If yuo made a six figure salery...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#81
Originally posted by justme
OK, I think I undetstand now. You're advocating pretty much the status quo with the addition of legislation limiting revenue to a fixed percentage of GDP. Too bad such a law likely wouldn't ever be passed.
I don't think you need such a law.

What you need is popular support and the political will to do it, which neither of the two main parties in this country has, in my opinion.

æ
 
#82
It certainly appears that both the Democrats and Republicans are not averse to spending money when they are in control. Example: The TSA (familiarly known as Thousands Standing Around). The Bushies are spending a hellish amount of money on this, and I certainly don' t feel any safer when I fly. Of course, many of you would say that this was necessary after 9/11 (I lost friends and colleagues, too). But I suspect there could have been other ways to increase security. Another example (so I can't be accused of partisanship), most of the Democratic party candidates are advocating "programs" that will add more spending by the folks in Washington. In addition, they want to "roll back" the Bushie tax cuts. Roll back would be a tax increase, not to mention all the increases being imposed by State and local governments. Generally speaking, government programs create expectations, lobbys, advocacy groups, trade associations, and other types of cadre that seek only to preserve the programs. What a system! I wonder what the Founding Fathers would make of all this!

Maybe we should be happy that taxes are what they are in this country - especially compared to the EU or Canada, just to name a few!

Chels
 

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#83
That was pretty much my point. There is no constituency for not spending money. It stands to reason that more bison farmers are going to turn out and support a bill that creates funding to preserve the bison than will taxpayers who don't want their money wasted that way. Government programs always grow, they never die. Shit, we are still supporting goat farmers because we used to use wool in the army's uniforms back around the time of the civil war.

I think two things have to change. 1) There should be a constitutional limit on spending at each level of government -- not some bullshit rule that the legislature can diddle with. 2) We must creat a broader stake in the cost of government. Too many people are immune to the effects of runaway spending.

Maybe then we wouldn't have assholes like this spending $200,000 of government money getting blowjobs.
 

justme

homo economicus
#84
I think the larger problem is that politicians are not held accountable by the general public. As long as we continue to vote in the candidate with the greatest advertising exposure, we will continue to see candidates who align themselves with (costly to the public) special interests groups that are more than willing to invest in a campaign if they can see huge multiples on investment in the form of government spending.

Ahh, who are we kidding? The whole thing is so deeply convulted and entrenched that the only way to fix it is to lose it all together.
 
#85
Originally posted by justme
Ahh, who are we kidding? The whole thing is so deeply convulted and entrenched that the only way to fix it is to lose it all together.
Yikes! I totally disagree with this. As flawed as the American electoral system is, it's the best that's out there. And the alternative to rule by lowest-common-denominator (popularity contest type elections) is usually rule by bureaucrats, which in my opinion is infinitely worse.

æ
 
#87
Just me,

With all due respect, I don't think that revolution is the answer. When the country was founded it was a true revolution against a tyrannical British Government that controlled the economy of the colonies. Hardly what we have now.

Many of the practical fixes that are available today are based on common sense e.g. flat income taxes, requiring people to work for a living, taking care of people who truly cannot work or afford health insurance, privatization, less expectation of government, more open dialogues (both the Bushies on energy and the sainted Hilary on healthcare are guilty on this account), and my personal favorite: restricting government job growth at all levels.

Entrepreneurship and innovation should be encouraged - it was what has jump started the economy throughout our history!

Best advice: Turn off Entertainment Tonight and the Kobie channel, and watch Jim Lehrer and the News Hour. Also try Channel 13 at 6:00 for BBC World News or Channel 21 at 11:00 for a repeat of BBC. Read the Times and the Wall Street Journal -and maybe the Economist for more international news. We are, after all, in an increasingly shrinking world and a global economy.

Just a few thoughts,

Chels
 

justme

homo economicus
#88
Actually, I get all my news from John Stewart.

My calls for revolution are (mostly) tongue in cheek. I'm sure there are plenty of common sense remedies for the problems that we have (although I might disagree with some of your 'solutions'). I sense, however, that the status quo is so deeply entrenched as to make any real change a remote possibility. Worse, unlike times in the past, the electorate feels largely disenfranchised and has no faith in the democratic process. Ultimately, this becomes self-fullfilling: without popular pressure, there is absolutely no chance of passing serious reforms. Unfortunately, I really don't see any way to reverse the tremendous enui.

Looking at the lifecycles of empires historically, I am somewhat convinced that barring the intervention of a effective popular leader, we are in the inevitable internal decay stage that presages an eventual collapse triggered by external conflict or internal revolt.

And, since I'd rather not fight a massive war with a conflicting power, I'll continue to call for revolution.

Viva!
 

Wwanderer

Kids, don't try this at home
#93
Originally posted by Troutman
Hasn't so far...
If you think we have seen anything that might even remotely be described as a "massive economic collapse" in the US since the 1930s, you should do some world travel to gain perspective. Imo, the economy is cooling off relatively gracefully (so far) after the super-heated 90s, which were far more extraordinary/unusual than the last few years by historical standards.

-Ww
 
#95
Originally posted by pjorourke
Or here is a radical idea - total cost of government divided by the number of people -- i.e., per capita. Why should a successful person have to pay for more government than a less successful one -- its not like they consume more, probably less. I bet one outcome of that is that we would have far less government.
I pay over 90k in Fed taxes a year so I know I have something to bitch about everytime I pay my taxes. But I know it isn't fair to those that make 25k a year to pay the same amount in taxes as I do. Some people should make more than others depending on their jobs, those poeple should pay more in taxes. Period!

The day we make things fair for everybody is the day democracy, capitalism, and the American Dream die! Its what is known as socialism!
 
#96
Originally posted by Wwanderer
If you think we have seen anything that might even remotely be described as a "massive economic collapse" in the US since the 1930s, you should do some world travel to gain perspective. Imo, the economy is cooling off relatively gracefully (so far) after the super-heated 90s, which were far more extraordinary/unusual than the last few years by historical standards.

-Ww
Everything is relative. Are you saying that you profited during our under-reported collapse?
 

Wwanderer

Kids, don't try this at home
#97
Originally posted by Troutman
Everything is relative. Are you saying that you profited during our under-reported collapse?
Actually, yes, my net worth has increased, though less rapidly than it had been doing for several years previously.

They are just words, and we can define them as we wish of course, but I think it is exaggeration (or perhaps even hysteria) to say the economy has sufferred a "massive collapse" unless a substantial fraction of the population has lost the majority of its net worth. At least that is what has generally been meant by such terms in the past and in an international context.

I keep hearing people wondering why the current Administration is so popular (nevermind the "revolution" discussed above) when the economy is so bad; usually nothing makes a President's approval rating head south as fast as sour economic conditions. Imo, the answer is that the economy is not really in such terrible shape, except in comparison to its remarkable performance in the 1990s. People who took that for the norm and people who happen to be among those who have been particularly hard hit (e.g., laid off from their jobs) are very upset about the economy, but those with a longer term perspective regard the last few years as far from ideal to be sure, but not as catastrophic, or even surprising, in any sense.

-Ww
 

Wwanderer

Kids, don't try this at home
#98
Originally posted by Wwanderer
Imo, the answer is that the economy is not really in such terrible shape, except in comparison to its remarkable performance in the 1990s.
One actual fact to support my claims: Real estate markets are booming in many areas, perhaps even bubbling to an unwise extent in some. That does not happen in an economy that is "collapsing".

-Ww
 
#99
real estate.......

one thing I wanted to point out about real estate....

in the Silicon Valley area, where during the boom years of the late 90's up to 2000-2001, when the real estate market saw prices rise to the stratosphere (think 25-30% appreciation per month)..........

when the "crash" came and high-tech saw the stock values (and stock options) plummet and thousands of people found themselves without jobs.....house prices at the worst were flat....but at no time did the house prices fall.
 

justme

homo economicus
IMO, Real Estate prices are being bolstered into dangerous overvaluation by the historically low interest rates that the country has right now. When those rates correct to sustainable, long term values, I think we'll see the anticipated correction in the real estate market.

To a large degree, the governement has done a lot to maintain low real estate financing rates. I belive this is because it knows that real estate is the sole element that's really supporting the consumer sector of the economy.

But make no mistake, things are fairly bad right now for the economy, and they've been bad for about three years now.

But I agree that we're certainly not experiencing a tremendous economic collapse yet.

(We'll get closer when Fannie & Freddie are finally exposed as the hollow companies that they are, and the government is actually challeneged to make good on their nudge wink guarantees.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top