Thread: Economics "Soak the rich" is pure folly
View Single Post
Old 07-08-2011, 08:57 PM   #17
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $261517
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth View Post
I agree that we should not raise capital gains until unemployment is under.... say, 8% at least? Preferably lower than 7% and we are in a clear recovery. (though generally speaking, a rate of 15% is just too low, barring the worst recession in 100 years)

All I'm arguing is that we are likely on the left side of the Laffer curve for income tax rates. If the top rates go up a few percent, its not going to hurt the country, and we need the money. The debt and deficit is just too high to solve with politically-impossible cuts, and even steep cuts are probably not going to happen if the Dems aren't thrown a bone here. They'd sooner default and campaign in 2012 on class warfare. (just as some in the GOP may possibly prefer to default rather than allow a few rich people take an almost unnoticably small hit on personal income taxes)
Really what we need is the BS spedning to be cut. I am not talking about SS, Medicare or Defense. I am talking about the cumulative effects of the pet projects, etc., that end up costing us billions.

The fact is the cumulative effect of politicians on both sides buying votes has finally caught up with us. The choice to focus on medicare and SS and the like is to generate fear and what not. That fat is what I am talking about. The bloated bureaucracy. The total amount of waste per $ spent. Excessive staffs. Excessive perks. The programs that fly low on or under the radar. The pandering to the SIG's. Excessive and bloated regulatory committees, etc.

While no single 1 of those instances will amount to much, the combined total is a lot.

All we are hearing is about cutting spedning in general and raising taxes but otherwise doing business as usual.

Do we really need a DHS?
Do we really need a Dept. of Energy?
Do we really need a Dept. of Education?

Or can those be rolled up and streamlined into other parts of the government if not cut out right? I'm not trying to pick on the Obama's but a classic example just in a nutshell is when you look at how many assistants the 1st Lady has. She has 43. 43! Nancy Reagan had 3. that can go all the way donw the line to the staffs of congress.

When a business gets in trouble the first thing it does is cut the fat and look for synergies in the effort to streamline operations and maximize productivity per $ spent on overhead. The Obama and Democratic answer to essentially maximize profit does not involve cost cutting. It is to just tax more so they can continue to spend more.
__________________
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."

Stewie Griffin
Posts: 64,953
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote