The United States shouldn't lecture other countries about their financial condition, especially after an evaluation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Most of the report tells anyone following the news what they already know: there's an economic recovery in progress, but high unemployment is dragging down consumer spending. Nevertheless, the IMF report also disagrees with the Obama administration's outlook on the economy, and recommends harsh deficit reduction methods to help the U.S. get back to financial health. Politically, most will never fly.
Resource for this article: {link removed due to suspected phishing scam}
IMF report likes the stimulus package, pans deficit reduction efforts
Until now, the United States and China refused to let the IMF go beyond the general economic survey performed annually on all its members. But the U.S. let the IMF to get more specific under the fund's Financial Sector Assessment Program. As outlined by the Associated Press, the IMF said the U.S. economic recovery "has proved stronger than we had earlier expected" and gave credit to the stimulus package, calling it a "powerful and effective policy response" on the part of the government. Going forward, they were less good about the US government deficit.
Cut Social Security, tax gas, as well as end home mortgage interest deduction
The IMF said that in the aftermath of the stimulus package, the Obama administration could have to raise taxes to get the U.S. deficit down to a manageable level. The Washington Post reports that IMF recommendations incorporated cutting Social Security, ending the deduction for interest on home mortgages and taxing gasoline.
Too optimistic about deficit is the US says IMF
The IMF report also said the Obama administration was overestimating U.S. economic growth and needed to trim the U.S. government deficit by hundreds of billions of additional dollars if its announced spending budget targets are to be met. As outlined by Automated trader.com, those spending budget targets contain halving the deficit by 2013 and stabilizing public debt at 70 percent of gross domestic product by 2015. Nevertheless, the IMF projects that current policies will push the debt level up to 95 percent of GDP by 2020 and to at least 135 percent by 2030.
IMF report disagreed with by Obama administration
The IMF is disputed by the Obama administration. In the Associated press article, a U.S. official said that the IMF had used forecasts for economic growth and interest rates which were too negative compared to the consensus of most other private forecasters, with the impact of inflating the U.S. government's deficit problem over the next decade.
IMF deficit reduction recommendations political suicide
The IMF's recommendations for the U.S. are the same as those it made for European countries. The Post article said those recommendations are politically difficult. Allowing homeowners to deduct their mortgage interest payments from their income taxes has become an inalienable right to Americans. The IMF panned the deduction, saying it was part of a homeownership system that was "costly, inefficient and complex," did not increase ownership rates compared with similar countries without the same tax incentives, and mostly benefited "the better-off."
Maybe we could just stop a damn war! About 12 billion per month is a decent amount of money going nowhere.
I think we'll start hearing more about this as an option, particularly now that a 'win' in Afghanistan is next to impossible.
I hate the idea of lower gas prices, for many reasons, but I also see how it affects the economy as a whole.
I think it would a huge mistake to think about any tax increases, or anything detrimental to the economy at this point. The markets are tipping back and forth, one horrible set of news could send us down for a worse recession than last time (a la 'double dip').
It would also be a huge mistake to worry too much about debt until we see some consistent improvements in the economy. Slowing things down is not what we need right now.
Well the big fight on this doesnt start until december when they start working on the 2012 budget, so the economy has got another year and a half to heal up before this stuff starts to kick in.
I think people are going to be pretty surprised when Obamas deficit commission reports after the november election. The guy isnt dumb, he knows how serious this is long term, and after that we'll find out just how full of shit republicans are on this. I think we are going to see cuts to social security and medicare. Were definitely going to see cuts to defense. Half our people are out of Iraq, and by the end of 2012 the same will be true in Afghanistan. Id love to see yanking oil subsidies so people can see what theyre really paying to fill their tank, but seeing as the energy bill is stalled as fuck until the new session starts I dont see how that happens.
The biggest one is the bush tax cuts. They were crazy when they passed them and theyre only crazier now. Id also love to see hiking dividend taxes in an intelligent way to drive down all this crazy bullshit with derivatives and high frequency trading. Dilan Ratigan had a great spot on this the other day, pointing out that nobody's investing in real companies that actually make things because they can make more in this crazy financial casino. I mean these fucks are now holding 2/3 of our entire GDP and businesses still cant get loans? Like at what point does congress recognize that these people are just tapeworms and have fuck-all interest in the larger economy?
Maybe the member countries represented by the IMF could spare a few nickles for the war on terror before the next soldier of Allah blows himself up in one of THEIR cities.
Americas on its own folks. We aren't perfect but we are the last best hope, regardless of the IMF's opinions. Remember this is the same organization that worsened, not solved as they said they would, the Latin American Debt Crisis, The Russian Collapse in the 90s, The Brazilian Collapse, the S. Asia debt and real estate crisis and the Korean crisis also in the 90s. Why should anyone doubt their ability to give bad advise that only further enables their secretive uber control policies on global trade at the expense of autonomous nation states?
The IMF has been negotiating the wholesale export of American industries to other member countries in exchange for cheap goods and political favors for 40 years now. Fuck them, send them back to whatever euro-trash rock they crawled out from under.
OE - the republicans aren't crazy for cutting taxes. That's only the first half of the equation. The crazy is the Democratic congress that digs in to spend more in the face of tax cuts. You need tax cuts AND wholesale elimination of large portions of the Federal and State Governments to balance the budget and make American businesses work again.
Heres what your Dems do behind your back while pissing and moaning about the Bush Tax Cuts:
$1.6 billion dollar tax break for trial lawyers
"The Obama administration may be on the verge of giving wealthy trial lawyers a special interest tax break worth $1.6 billion. Legal Newsline reports that AAJ's top lobbyist, John Bowman, told the group's annual convention in Vancouver, Canada yesterday that the IRS will make the change administratively in order to avoid a vote in Congress. He also warned attendees that Treasury Department officials had warned him to keep the information quiet.
This story is a testament to the plaintiff lawyers' lobby and the influence it holds with the Obama White House and the Democratic Party. When AAJ members held a major fundraiser this week at the AAJ convention in Vancouver, Canada, ten Democratic U.S. Senate candidates took breaks from their campaigns to attend.Unlike many of AAJ's other agenda items (expansion of work discrimination suits and an end to pre-emption in medical device cases, for example), the tax break would apply to nearly every plaintiffs' lawyer in America, and is valued at nearly $1.6 billion. AAJ, which recently suffered a 33 percent drop in membership dues collection between 2005 and 2008, views this line of advocacy as a recruitment tool. Last year, speaking before AAJ's covention, the group's then-chief lobbyist, who is now its CEO, said that Democrats in Congress might push the provision through by attaching it to unrelated legislation."
hey 2step - republicans had control of the house and senate 'til dem dems officially took over jan 1, 2007. they should have followed the reagan model of cutting taxes and spending but they kept the spending spree going.
this is what happens when one party gets too much control. and the unbelievable spending since obama took office is evidence of that. in that respect obama is bush's 3rd term (that's not change, that's more of the same!).
I just think it makes a difference who youre lowering taxes for. Taxes right now are lower than theyve been in modern history, and look at us. Theres been zero growth in wages for 10 years, the market is exactly where it was 10 years ago, 10 percent unemployment, a totally seized credit market, the middle class stagnant. What happened to the trillions we so trustingly handed over to the topmost tax bracket? They didnt invest it in small businesses. They didnt raise wages. They didnt hire new people and grow the economy. They blew it all on bad real-estate deals and bullshit financial mechanisms, because thats what they do. Its not their obligation to hire people or generate value, its their obligation to enrich themselves. That these fucks and their congressional shills can stand up with a strait face and bitch about unemployment benefits (probably the most directly stimulative injection the federal government can make), claim reducing taxes for billionaires helps anyone but goldman sachs and yacht salesmen, and that removing regulation fuels growth while we claw our way out of the deepest recession since the great depression soaked in 2 million barrels of crude oil is probably the biggest collective insult to our intelligence since nixon told us he wasnt a crook.
The republicans can stand up and bitch and moan that the stimulus didnt do anything, but nobody with an economics degree believes thats true. It sucks, its ugly, its not very efficient, it got us 5 feet out of an 8 foot hole, but it was sure as hell better than doing nothing. Whats nuts is that aside from that, the decisions democrats have made in the last year have actually lowered the deficit. Healthcare reform lowers the deficit, theyve cut spending on defense, Finreg reduces public liability, and for all their doublespeak about deficits republicans couldnt find it in their concave moral center to vote for a line of it.
Its a drop in the bucket, a lot more needs to be done once weve pulled ourselves out of this hole. But youre not going to be able to do squat with this nepotistic country club giveaway sucking the life out of us.
2step, are you fucking serious?!? the republicans aren't crazy for cutting taxes. That's only the first half of the equation. The crazy is the Democratic congress that digs in to spend more in the face of tax cuts. Where the hell have you been? Remember Reagan, Bush, Gingrich? These people don't want to cut spending, just taxes. And why? To pursue the disproved trickle-down theory? Taxes are artificially low because we've been pretending we have money we don't have for the past 30 years. Taxes are about as low as they've ever been--they don't need to be cut, they need to be raised. Mostly on the wealthy, but probably on others as well...
trace is much more on:
I think it would a huge mistake to think about any tax increases, or anything detrimental to the economy at this point. The markets are tipping back and forth, one horrible set of news could send us down for a worse recession than last time (a la 'double dip').
It would also be a huge mistake to worry too much about debt until we see some consistent improvements in the economy. Slowing things down is not what we need right now.
I'm not sure whether I agree with the first part, but the rest is pretty on, I think. We need to drastically cut defense spending--it's outdated, wasteful and mostly goes to private corporations for congress members' pet projects. We need to cut wasteful spending in general, as well as things like oil subsidies. We need to raise taxes and invest in things like better, more efficient health care and education (including job and skill training), and invest in our infrastructure--railroads, mass transit, etc.
2step, we have no money and your solution is to cut what little we have coming in!? Raise taxes (we can wait a few years, like we should on cutting the deficit if that is deemed necessary for the recovery), streamline services, cut inefficiencies and wasteful spending, and re-invest in our infrastructure and people. You might be surprised at how well we could un-fuck ourselves if we got off this neo-liberal, hyper-capitalist (with kickbacks to preferred industries) kool-aid we've been drinking since 1980.
the narrowness of peoples rage on these kinds of issues is so counter productive.
Listen, the deficit is an issue. But the size of the deficit doesn't matter AT ALL if the economy goes belly up.
The bottom line is, the preponderance of macro economic experts believe that the government has to continue spending to make up for the shortfall of private capital available in the markets. In the short term, yes, this drives up deficits. However, if we dont do this, we look at negative GDP growth, more job losses, and the further degradation of the american economy.
Americans are comically ill-informed about larger economic issues. So how about, for once, we act rationally... And talk about the fact that we have incredibly difficult decisions to make. Decisions that will likely mean we have to sacrifice a bit. Raise retirement ages, raise taxes, cut military spending etc. etc.
come on people - we're an architecture website - the OP has ONE POST, it's political propaganda, the main link is to the "personal money store" which is a shady company that deals in predatory lending (i.e. "payday loans").
Oh Lawdy! Politics (or rather the politics of economic policy), like music, is specific to people of a certain time and place.
You know, that's because everyone has different expectations and goals. Instead of sabotaging generation after generation through generational-centered [selfish] policies... we could do the lefty-defty liberal thing and try to understand each other.
But no... "I'm right, you're wrong! You're right and wrong. Sarah Palin had a fake baby. You're left and gay!"
-----------
@ "Raise retirement ages"
No, in fact, we should do the exact opposite. Raising retirement ages just stagnates the workforce. While prolonging and guaranteeing the health and well-being of one generation, it serious undermines the next generation's ability to move forward in life.
How are you expecting to raise any sort of significant revenue or meet economic expectations when a large portion of the workforce is perpetually stuck in Starbucksland?
PEople retiring or near their retirement had their day in the sun. Their economic policies, personal choices and investments failed.
Many people tell me generation "tough shit," and "that's just the way the world works."
So, I'm going to echo those words from an older generation to a younger generation and back at that older generation:
"Tough shit, that's just the way the world works."
Enjoy your cat food, suckahs!
-------------
Que economic rhetoric from 3 centuries ago from great minds who believed in 'free market economics' but didn't believe that people should have the right to fee simple ownership of lands. Because, you know, it makes great sense to espouse a free market while touting the benefits of top down urban planning.
It's important to look at debt as a percentage of GDP.
There are big problems coming w/ US debt but they're not here yet. Absolutely agree w/ lletdown, trace, flmike, etc. More spending now, keep taxes steady, and get ready for cuts in government services & tax raises in the future, or inflation (or deflation, in which case we are really screwed).
I'm also in agreement w/ orochicorn ghost, time for the old folks to move on. Unfortunately it won't happen as they hold all the cards.
It's too bad more of the stimulus didn't go towards new infrastructure as our country needs it bad. Large projects are something government money does pretty effectively. You can set the whole tone for new types of growth by adding new bridges, modernizing electrical grids, creating new rail lines, etc. I have a feeling the stimulus would've been more politically popular if the money had gone to more the creation of more tangible, large projects that could set the stage for new growth.
Also, check out this super interesting article on the history of tax rates in the US:
It's always interesting to me that the high top bracket tax rates of the Roosevelt years helped set the stage for the 1950s & early 60s, an age that Republicans like to refer to as the "golden years." Low tax rates produce anything but the "conservative" society so many on the right yearn for.
For the most part, posts like these only bring out ugly devisiveness that has no resolution since neither side is willing to compromise. I will say who cares about the long term defecit when the short term situation is not improving...
I agree with lletdownl...
"The bottom line is, the preponderance of macro economic experts believe that the government has to continue spending to make up for the shortfall of private capital available in the markets. In the short term, yes, this drives up deficits. However, if we dont do this, we look at negative GDP growth, more job losses, and the further degradation of the american economy."
If we cut the defence budget in half and the wars, and the "trickle down" tax cuts, we would make a serious dent in the deficit situation...
Unfortunately the "cut spending" party only wants to cut necessary domestic programs... This is the only way that they can make a last ditch effort to save face and salvage their "trickle down" ideology...
For more crimes by the IMF, Davis' "Planet of Slums" does an excellent job cataloguing the atrocities caused when countries implement their "reforms." Africa has been particularly hard hit.
It's too bad more of the stimulus didn't go towards new infrastructure as our country needs it bad. Large projects are something government money does pretty effectively. You can set the whole tone for new types of growth by adding new bridges, modernizing electrical grids, creating new rail lines, etc. I have a feeling the stimulus would've been more politically popular if the money had gone to more the creation of more tangible, large projects that could set the stage for new growth.
I think it's incredibly sad, from my political perspective that I'd like Democrats to be faring better, but much more from the perspective of improving the country that this did not happen. An opportunity like this doesn't come around very often, and I fear we missed it.
As if the private sector did any better under 8 years of your people :\
An opportunity like this doesn't come around very often, and I fear we missed it.
I understand the position they were in though. We definitely need an infrastructure overhaul, I love to see things like a mars mission, but the logistics dont really make that the best way to defib the economy. An east-coast fast rail line would probably take 10 years just to plan, not exactly shovel-ready. If they can get us back to 5% growth and unemployment down in the next year or two maybe we can think about it, right now though it kind of seems like all we can manage just to keep cops on the street.
The building sentiment droped to the lowest level in a year. I bet it will contiune to drop to a level that 90% of people here begin to scream for help.
yes, 2step, public sector unions largely blow and end up diverting money better spent elsewhere, and I'd like to see a curtailment of this, but the amount of money diverted and the corruption is nowhere near the levels of corporations with their hands all over their supposed regulators. Not to mention pretending that subsidizing things like oil, automobiles, etc is a free market, but subsidizing public projects is somehow not.
US better get serious about deficit reduction – IMF report
The United States shouldn't lecture other countries about their financial condition, especially after an evaluation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Most of the report tells anyone following the news what they already know: there's an economic recovery in progress, but high unemployment is dragging down consumer spending. Nevertheless, the IMF report also disagrees with the Obama administration's outlook on the economy, and recommends harsh deficit reduction methods to help the U.S. get back to financial health. Politically, most will never fly.
Resource for this article: {link removed due to suspected phishing scam}
IMF report likes the stimulus package, pans deficit reduction efforts
Until now, the United States and China refused to let the IMF go beyond the general economic survey performed annually on all its members. But the U.S. let the IMF to get more specific under the fund's Financial Sector Assessment Program. As outlined by the Associated Press, the IMF said the U.S. economic recovery "has proved stronger than we had earlier expected" and gave credit to the stimulus package, calling it a "powerful and effective policy response" on the part of the government. Going forward, they were less good about the US government deficit.
Cut Social Security, tax gas, as well as end home mortgage interest deduction
The IMF said that in the aftermath of the stimulus package, the Obama administration could have to raise taxes to get the U.S. deficit down to a manageable level. The Washington Post reports that IMF recommendations incorporated cutting Social Security, ending the deduction for interest on home mortgages and taxing gasoline.
Too optimistic about deficit is the US says IMF
The IMF report also said the Obama administration was overestimating U.S. economic growth and needed to trim the U.S. government deficit by hundreds of billions of additional dollars if its announced spending budget targets are to be met. As outlined by Automated trader.com, those spending budget targets contain halving the deficit by 2013 and stabilizing public debt at 70 percent of gross domestic product by 2015. Nevertheless, the IMF projects that current policies will push the debt level up to 95 percent of GDP by 2020 and to at least 135 percent by 2030.
IMF report disagreed with by Obama administration
The IMF is disputed by the Obama administration. In the Associated press article, a U.S. official said that the IMF had used forecasts for economic growth and interest rates which were too negative compared to the consensus of most other private forecasters, with the impact of inflating the U.S. government's deficit problem over the next decade.
IMF deficit reduction recommendations political suicide
The IMF's recommendations for the U.S. are the same as those it made for European countries. The Post article said those recommendations are politically difficult. Allowing homeowners to deduct their mortgage interest payments from their income taxes has become an inalienable right to Americans. The IMF panned the deduction, saying it was part of a homeownership system that was "costly, inefficient and complex," did not increase ownership rates compared with similar countries without the same tax incentives, and mostly benefited "the better-off."
Associated Press
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP9zjiClXKpjY6n7AS3qlbrb964gD9GR65C80
Washington Post
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070806116.html
Automated Trader
automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/4045/2nd-us-needs-plan-to-bring-down-debt-without-hurting-growth_imf
Maybe we could just stop a damn war! About 12 billion per month is a decent amount of money going nowhere.
I think we'll start hearing more about this as an option, particularly now that a 'win' in Afghanistan is next to impossible.
I hate the idea of lower gas prices, for many reasons, but I also see how it affects the economy as a whole.
I think it would a huge mistake to think about any tax increases, or anything detrimental to the economy at this point. The markets are tipping back and forth, one horrible set of news could send us down for a worse recession than last time (a la 'double dip').
It would also be a huge mistake to worry too much about debt until we see some consistent improvements in the economy. Slowing things down is not what we need right now.
Well the big fight on this doesnt start until december when they start working on the 2012 budget, so the economy has got another year and a half to heal up before this stuff starts to kick in.
I think people are going to be pretty surprised when Obamas deficit commission reports after the november election. The guy isnt dumb, he knows how serious this is long term, and after that we'll find out just how full of shit republicans are on this. I think we are going to see cuts to social security and medicare. Were definitely going to see cuts to defense. Half our people are out of Iraq, and by the end of 2012 the same will be true in Afghanistan. Id love to see yanking oil subsidies so people can see what theyre really paying to fill their tank, but seeing as the energy bill is stalled as fuck until the new session starts I dont see how that happens.
The biggest one is the bush tax cuts. They were crazy when they passed them and theyre only crazier now. Id also love to see hiking dividend taxes in an intelligent way to drive down all this crazy bullshit with derivatives and high frequency trading. Dilan Ratigan had a great spot on this the other day, pointing out that nobody's investing in real companies that actually make things because they can make more in this crazy financial casino. I mean these fucks are now holding 2/3 of our entire GDP and businesses still cant get loans? Like at what point does congress recognize that these people are just tapeworms and have fuck-all interest in the larger economy?
Maybe the member countries represented by the IMF could spare a few nickles for the war on terror before the next soldier of Allah blows himself up in one of THEIR cities.
Americas on its own folks. We aren't perfect but we are the last best hope, regardless of the IMF's opinions. Remember this is the same organization that worsened, not solved as they said they would, the Latin American Debt Crisis, The Russian Collapse in the 90s, The Brazilian Collapse, the S. Asia debt and real estate crisis and the Korean crisis also in the 90s. Why should anyone doubt their ability to give bad advise that only further enables their secretive uber control policies on global trade at the expense of autonomous nation states?
The IMF has been negotiating the wholesale export of American industries to other member countries in exchange for cheap goods and political favors for 40 years now. Fuck them, send them back to whatever euro-trash rock they crawled out from under.
OE - the republicans aren't crazy for cutting taxes. That's only the first half of the equation. The crazy is the Democratic congress that digs in to spend more in the face of tax cuts. You need tax cuts AND wholesale elimination of large portions of the Federal and State Governments to balance the budget and make American businesses work again.
We need to get serious about preserving the existence of the middle class.
Is it 2012 yet?
Heres what your Dems do behind your back while pissing and moaning about the Bush Tax Cuts:
$1.6 billion dollar tax break for trial lawyers
"The Obama administration may be on the verge of giving wealthy trial lawyers a special interest tax break worth $1.6 billion. Legal Newsline reports that AAJ's top lobbyist, John Bowman, told the group's annual convention in Vancouver, Canada yesterday that the IRS will make the change administratively in order to avoid a vote in Congress. He also warned attendees that Treasury Department officials had warned him to keep the information quiet.
This story is a testament to the plaintiff lawyers' lobby and the influence it holds with the Obama White House and the Democratic Party. When AAJ members held a major fundraiser this week at the AAJ convention in Vancouver, Canada, ten Democratic U.S. Senate candidates took breaks from their campaigns to attend.Unlike many of AAJ's other agenda items (expansion of work discrimination suits and an end to pre-emption in medical device cases, for example), the tax break would apply to nearly every plaintiffs' lawyer in America, and is valued at nearly $1.6 billion. AAJ, which recently suffered a 33 percent drop in membership dues collection between 2005 and 2008, views this line of advocacy as a recruitment tool. Last year, speaking before AAJ's covention, the group's then-chief lobbyist, who is now its CEO, said that Democrats in Congress might push the provision through by attaching it to unrelated legislation."
hey 2step - republicans had control of the house and senate 'til dem dems officially took over jan 1, 2007. they should have followed the reagan model of cutting taxes and spending but they kept the spending spree going.
this is what happens when one party gets too much control. and the unbelievable spending since obama took office is evidence of that. in that respect obama is bush's 3rd term (that's not change, that's more of the same!).
I just think it makes a difference who youre lowering taxes for. Taxes right now are lower than theyve been in modern history, and look at us. Theres been zero growth in wages for 10 years, the market is exactly where it was 10 years ago, 10 percent unemployment, a totally seized credit market, the middle class stagnant. What happened to the trillions we so trustingly handed over to the topmost tax bracket? They didnt invest it in small businesses. They didnt raise wages. They didnt hire new people and grow the economy. They blew it all on bad real-estate deals and bullshit financial mechanisms, because thats what they do. Its not their obligation to hire people or generate value, its their obligation to enrich themselves. That these fucks and their congressional shills can stand up with a strait face and bitch about unemployment benefits (probably the most directly stimulative injection the federal government can make), claim reducing taxes for billionaires helps anyone but goldman sachs and yacht salesmen, and that removing regulation fuels growth while we claw our way out of the deepest recession since the great depression soaked in 2 million barrels of crude oil is probably the biggest collective insult to our intelligence since nixon told us he wasnt a crook.
The republicans can stand up and bitch and moan that the stimulus didnt do anything, but nobody with an economics degree believes thats true. It sucks, its ugly, its not very efficient, it got us 5 feet out of an 8 foot hole, but it was sure as hell better than doing nothing. Whats nuts is that aside from that, the decisions democrats have made in the last year have actually lowered the deficit. Healthcare reform lowers the deficit, theyve cut spending on defense, Finreg reduces public liability, and for all their doublespeak about deficits republicans couldnt find it in their concave moral center to vote for a line of it.
Its a drop in the bucket, a lot more needs to be done once weve pulled ourselves out of this hole. But youre not going to be able to do squat with this nepotistic country club giveaway sucking the life out of us.
2step, are you fucking serious?!? the republicans aren't crazy for cutting taxes. That's only the first half of the equation. The crazy is the Democratic congress that digs in to spend more in the face of tax cuts. Where the hell have you been? Remember Reagan, Bush, Gingrich? These people don't want to cut spending, just taxes. And why? To pursue the disproved trickle-down theory? Taxes are artificially low because we've been pretending we have money we don't have for the past 30 years. Taxes are about as low as they've ever been--they don't need to be cut, they need to be raised. Mostly on the wealthy, but probably on others as well...
trace is much more on:
I think it would a huge mistake to think about any tax increases, or anything detrimental to the economy at this point. The markets are tipping back and forth, one horrible set of news could send us down for a worse recession than last time (a la 'double dip').
It would also be a huge mistake to worry too much about debt until we see some consistent improvements in the economy. Slowing things down is not what we need right now.
I'm not sure whether I agree with the first part, but the rest is pretty on, I think. We need to drastically cut defense spending--it's outdated, wasteful and mostly goes to private corporations for congress members' pet projects. We need to cut wasteful spending in general, as well as things like oil subsidies. We need to raise taxes and invest in things like better, more efficient health care and education (including job and skill training), and invest in our infrastructure--railroads, mass transit, etc.
2step, we have no money and your solution is to cut what little we have coming in!? Raise taxes (we can wait a few years, like we should on cutting the deficit if that is deemed necessary for the recovery), streamline services, cut inefficiencies and wasteful spending, and re-invest in our infrastructure and people. You might be surprised at how well we could un-fuck ourselves if we got off this neo-liberal, hyper-capitalist (with kickbacks to preferred industries) kool-aid we've been drinking since 1980.
hhhhhhhh....
the narrowness of peoples rage on these kinds of issues is so counter productive.
Listen, the deficit is an issue. But the size of the deficit doesn't matter AT ALL if the economy goes belly up.
The bottom line is, the preponderance of macro economic experts believe that the government has to continue spending to make up for the shortfall of private capital available in the markets. In the short term, yes, this drives up deficits. However, if we dont do this, we look at negative GDP growth, more job losses, and the further degradation of the american economy.
Americans are comically ill-informed about larger economic issues. So how about, for once, we act rationally... And talk about the fact that we have incredibly difficult decisions to make. Decisions that will likely mean we have to sacrifice a bit. Raise retirement ages, raise taxes, cut military spending etc. etc.
I don't know about the IMF, but this sounds an awful lot like spam to me.
also agree with lle--in addition to raising taxes, we will have to cut some services, and certainly make them more efficient.
come on people - we're an architecture website - the OP has ONE POST, it's political propaganda, the main link is to the "personal money store" which is a shady company that deals in predatory lending (i.e. "payday loans").
spam spam spam. SPAM.
used to eat that shit when i was a kid....
i had to post something... im well behind on my monthly quota for inflammatory political posts... i could lose my job!
Multi-generational political discourse:
Oh Lawdy! Politics (or rather the politics of economic policy), like music, is specific to people of a certain time and place.
You know, that's because everyone has different expectations and goals. Instead of sabotaging generation after generation through generational-centered [selfish] policies... we could do the lefty-defty liberal thing and try to understand each other.
But no... "I'm right, you're wrong! You're right and wrong. Sarah Palin had a fake baby. You're left and gay!"
-----------
@ "Raise retirement ages"
No, in fact, we should do the exact opposite. Raising retirement ages just stagnates the workforce. While prolonging and guaranteeing the health and well-being of one generation, it serious undermines the next generation's ability to move forward in life.
How are you expecting to raise any sort of significant revenue or meet economic expectations when a large portion of the workforce is perpetually stuck in Starbucksland?
PEople retiring or near their retirement had their day in the sun. Their economic policies, personal choices and investments failed.
Many people tell me generation "tough shit," and "that's just the way the world works."
So, I'm going to echo those words from an older generation to a younger generation and back at that older generation:
"Tough shit, that's just the way the world works."
Enjoy your cat food, suckahs!
-------------
Que economic rhetoric from 3 centuries ago from great minds who believed in 'free market economics' but didn't believe that people should have the right to fee simple ownership of lands. Because, you know, it makes great sense to espouse a free market while touting the benefits of top down urban planning.
A look at the following lists is pretty instructive (public & external debt):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
It's important to look at debt as a percentage of GDP.
There are big problems coming w/ US debt but they're not here yet. Absolutely agree w/ lletdown, trace, flmike, etc. More spending now, keep taxes steady, and get ready for cuts in government services & tax raises in the future, or inflation (or deflation, in which case we are really screwed).
I'm also in agreement w/ orochicorn ghost, time for the old folks to move on. Unfortunately it won't happen as they hold all the cards.
It's too bad more of the stimulus didn't go towards new infrastructure as our country needs it bad. Large projects are something government money does pretty effectively. You can set the whole tone for new types of growth by adding new bridges, modernizing electrical grids, creating new rail lines, etc. I have a feeling the stimulus would've been more politically popular if the money had gone to more the creation of more tangible, large projects that could set the stage for new growth.
Also, check out this super interesting article on the history of tax rates in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
It's always interesting to me that the high top bracket tax rates of the Roosevelt years helped set the stage for the 1950s & early 60s, an age that Republicans like to refer to as the "golden years." Low tax rates produce anything but the "conservative" society so many on the right yearn for.
For the most part, posts like these only bring out ugly devisiveness that has no resolution since neither side is willing to compromise. I will say who cares about the long term defecit when the short term situation is not improving...
I agree with lletdownl...
"The bottom line is, the preponderance of macro economic experts believe that the government has to continue spending to make up for the shortfall of private capital available in the markets. In the short term, yes, this drives up deficits. However, if we dont do this, we look at negative GDP growth, more job losses, and the further degradation of the american economy."
If we cut the defence budget in half and the wars, and the "trickle down" tax cuts, we would make a serious dent in the deficit situation...
Unfortunately the "cut spending" party only wants to cut necessary domestic programs... This is the only way that they can make a last ditch effort to save face and salvage their "trickle down" ideology...
For more crimes by the IMF, Davis' "Planet of Slums" does an excellent job cataloguing the atrocities caused when countries implement their "reforms." Africa has been particularly hard hit.
intotheloop, you are so right on this:
It's too bad more of the stimulus didn't go towards new infrastructure as our country needs it bad. Large projects are something government money does pretty effectively. You can set the whole tone for new types of growth by adding new bridges, modernizing electrical grids, creating new rail lines, etc. I have a feeling the stimulus would've been more politically popular if the money had gone to more the creation of more tangible, large projects that could set the stage for new growth.
I think it's incredibly sad, from my political perspective that I'd like Democrats to be faring better, but much more from the perspective of improving the country that this did not happen. An opportunity like this doesn't come around very often, and I fear we missed it.
Oh but the public secctor unions got theirs. What did you expect from chicago gangsters?
*rolley-eyes*
As if the private sector did any better under 8 years of your people :\
An opportunity like this doesn't come around very often, and I fear we missed it.
I understand the position they were in though. We definitely need an infrastructure overhaul, I love to see things like a mars mission, but the logistics dont really make that the best way to defib the economy. An east-coast fast rail line would probably take 10 years just to plan, not exactly shovel-ready. If they can get us back to 5% growth and unemployment down in the next year or two maybe we can think about it, right now though it kind of seems like all we can manage just to keep cops on the street.
ATTENTION
I am 90% certain that the link in the OP's post contains malware. Can anyone confirm this? Forum moderators, get your act together.
Things is getting worse.
The building sentiment droped to the lowest level in a year. I bet it will contiune to drop to a level that 90% of people here begin to scream for help.
Yeah Jk3hl, good topic but we should probably delete this shit.
yes, 2step, public sector unions largely blow and end up diverting money better spent elsewhere, and I'd like to see a curtailment of this, but the amount of money diverted and the corruption is nowhere near the levels of corporations with their hands all over their supposed regulators. Not to mention pretending that subsidizing things like oil, automobiles, etc is a free market, but subsidizing public projects is somehow not.
yeah, we should delete this thread. good topic though.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.