked into the mirror after the ignoring reality comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 did you really use the phrase "snap"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Bush, I am sorry. Its now 2012....all things are different. You are right. Discussion is OVER.2009 old school. I will try my best to trash all of my economical, finance, small business, PHD finance education, real world no money make happen stuff, massive student loan stuff, parents barely paid the bills stuff.sleeping in a shared closet......what ever buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Bush I am sorry But I know numbers that will make you dizzy and I HAVE worked my way thru the $hit. What I have realized in my day of voting D is they are not on my side! But I know that does not matter and I really should not waste my breath. I do this ever so often and then forget about this forum for another year...see u next year or in the FF forums. much love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 And that right there sums up why I think taxes will need to rise as well as entitlements being revamped. And defense needs to be slashed, it's beyond ridiculous. This. I'm so tired of the partisan bullSHAM WOW!. Give me someone who will genuinely address these issues and get us back on track as a country. I don't give a crap about the letter behind your name anymore. Just suck it up and get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 That study was last revised in 2009, it's now 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Bush I am sorry But I know numbers that will make you dizzy and I HAVE worked my way thru the $hit. What I have realized in my day of voting D is they are not on my side! But I know that does not matter and I really should not waste my breath. I do this ever so often and then forget about this forum for another year...see u next year or in the FF forums. much love. Bush, I am sorry. Its now 2012....all things are different. You are right. Discussion is OVER.2009 old school. I will try my best to trash all of my economical, finance, small business, PHD finance education, real world no money make happen stuff, massive student loan stuff, parents barely paid the bills stuff.sleeping in a shared closet......what ever buddy. Cocaine is a helluva drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) That study was last revised in 2009, it's now 2012. We have long term empirical evidence in how tax cuts "help" the economy and how they "increase" revenue. It was a very legitimate question. I'm not sure what you are rolling your eyes about, unless you looked into the mirror after the ignoring reality comment. I know you believe in global warming but did not know you also believed in global accelerating. Edited August 13, 2011 by gbpfan1231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Since GE paid -3.7 billion dollars in taxes in 2010, in other words they received a payout from the government, one wonders what a tax cut for them would look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Since GE paid -3.7 billion dollars in taxes in 2010, in other words they received a payout from the government, one wonders what a tax cut for them would look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Since GE paid -3.7 billion dollars in taxes in 2010, in other words they received a payout from the government, one wonders what a tax cut for them would look like. I don't see anyone saying that they like that GE did not pay any taxes - I think that is something even everyone on these boards can agree with???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) I don't see anyone saying that they like that GE did not pay any taxes - I think that is something even everyone on these boards can agree with???? But I see lots of people advocating lowering corporate tax rates, which would surely increase the amount that GE received. And I seriously doubt GE is alone. ETA: And have they used their tax gift to create jobs, per the received wisdom of lower rates? Edited August 13, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.