The politics of s'im-c'ity....

[JBKlyde]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a.../national-debt

yea there inaccurate but the truth is money is scarce..

[JBKlyde]

I think for the first time I have felt real confidence in President Obama and America as he was speaking of some sort of "buffet rule".

[Ibby]

I think that high taxes is a much more responsible fiscal policy than indefinite debt and thus indefinite interest, but I think that debt is not an insurmountable problem for a government making essential investments in the long term economic stability of the country. Only when a country like Greece can't value their own currency AND can't ensure the long-term stability of their ability to continue paying their debts is there an issue - the U.S. faces neither of those issues.

[JBKlyde]

not my field of expertise... I'm just a poet/painter but if I had money I would want my taxes to be used in a responsible manner. What I don't understand is that If America has the ability to keep printing more money, then why don't they just print money to pay the debt.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by JBKlyde

not my field of expertise... I'm just a poet/painter but if I had money I would want my taxes to be used in a responsible manner. What I don't understand is that If America has the ability to keep printing more money, then why don't they just print money to pay the debt.

I understand the world of international currency and its valuation only roughly enough to vaguely discuss it in the political realm, not enough to explain it in full, but the basics of the answer to that question, JBK, is: international valuations of currency - including ours - are based basically on betting, that is to say, based on odds valuation by investors. The dollar is worth money as long as people look at the American government and believe that the government has the financial power and authority to back its money. In America, there are a LOT of factors urging investors to believe that the debts the government owes them will be paid, and a LOT of factors urging them to believe the Dollar still buys things. The government can't technically print bills for itself to pay its debtors with directly - the money has to go through the bureaucracy, and has to be "sourced" from somewhere that gives the paper of the bill the same weight as every other piece of dollar-shaped paper out there. BUT, since the government can devalue its own currency in a crisis, the dollar can't collapse like Greece looks about to collapse, because the US could devalue the dollar, and Greece doesn't have authority over the Euro. Devaluing the dollar is kinda like "printing more money to pay the bills", and causes inflation a lot like "printing more money", but importantly, the bills themselves - printing paper - is irrelevant. Money nowadays MOSTLY isn't paper. It's all about faith.

[jimhelm]

Sim City?

[wolf]

What is this fascination you have with misplaced apostrophes?

[classicman]

Buffett rule = BS.

[Ibby]

Why is the buffett rule bs? by all means expand on that.

[classicman]

The Buffett Rule solves nothing. It significantly addresses no economic problem.
At best it'll cover the interest on the debt for a month. At worst, a couple days.

Ibs, what exactly do you think is so great about it?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

The Buffett Rule solves nothing. It significantly addresses no economic problem.
At best it'll cover the interest on the debt for a month. At worst, a couple days.

Ibs, what exactly do you think is so great about it?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Just because we can't do one big thing that will solve the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do many small things that will make the problem smaller. OF COURSE there isn't one thing, one magic wand wave that will make the deficit disappear. So the only positive choice is to take what steps we can, like a rule like this, and let them all add up.

***

On a related note, I think a far better solution would be to treat income from wages and income from capital gains the same. It still wouldn't solve the whole deficit problem, but it would be a step in the right direction, a GIANT STEP.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

I think a far better solution would be to treat income from wages and income from capital gains the same. It still wouldn't solve the whole deficit (debt) problem, but it would be a step in the right direction, a GIANT STEP.

I completely agree. In fact I believe I even said so in a discussion with you and Lamp, I think.
Of course, I can't find it...

ETA - here is one thing sorta.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by BigV

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Just because we can't do one big thing that will solve the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do many small things that will make the problem smaller. OF COURSE there isn't one thing, one magic wand wave that will make the deficit disappear. So the only positive choice is to take what steps we can, like a rule like this, and let them all add up.

~snip~

I agree with BigV. Steps in the right direction add up.

There is no fix-all. Baby steps? Fine. Better than backwards steps.

[tw]

We had this discussion in early 2000s. Stated back then with numerous examples - a tax cut creates a short term economic boom followed by economic downturns. What happened? We got the usual and predictable recession since the rich got tax breaks.

All we need do is restore the fair and economically healthy taxes once paid in the 1990s. That is only difficult when a political agenda hype government welfare to the richest.

What happened when the rich stopped paying their fair share? We have the recession as predicted by history and predicted when tax cuts were being advocated in The Cellar in the early 2000s.

How to create jobs? Stop heavily taxing those who create jobs. Tax the people who do not create the jobs - the richest. We know that is when an economy is prosperous. We know from a decade of history that welfare to the rich only makes bigger deficits and economics downturns. As demonstrated by history. As predicted. And as it happened. Simply restore what works by ignoring the political agenda. An agenda that pays word games and Limbaugh logic by relabeling no welfare as a tax increase.

[Ibby]

I think people making millions of dollars should be paying more in taxes than working people, not less. That's just, something i believe makes fundamental economic, logical, and moral sense. I think closing loopholes and making the hyper-wealthy pay at least the already-low theoretical taxes for their bracket, and in fact raising the amount the highest bracket pays (possibly adding higher brackets).