bjorn_skurj Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Oh, I worry and most of what you have brought up is well reasoned and articulated. We need to pay down the debt and reduce deficit spending definitely, but we can't blindly believe that there is this magic money tree or these mystical rich people who can shoulder the greatest part of the burden. The vast majority of the population/consumers of goods and services are the ones who will bear this burden one way or another. Trickle down economics may be bogus, but trickle down taxes that is another question.You are right - there is no magic money tree. Things are going to suck quite hard for the next few years pretty much across the board. The hoi polloi will feel better about shouldering their burden if they think those in higher tax brackets are doing their fair share. Restoring the highest tax bracket to what it was in the Clinton era (35 percent to 39.5 percent) will be a good start, it seems to me, and falls short of confiscatory. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Oh, I worry and most of what you have brought up is well reasoned and articulated. We need to pay down the debt and reduce deficit spending definitely, but we can Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It's nice to see that people are willing to start sacrificing because, holy cow, this economy looks like it is headed straight down from here. Unemployment already at 6.5% and moving higher, GM warning today that it's running short on cash (stock down 13%), wall street layoffs haven't even started yet. I read an artice today that The Sands in vegas is in danger of defaulting on its debt. Everything in this doggone country is debt-financed. We have no assets anymore everything is pledged as collateral. The auto industry, the airline industry, even hospitals, are going to be asking for govt bailouts. Obama has stepped into an absolute shitshow. Things are so crazy that economists don't know whether they should fear inflation or deflation more. Think about that!! The buck will be passed, but it is a necessary evil at this point, IMO. I agree. And maybe I am crazy, but I have to think that anyone that voted for Obama understood this. Sounds like Obama voters are ready to sacrifice. Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Whether Obama is fiscally responsible or runs up more deficit spending is another valid question - whether he cuts proposed programs / promises in order to keep the deficit spending low: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...0,3296595.story It's pretty clear to me though that we cannot spend as we do as a country without paying more for it, so either the spending has to come down, the taxes have to increase, or both. Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Again, I agree. The buck will be passed, but it is a necessary evil at this point, IMO. For example, I believe subsidies for oil should go away. Do I think the oil companies will just say "okay, I guess we'll just have thinner margins"? Of course not, they will pass it on to the consumer and everything from the price at the pump to shipped goods will be more expensive for the average consumer. But again, it's a necessary evil at this point, IMO. Of course, no one wants to bring up these things during an election, but it's going to be worse for everyone for a while, not just the "wealthy." One of the reasons I voted for Obama was the fact that he may have the ability to inspire a call to arms for such sacrifice. But, one way or another, we're going to pay. Like it or not, the baby-boomers have made quite a bed for us and now we have to deal with it. My hope is we can deal with SS and Medicare/Medicaid as well, but I'd rather have higher taxes than have my parents move in with me. I completely agree with all of this. I'm just concerned with the disconnect out there. I've talked to so many people that have this $250K number in their head and they don't think this will have any affect on them. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I'll do better under Obamas tax plan... I'd rather just pay the taxes if I could keep other operating costs in line. Just like my property tax example, on it's face spending more money for schools through local property takes doesn't seem to have any "real" cost if you are a renter, until your rents go up. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I'm just concerned with the disconnect out there. I've talked to so many people that have this $250K number in their head and they don't think this will have any affect on them. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I'll do better under Obamas tax plan... I'd rather just pay the taxes if I could keep other operating costs in line. I am sure you are right about there being a disconnect among some people, but Obama (and plenty of his supporters) opposed the gas tax holiday pushed for by McCain and Clinton because they understood that it was/is a cheap ploy to get votes. I think most Obama supporters understand what is on the horizon. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 If they start making capital gains taxes payable year to year rather than deferring them until disposal of the asset, then it very well could affect me. Who on earth has suggested such a thing? It's not in any publication I read and for good reason the notion is unworkable for a number of reasons. unrealized gains and losses have never been taxable or deductible. Anyone who thinks this is a real possibility is just plain wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Anyone who thinks this is a real possibility is just plain wrong. Agreed. Flat out preposterous. Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 BREAKING NEWS - Obama confirmed on Friday that although they are looking for a hypoallergenic dog, they also have a strong desire to get a pet from a shelter. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 WILL OBAMA FLIP-FLOP ON DOG ADOPTION PROMISE? BARACK OBAMA TO ADOPT DOG July 26, 2008 Advocates will rally for Puppy Mill legislation on Capitol steps Arlington, Va. -- President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States Wayne Pacelle verified that Barack Obama will adopt a dog. He made the announcement during his dinner speech at the 4th Annual Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) conference. The presidential hopeful announced on-air during a television interview that he promised his daughters he would get them a dog. Since that time animal welfare groups throughout the country have been forwarding petitions requesting that Obama "adopt" a dog for his children. Author Jana Kohl, Psy.D. started a nationwide trip six weeks ago in Los Angeles to promote her new book, "A Rare Breed of Love: The True Story of Baby and the Mission She Inspired to Help Dogs Everywhere." Speaking at the conference she told the tale of her adopted dog Baby, a three-legged Puppy Mill survivor. She is making the road trip on a bus that is basically a four sided mobile billboard advocating against Puppy Mills. In addition to other sports and TV celebrities, the right side of the bus is adorned with a larger than life picture of Obama holding Baby with the Lincoln Memorial as a backdrop. Kohl told people gathered for a book signing during the afternoon that Obama said he would "adopt" a dog, but Pacelle's announcement made it official. She will conclude her cross country tour on Monday, July 21 on the Capitol steps. Many of the nearly 1,000 conference attendees are expected to join her in a rally to raise awareness about the abuses at Puppy Mills. And there's a picture of him him here with a famous rescue dog: http://www.ararebreedoflove.com/ Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 "Pals around with terriers" Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 [quote name='Đ Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I would like to know exactly what I need to sacrifice.Me too. Less trips to the altar. Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 NO MORE STIMILUS OR BAILOUTS!!! Obama's position is pretty clear that he will continue crazy government spending. He wants another stimulis and also a bailout for the auto industry. You think Bush got us in trouble with spending. Get ready for bigger government debt. The question is how much will the rest of the world lend us and where will all the rest of the money come from???? How can we pay them back?? How can we solve the problem of spending with more spending? Where is the plan to start saving and producing???? Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Yeah, I think the (further) auto bailout is a bad idea. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 First of all, the BAILOUT of the banks/finance industry was not a bailout. It was an investment. An investment that could end up making taxpayers money in the future. Yes, taxpayers may lose money too, but it was not government pork that gets flushed down the toilet. It was not a "bailout" in the traditional sense of the word. Second, I would never suggest that we should start injecting capital into any and every business that asks for capital, but the folks that are so opposed to "bailouts" often fail to consider the fallout from their proposals. When it comes to the banks -- everything in this country -- and yes, I mean everything, is funded through debt. If the banks went under it would have taken down the entire economy with it. Were they foolish and did they get themselves into this mess? Absolutely. Letting them go under would have completely obliterated families on Main Street that had nothing to do with it. Third, say what you will about tax and spend liberals, and say what you will about whether Bush is a true conservative or not, but the Republican administration understood what the fallout would be from not injecting capital into the system. I have no way of knowing if they've done enough but even THEY knew they had to do something. I don't have all the answers. I understand that if we keep running up debts and printing dollars that your sandwich at lunch is going to cost $85. But its not so simple to just demand no more bailouts. We are headed for bad times. If the auto industry goes under, and we stand by watching it, the fallout could very well be worse than anyone can imagine. The government allowed Bear and Lehman to go under, remember? Most economists believe those were the first dominos in the crisis. As I said, I don't have the answers, and I dont suggest that we inject liquidity everywhere. But I do know that falling back on ideology is going to make things worse. Much worse. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 The main reason I think the auto bailout is a bad idea is that the companies that would be getting the money have been perpetual failures for a long time. The only reason they had a strong stretch was the SUV boom, which seems like an aberration. It seems like more cash would just mean delaying the inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 "Pals around with terriers" you're the best Not surprised to see those most able to make a sacrifice are planning to pass it on to those least able. Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I think the only way the auto industry should get assistance is only if they use the money to produce low mileage cars that people actually want to buy. I don't think they should just get a free pass. They should also insist that their hourly employees pay for a portion of their health care, even if it's $30 a month. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 They should also insist that their hourly employees pay for a portion of their health care, even if it's $30 a month.I remember an interview a few years back on NPR. A guy was making the case that GM should become the biggest lobbyist for universal healthcare. They spend more $$ per car manufactured on healthcare (current employee and retiree) than they do on steel. It's hard for them to compete against automakers whose employees have so much of that paid by their governments. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I am in the auto industry, and I can state that it would be pretty devastating for our economy to have GM go down the tubes -- they fall under the heading of "too big to fail". The other 2 would be very painful but not fatal. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 "Pals around with terriers" Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 The dude even has a Flickr account: Barack Obama's photostream I was fortunate to be able to grow up seeing America from varied viewpoints. My childhood was spent in Hawaii and Indonesia. After college I worked as a community organizer on the South side of Chicago focusing on improving living conditions in poor neighborhoods. I came to understand that to truly solve the problems facing our communities, it would take a change in our laws and our politics. I ran and served for seven years in the Illinois state Senate, where I fought for expanding children's health care, providing tax cuts for the working poor and enacting welfare reform. In 2004, I was elected to the U.S. Senate, where I have worked to pass laws securing dangerous weapons and making government more accountable. I have also opposed the Iraq war from the start, and believe that we need to bring our troops home so we can refocus on the wider struggle against terrorism. Of all my life experiences, I am most proud of my wife Michelle and my daughters Malia and Sasha. "The Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bendstowards justice." (MLK) I'm Male and Taken. Obama for AmericaChicago, IL, US Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 "Pals around with terriers" Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 My state (MO) has not been called yet. It's looking even better for Obama in MO. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts