Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

ying that corporate America is determined to destroy the middle class. These are the people that buy there stuff. A viable middle class is the heart of America. I don't understand it.

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

Corporate America makes its money primarily in the capital markets (paper/fictitious money, but it works for them at least for now), not by selling goods to consumers.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to destroy the middle class, it's that we don't have the protection in Congress that we used to have. Consequently, the upper classes have the power to bleed us of wealth we used to have.
Also, the middle class was sold on the idea that buying a house was an excellent way to invest for the future. Extremely easy credit was used to lure people into buying overpriced properties with the assurance that prices would continue to go up. What a con job! Most homeowners with these big mortgages are now underwater and will stay that way for years to come. What a horrible feelling that you paid $500,000 for a house that is now worth $250,000 and you owe $400,000. Are people in that situation going out and spending lots of money? Without consumer demand, the companies are not going to hire more workers.
The greedy banks and financial houses in cahoots with the federal government (Greenspan) have thoroughly fucked up our middle class economy, while the rich are sitting pretty.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income. Yes, that would mean I would have to pay more taxes.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income.

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration. The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Had the shenanigans been otherwise, the rating would have stayed the same. S&P expected adult behavior, not necessarily a total solution.