The politics of s'im-c'ity....
 

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

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

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".

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.

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.

Sim City?

http://www.swarthmore.edu/Humanities...s/SimCity1.jpg

What is this fascination you have with misplaced apostrophes?

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.

Buffett rule = BS.

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

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?

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).

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/3...-strip-KOS.png
click to enlarge

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.

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.

Regarding the Buffett BS - more and more people are stating that it is little more than divisionary politics with an aim at a soon to be candidate.
It simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.

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

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

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.

more and more people are stating that there are problems with the "theory" of evolution too. But that doesn't make it so either.

Actually less and less are.
The Buffett deal simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.

define "much". Don't Ask Don't Tell wasn't "much" help to gay servicemembers but it let them attempt to serve. steps in the right direction beat the status quo. why does it have to do MUCH to be a good idea?

From WaPo:

That is where the lying begins. Those who pay lower or near zero taxes also do not create the jobs. In fact, their increased income often goes to things that only increase national trade deficits and enrich the least productive (luxury good providers).

As history proves, tax breaks to those who do not create the jobs only contributes to economic downturns. We have a decade of reality to prove it. Meanwhile "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is the political agenda behind those lies.

I can't help but to think that if only America would do things the way God had intended for it to be done that the world would be a better place.

So, do you think the government should make it illegal to have a lying tongue or haughty eyes? Should rabble-rousing or stirring up conflict land you in prison?

define rich. define fair. . . . .
Actually, don't. It'll only make things worse.

From Reuters

From Wash Times

or a more accurate and complicated assessment.

Its nothing more than political pandering. There are much better ways , as suggested above, to achieve the same end.

curious... you struck my use of "deficit" replacing it with debt. Then you used deficit yourself in a subsequent post. we have both, which do you think is more trouble?

shuddup you with your facts ;)

this is done.

Should we, looking at projections, not assume the bush tax cuts will expire? Maybe I'm just too hopeful, rather than realistic, but I think they will. Whether or not the republicans win the presidency (which i still doubt), i think the bush tax cuts were dead when he suggested "hey lets not call them that" at his big shindig trying to support extending the cuts.

Damn you - I took your word for it ... just looked. I didn't use "deficit." tw did and it was in a quote of mine, but not me.
Hmm. Dunno. hadn't really thought about which was worse.

no I just don't think that the government should take advice from people like this...


http://www.av1611.org/666/rock_666.html

Great! Cause the government doesn't. I promise you Britney Spears and Rob Halford and Marilyn Manson aren't giving the government advice. Maaaybe they vote. Should they not be allowed to vote, because they used a commonly referenced, usually tongue-in-cheek, three-digit number in a song or on their clothes or whatever?

plus... your source?
I'd... REALLY REALLY rather my government be run by britney spears or big gay rob or marilyn manson than by THOSE people, dude.

JBK, I agree with the sentiment of Ibram's post. I would like to point out though, that our government is run by us, all of us. Some more than others to be sure. Run by us by our votes, but also by our communication with others. We are influenced by those around us, like Big Gay Rob and Dial-The Truth and countless others, so that matters too.

I per-fer to call it 'truth for hire'

Whatever you call it, i find it disturbing and distasteful. to each their own i guess.

well the distasteful part I can fix.. the disturbing part is due to a flux in the force that I have created by resisting socialism.. the spirit is willing but the robot is stuck.. I have to imagine that the 'spirit of mars' is somewhat as you say 'disturbing' all I can do is live my life the way I see God wants me too. The Bible says work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. I believe I have worked out my salvation. I may have took the long way but I'm there. So now that I am in a situation that is stable all I can say is that I am here to help people not hurt them.

Hang on...whathas resisting socialism got to do with anything?

Jesus would have been a socialist. A lot of christians are socialists, particularly amongst the methodist kind. Lot of socialist catholics too, particularly amongst the clergy in some countries. Hardly surprising given they're often working the front lines of poverty.

It's just the bookend to this, but with more fairness behind it.

Sure, JB, but I'm a daoist/buddhist-leaning atheist, who thinks that organized, top-down, authoritarian religion is one of the most negative, destructive forces on earth, and my distaste for the organization you linked to has nothing to do with... socialism, or whatever. My problem is with the anti-humanistic, fundamentalist, bigoted, absolutist worldview the website in question espouses. I think worldviews like that cause a LOT of the problems in our country. I think the idea that your or anyone else's views on religion should be the basis for our system of government or social contract is worse than hooey - it's outright dangerous, and people like you, who want our government run on their theocratic ideals, are the BIGGEST threat to freedom in America.

I don't want an American Taliban. You seem to be asking for it, JBK.

your wrong, the country of USA was built on God.. lest God build the house your labor is in vain...

God didn't build my house. He did work on the furnace and he mowed my lawn once, though.

It wasn't built on God, JBK. It was built on the idea that the government can't abuse the rights of its citizens. You don't have to agree, but I think you need to study the history of the founders and their beliefs if you're going to make that argument.

If you don't believe me, the first amendment still says there shall be no establishment of religion. The government can NOT impose religious values for religion's sake upon the population. I'm a bisexual transgender anarchosocialist atheist. I would be literally dead if the government was built on Levitical law. I would be only slightly safer if it was built on New Testament law. Why should my lifestyle be illegal, JBK?

I'm not a smart man Ibram but I know who GOD is... the only thing evil people need to be victorious is for good people to do nothing.. If that's your lifestyle maybe we need an amendment that says freaks should be confined to titty bars..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

that means that Government can't Control religion not that religion can't control government.

We're done, JBK. I tried to be respectful, I really did, I tried to give you chance after chance.

You don't say that.

You don't.

get the fuck out of here, you sick fuck. stay the fuck away from any thread i'm liable to pick a fight with you in, or get the fuck out of here entirely, or you better goddamn well learn to keep your bigotry in check around here. learn some fucking respect. you dont have to like my lifestyle not to call me a freak.

I'm a bigger freak than you'll ever know but you don't see me trying to impose homo law on anyone.

Perhaps a drop more, if any.

If they are serious, they'll adjust the Cap gains rates and remove about 10,000 pages of loopholes.
Some will pay a little, others will pay a little more and still others will pay a lot more.
They just aren't serious. Like it or not, both teams are full of shit.

"impose"? what am i trying to "impose" on your ass? You want it in the ass, you dont want it in the ass, it's all the same to me. There's no such thing as "homo law". what does that even mean? Nobody in the gay community is trying to legislate ANYTHING that would affect straight people, even bigots like you.

in (slightly) less infuriating issues:

Attachment 38294
The white house has just released a buffet rule calculator. See how many millionaires paid a lower tax rate than YOU!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

ok.. I'll try not to do that

do you understand at all how you're being wildly offensive or are you just completely oblivious?

Here is a great article. Ibs, I'd like your takeaway on it.

Now you are scaring the crap outa me. Truly, those words say "American Taliban" to most people who read them. You often talk about your fear and confusion about your relationship with God but you want to force others to live by a particular creed. That doesn't cut it.

What anyone believes about a god is only a relationship between that human brain and a concept called god. That relationship must never appear in economics (a relationship between people), how a man builds his house, how government works and makes laws, or even in a priest's 'love' of children.

Society must impose nothing on one man's relationship with his god. That religious relationship must not be imposed on any other part of society - despite a Catholic Church that demands Papal Doctrine be imposed on all Americans.

Relevant discussion is about how government welfare for the rich (ie George Jr's tax cuts) have so harmed this American economy. And why continuing those tax cuts (that encourages economic downturn) is somehow good or should continue.

Well, I'd say, broadly, that I don't accept the argument that you should include his corporation's tax rate in his tax calculation, so that's irrelevant to me. When the article says I think that one-third is too low of a ceiling. I think the argument that they're the "working rich" doesn't mitigate the fact that they're the rich, when it comes to taxation. And I think that the capital gains loophole, for example, should be closed.
I'd be all for simplifying the tax code, and I think loopholes and deductions that unfairly benefit the wealthy should be closed, but I think that the wealthy should pay a significantly higher tax burden than the rest of the population, because I firmly believe that without government investment and support, not a single one of them would be in the position they're in. We don't and never will live in a Randian capitalist society, where the wealthy make it on their own merit alone, and those who make it should give back at a higher rate than those that don't make it, to help promote the government infrastructure, institutions, and bureaucracy that is an integral part of what contributes to financial success in the market and help establish the next generation of "self"-made wealthy.
This is not to detract from the immense wealth, prestige, and success that the wealthy often deserve. I'm certainly not in a position to make that kind of money, and those that aren't born into wealth, who DO pull themselves up by their bootstraps, definitely deserve what they make. I'm not saying they'd be nothing without the government. I'm not saying it's the government that they owe their success to. But the roads, the regulations, the investments, the education, the infrastructure... the government helps. And so those that manage to get wealthy, should have to not only give back, but give back more.

more or less.

I see it more like Helen Keller except I'm an artist... I am a RAW and untapped source of emotion and will power.. I need to be molded into something that people can understand.. and until I find a better way I am going to keep my motor running and keep the waves comming.. then of coarse you could look at it from the other side of the spectrum which says I'm right and your wrong but that's a little rash seeings how I know that what it comes down to is a lack of education and I want to be taught only no-one cares to teach so I have developed a superior method of forceing my way into the mainstream. Either way for me it's about survival and I'm a freelancer, completely independent of everything except the federal government. Do you care to explain to me what the 'hell' a Taliban is I'll look it up hold on.

Being a freelancer doesn't give you a free pass JB.