Fiscal Cliff Prediction

[kjeopardy]

Two main problems with that. First, stimulus spending actually works. Basic Keynesian economics. Second, if we collapse for some reason, so does the rest of the world. Including China. Especially China, given the amount of interconnection and trade.

As for the overall fiscal cliff situation - taxes on the rich are rising, period. Neither side wants to tax any other group - doing so is bad for the economy. If the Republicans in the House stop their policy of "stonewall absolutely everything", they will actually have a chance to help the country by preventing that.

Where has it worked? You show me where it worked and I will show you list of a hundred companies that folded after being given stimulus money.

+ 2...Well said! "Apparently, those shovel-ready projects (that Obama pissed Billions on) wernt as shovel-ready as we thought." Obama said this! Well no-shiit Sherlock! You (Obama) are an ignorant moron when it comes to common sense spending and business practices! I get that. What I don't get, is that there are soo damn many ignorant/stupid voters out there that want to give you yet another 4 years to [m'kay] things up even more! Obhh...sorry...Did i say that out loud?

+∞

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Again, stimulus money actually does help the economy. As Crater has already pointed out, bipartisan and nonpartisan groups have agreed on this. In fact, most are now saying that the 700,000,000 dollar stimulus wasn't enough. While you guy incessantly repeat flawed arguments, aka: "Hundreds of companies went bankrupt after being given stimulus dollars - Jammy."

This is not only a logical fallacy, in theory, but also outright false in reality. Companies doomed to fail will go under (not because of stimulus dollars), though remember the auto bailouts, the creation of thousands of private sector jobs, and the providing of stability to many more.

Now, on a completely different note:

My Conservative tax reduction plan:
Cut capital gains tax from 15% to 12% over the next 3 years.
Cut the top income brackets taxes from 35-33% over the next two years.
Institute a flat tax rate of 15% for household-income earners grossing 50K to 200K a year.

My Conservative Deficit reduction plan:
Eliminate corporate loopholes that allow companies like GE to pay $0 in taxes on a 13,000,000,000 dollar gross.
Cut 230,000,000,000 of defense money over the next 7 years. Remove troops from Germany, Japan, and other like places.
Cut 80,000,000,000 out of Medicaid over the next 5 years - offset reduced physician pay by instituting Tort Reform.
Cut 300,000,000,000 dollars from Social Security over the next 8 years - institute a temporary Opt-out program
Cut 62,000,000,000 from the Federal Pension programs.
Offer tax incentives to businesses who sell cheap, affordable, and healthy food.
Invest 100,000,000,000 dollars in infrastructure over the next 5 years.
Raise the federal minimum wage to $8.00 an hour.
Renegotiate interest on repaying our debts.
Cut 60,000,000,000 out of Federal Income Security plans.
Cut foreign aid to any country that has violated the UN Human Rights Statue (including Israel)

[mrjamwin]

Again, stimulus money actually does help the economy. As Crater has already pointed out, bipartisan and nonpartisan groups have agreed on this. In fact, most are now saying that the 700,000,000 dollar stimulus wasn't enough. While you guy incessantly repeat flawed arguments, aka: "Hundreds of companies went bankrupt after being given stimulus dollars - Jammy."

This is not only a logical fallacy, in theory, but also outright false in reality. Companies doomed to fail will go under (not because of stimulus dollars), though remember the auto bailouts, the creation of thousands of private sector jobs, and the providing of stability to many more.

Now, on a completely different note:

My Conservative tax reduction plan:
Cut capital gains tax from 15% to 12% over the next 3 years.
Cut the top income brackets taxes from 35-33% over the next two years.
Institute a flat tax rate of 15% for household-income earners grossing 50K to 200K a year.

My Conservative Deficit reduction plan:
Eliminate corporate loopholes that allow companies like GE to pay $0 in taxes on a 13,000,000,000 dollar gross.
Cut 230,000,000,000 of defense money over the next 7 years. Remove troops from Germany, Japan, and other like places.
Cut 80,000,000,000 out of Medicaid over the next 5 years - offset reduced physician pay by instituting Tort Reform.
Cut 300,000,000,000 dollars from Social Security over the next 8 years - institute a temporary Opt-out program
Cut 62,000,000,000 from the Federal Pension programs.
Offer tax incentives to businesses who sell cheap, affordable, and healthy food.
Invest 100,000,000,000 dollars in infrastructure over the next 5 years.
Raise the federal minimum wage to $8.00 an hour.
Renegotiate interest on repaying our debts.
Cut 60,000,000,000 out of Federal Income Security plans.
Cut foreign aid to any country that has violated the UN Human Rights Statue (including Israel)

Prove it!

[Darth Crater]

Prove it!

You seem to be using a much more narrow version of "stimulus" than I was. Stimulus isn't propping up individual doomed companies. It's about fixing the economy overall and countering the effects of a recession. And economists and nonpartisan groups say it worked.

Pepsi, are you interested in my thoughts on that budget proposal?

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Pepsi, are you interested in my thoughts on that budget proposal?

Always love constructive criticism, my friend :) The proposal I just stated infuses some of my beliefs with speculation. Although I do believe in moderate tax breaks for the middle and high income, I recognize the importance of SS, etc. so I would hesitate before cutting so much.

[Darth Crater]

Well, first, I wouldn't be as focused on reducing the deficit. As I've said before, the government isn't like a business or family - it doesn't need to be debt-free with a balanced budget. We don't want things to get too far out of hand, but it's not as important as the actual economy. Interestingly, the inflation rate has been since 2010 (and I think is still) higher than the interest on the national debt, so we're effectively gaining money from it.

I don't see any need to cut taxes for the rich. They're already at historic lows, and rich people don't get much marginal utility from the extra money. It's more effective for everyone if it gets taxed and thrown back into the economy by the government.

A flat tax rate is going to impact people earning $50k disproportionately from those earning $200k - a graduated curve always makes more sense. 15% is low enough, though, that it's still a net cut for everyone. I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure this rate is too low.

I agree that we should look at loopholes. I agree that we should cut defense, though I'd let people with more experience decide exactly from where. Agree that we should spend on infrastructure (though no clue as to the actual amount). Agree that minimum wage should be raised (and shouldn't have exemptions for tips - personal annoyance).

I don't agree with cutting Medicaid or Social Security - those are programs for maintaining a basic standard of living, and are worth spending for. I also don't agree with completely cutting off foreign aid - if anything is done it should be to reform the system so more aid goes to the actual people in need and less to governments.

I don't know much about federal pensions, or income security plans. I don't know what you mean by "renegotiate interest". I don't have an opinion on tax breaks for certain foods currently.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Well, first, I wouldn't be as focused on reducing the deficit. As I've said before, the government isn't like a business or family - it doesn't need to be debt-free with a balanced budget. We don't want things to get too far out of hand, but it's not as important as the actual economy. Interestingly, the inflation rate has been since 2010 (and I think is still) higher than the interest on the national debt, so we're effectively gaining money from it.
Definitely. Debt means close to nothing when speaking about the United States. When fiscal uncertainties arise, people flock to the dollar and US markets for security - as long as teh US maintains that image, lends will be continuous. That said, low debt is important for domestic consumer confidence.

I don't see any need to cut taxes for the rich. They're already at historic lows, and rich people don't get much marginal utility from the extra money. It's more effective for everyone if it gets taxed and thrown back into the economy by the government. Agreed, though compromise is a necessity, and with highest income earners grouped together (250K-4.5 billion a year), the 35% rate doesn't begin to encompass everything. Doctor's salaries are at all time lows. I'd suggest the 2% decrease for income earners from 250-750K, the super-rich's rates can go up to 37 or 39%.

A flat tax rate is going to impact people earning $50k disproportionately from those earning $200k - a graduated curve always makes more sense. Not always. Capital gains is flat for a reason - the stock market is risky. But I see your point :) 15% is low enough, though, that it's still a net cut for everyone. I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure this rate is too low. 15% for income earners ranging from 50K to 150K, 19% from 150-200K, 25% for 200-250K.

I agree that we should look at loopholes. I agree that we should cut defense, though I'd let people with more experience decide exactly from where. Warheads, missiles that will never be used and that cost billions of dollars every decade to update. Agree that we should spend on infrastructure (though no clue as to the actual amount). Agreed. Input is needed. Agree that minimum wage should be raised (and shouldn't have exemptions for tips - personal annoyance). Definitely.

I don't agree with cutting Medicaid or Social Security - those are programs for maintaining a basic standard of living, and are worth spending for. Yes and no. A lot of the spending goes to wasteful technicalities. Medicare is a mess, Medicaid is following, and Social Security, although brilliant in concept has been abused by the government. I also don't agree with completely cutting off foreign aid not completely - if anything is done it should be to reform the system so more aid goes to the actual people in need and less to governments. YES!

I don't know much about federal pensions, or income security plans. I don't know what you mean by "renegotiate interest". interest rates previously agreed to. In the future, the government should be wary of being exploited the way it has been. Our net interest on debt surmounts to a whopping 248 billion dollars. We spend close to 3 trillion, and public debt sits at 16 trillion. I don't have an opinion on tax breaks for certain foods currently.

[THEWULFMAN]

I am a big supporter of the armed forces of our nation. Keep that in mind when I say this.

Our military spending has gotten waaaaayyyy out of hand and we need major reforms and policies. We're acting like the Cold War is still going on, and WW3 might break out at any time. We're spending insane amounts on things we don't need.
Namely:
F-22 Raptor: Fifth generation stealth fighter. Researched and designed during the Cold War to gain supremacy over the USSR. Designed to replace the F-15 and F-16.
Each Raptor costs $150,000,000. This does not count the billions in R&D. Prone to failues, namely in the oxygen systems. We've lost 4 (5 if you count a test aircraft). All due to hard/software and/or "pilot error" (likely caused by lack of oxygen). 195 built. Total cost (not including R&D) $29,250,000,000. $79,200,000,000 including R&D.

F-35 Lightning II: Fifth generation stealth multi-role fighter/attack jet. Researched in the post-Cold War 90's. Designed to replace F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Each Lightning II costs between $150,000,000 to $238,000,000. This does not count the billions in R&D. 63 built. Total cost (not including R&D) $9,450,000,000 - $14,994,000,000. $326,500,000,000 including R&D.

Zumwalt class destroyer: Stealth ship. Developed in the 2000's, to replace the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Unit cost $3,450,000,000 ($7,000,000,000 including R&D).

Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier: Stealth features. $9,780,000,000 per unit, $34,000,000,000 including the R&D.

My problems with the above are that they are designed to fight in a global scale war to win total supremacy. Except that our current globe isn't in a position to have such a war, and that's not changing anytime soon. Which is why I like K.I.S.S.
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

Upgrade what you have, or design similar things. Rather than worry about amazing stealth, which we will never *need* because other nations can't afford stealth.

F-15 Eagle has never been shot down in combat, served in several nations air forces. Very notably the Israelis. A modernized F-15 Eagle would cost about 1/3 of a Raptor. I can't give you an accurate number because we haven't built them in years.

The F/A-18 Super Hornet has never been shot down in combat, served in several nations air forces. 2012 cost of a Super Hornet is $66,900,000,000.

The Arleigh Burke class destroyer has never been sunk in combat. 2011 cost of an Arleigh Burke was $1,843,000,000.

The Nimitz class aircraft carrier has never been sunk in combat. Each unit cost was about $4,500,000,000. Making a new subclass with minimal R&D would have been fine, especially getting the new electromagnetic catapults over the old steam catapults.

Essentially we're spending 3x the money on things that we don't need, while cheaper alternatives would get the job done just as well. Not to mention all the nuclear missiles us and Russia still maintain.

We especially don't need these stealth naval vessels. No navy in the world poses a threat to us in the slightest.

You tell me what nations pose a threat to us. China? No, their military is kinda crappy, just really big. Russia? Lol, no, they can't afford to fly their own jets. North Korea? HA, can't afford to feed their own people. Don't let the new idiotic version of Red Dawn fool you.

This is not the 80's.

This is not the Cold War.

We need to realize this and spend money properly.

[[m'kay]]

wulfman



terrorists

[CommanderOtto]

if you reduce the defense budget too much, other countries like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China and all of those that belong to that group .... will start partying and doing whatever they want with the world. You reduce spending too much and north Korea will continue to look for trouble too. If the U.S stays as it is, at least there will be a reason for maniacs in power to think twice about doing something stupid.