The way failing leaders get out of economic chaos is by starting a war.
Folks like redshirt and Earl are right.Lets quit investing in
America.Lets just give more tax cuts to the rich, deregulate wall
street even further, create a needless and wasteful new part of Medicare
(lobbied by Big Pharm and voted in favor by Newt Gingrich) and start a few more
wars. That worked so well over the past decade...
To "marxist" so you want us to take the word of a highly leftist
economist? You realise tha Richard D Wolff fully supports the Occupy movement,
and that movement is nothing more than a liberal front that would add more
socialist entitlements to the US government.Before people go looking
up Richard D Wolff's ideas, they should realize that he is a known Marxist, and
that any of his writings will be in support of marxism.If the US was
a fully marxist state, I would trust his opinions, but since we are not, I will
go with the economists that believe in capitalism.
For a very different perspsective on the debt situation go to Richard D Wolff's
website - Wolff's acandemic pedigree is better than Williams' but more important
he looks at issues Williams and his Deseret News handlers cannot see.
Could a war in Syria or Iran, cause more economic chaos? "U.S.
military beginning review of Syria optionsBy Barbara StarrAlthough the U.S. focus remains on exerting diplomatic and economic pressure
on Syria, the Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary
internal review of U.S. military capabilities, CNN has learned."The options are being prepared in the event President Barack Obama were to
call for them. Two senior administration officials who spoke about the review to
CNN emphasized that U.S. policy for now remains the use of non-military options.
We will soon have an opportunity to elect a republican. In the past four years,
they have learned all the answers, and in the next four years will fix all the
Earl,If, as you say, "government will ALWAYS outspend whatever
taxes are collected." Then there is no hope and no need to try to change
anything as the end is coming.Either we can and will learn to do
better or we will not. If the latter is true, then discourse is futile and our
fiscal and political death warrant already signed. Eat, drink, and be merry . .
.As Roland Kayser points out, Ron Paul (who is a Libertarian, not a
Conservative) proposes eliminating at least as many taxes as he does
expenditures. Your worry would remain unabated.I believe we can
live within our means. And it will not be under the meat axe proposed by Mr.
Paul. Unless we are bypassing the Constitution (is it passe?) there will need
to be agreement from at least the Congress (if not the Supreme Court as well)
for such sweeping changes to be put in place.Our Constitution
specifically protects us from the perils of an imperial President - even from a
President with whom we agree. That is the way it should be.
To Earl: Eisenhower delivered three balanced budgets, and the rest were very
close to it. He did that with tax rates being much higher than they are now.
That's why I think he is the best President of my lifetime.
LDS Liberal,I do not receive Social Security. When I am old enough,
I WILL receive it, or I will be reimbursed by the Federal Government, with
interest, for all "contributions" that I and that my various employers
made into that fund. There was no choice. There was no "opt out".
Until FDR packed the Court, EVERY ONE of this programs was being
found unconstitutional. "it (the Court) voided the National
Industrial Recovery Act and the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act. It struck
down the Agricultural Adjustment Act on January 6, 1936, the Guffey Coal Act on
May 18, and the Municipal Bankruptcy Act and a New York state law setting
minimum wages for women on May 25."The Railroad Retirement Act,
which was the model used for Social Security, was declared unconstitutional.Only after Van Devanter resigned from the Court and FDR appointed one of
his followers as a Justice was he able to get the votes necessary to keep Social
Security.The Court wrote: "We find it unnecessary to make a
choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open." It was
never declared to be Constitutional!
our country needs to grow its wealth so that the babyboomers can afford to
Federal spending declines are not actual declines. They're a decrease in the
rate of spending, but total spending ALWAYS goes up. There have been brief
episodes where receipts exceeded spending, but that was soon followed by an
increase in the rate of spending and a dip in total revenues because of tax
cuts. When taxes are cut, expenditures need to be cut, too. Wake me up when that
happens.Our economic problems are not caused by taxing too little,
and "a little more" taxing is not a cure. The federal government's
appetite is insatiable. That's why we're headed for serious trouble.
J Thompson | 12:01 p.m. Feb. 8, 2012 SPRINGVILLE, UT FDR
ignored the Constitution and instituted Social Security in 1935. He violated his
oath of office to defend the Constitution. It took 80 years, but now we can see
the folly of his unconstitutional action.LBJ ignored the
Constitution and instituted Medicare in 1965. He violated his oath of office to
defend the Constitution. It took 45 years, but now we can see the folly of his
unconstitutional action.==================== If that is
so - and what you whole-hertedly believe, As a senior citizen and
recipiant of said Programs, Are YOU willing to take the moral high ground,
obey the Constitution and for-go them?orIs this just more empty
rhetoric?BTW - They were both challenged in Court and upheld as
Constitutional, Politics and Differences asideas a Tax payer myself
- I have no problem helping you out.
The problem would be eliminated IF the Federal Government did only what it was
authorized by the Constitution to do.FDR ignored the Constitution
and instituted Social Security in 1935. He violated his oath of office to
defend the Constitution. It took 80 years, but now we can see the folly of his
unconstitutional action.LBJ ignored the Constitution and instituted
Medicare in 1965. He violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. It
took 45 years, but now we can see the folly of his unconstitutional action.Money is collected and then mixed with the general fund instead of being
held for the purpose that it was collected. If a lawyer did that, he would be
prosecuted. If an insurance agent did that, he would be prosecuted. When a
politician does that, he is re-elected to office.Because the
CITIZENS are too lazy to stop Washington from passing illegal legislation, the
CITIZENS will continue to be lied to. They will continue to be taxed for
illegal programs. Dishonest politicians will continue to be elected and
re-elected.It is up to the CITIZENS to stop the nonsense.
Washington never will.
To "LDS Liberal" once again you are wrong.The
conservatives have proposed many cuts. You forget that the Republicans on the
debt committee proposed many spending cuts. The Democrats stopped the cuts from
being implemented.If increasing taxes is the way to go, explain how
you get people and businesses to spend more when they have less to spend?
The Apocolypse has arrived. The Koch Brother's tea party activists are either
warming up to the GOP presidential front-runner or reluctantly backing him after
abandoning hope of finding a nominee they like better. You know something else
here, Mr. Obama has ordered new sanctions against Iran's central bank for
engaging in deceptive practices. You know, I got a better idea. How about
sanctions against our GOP banks for deceptive practices?. It's like a game of
survivor. Who can lie, outlast and outwit to the end will win. The difference
may be who is willing to pay the most to get into office. It's all about these
cafeteria style Constitutionalist that uses their political theories if and when
it fits them and when it effects them alone, with a no waiting staff table
service, in their private Patriot restaurant or within an institution of the Tea
Party. That's what they think is their "Constitutionalist Platform" is
to spout off about. That crashed America.
Whatever the motive, it's bad, divisive, destructive politics - the defining
feature and long-term legacy of the Koch Brother's, Tea Party and RINO GOP plus
ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics regime.
@ Roland: there's lots of muddiness in that assertion. The question it doesn't
answer is this: does spending EVER equal less than revenues? Can you show me a
time when government spent less than they brought in, or even equaled it,
especially since the time of FDR? That's my whole point. Their spending is
ALWAYS significantly more than revenues, tax increases or not. That's why Dr.
Williams is correct about the coming economic chaos.
Yawns LOUDLY, Walter E. Williams failed to bring up real economic chaos ahead in
this election year. With Republican's like Newt (there's plenty more like him
still in Congress to), that still wants to build a 5 star resort yet on the
moon, and for security guards do more costly research and then development for
"star wars." When the GOP Congress still bows down to K Street and
Wall Street Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games, Koch Brother's
and ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the
Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of
corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism"
game of survivor. Who can lie, outlast and outwit to the end. So what's the
difference?. Does the GOP Congress want the poor and middleclass to use
reflective tape on their horse-drawn buggies rather than bright orange
triangular signs because they can't afford a auto?. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that it's possible to sustain today's level of federal spending
and even achieve a balanced budget, if we tax the rich more. That, right now,
pay no taxes, they just stuff their monies in off shore tax save havens.
Walter E. Williams failed to bring up real economic chaos ahead in this election
year. With Republican's like Newt (there's plenty more like him still in
Congress to), that still wants to build a 5 star resort yet on the moon, and for
security guards do more costly research and then development for "star
wars." When the GOP Congress still bows down to K Street and Wall Street
Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games, Koch Brother's and
ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch
Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and
sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism" game of
survivor. Who can lie, outlast and outwit to the end. So what's the difference?.
Does the GOP Congress want the poor and middleclass to use reflective tape on
their horse-drawn buggies rather than bright orange triangular signs because
they can't afford a auto?. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it's
possible to sustain today's level of federal spending and even achieve a
balanced budget, if we tax the rich more. That, right now, pay no taxes, they
just stuff their monies in off shore tax save havens.My views.
To Earl: Ron Paul has indeed proposed a trillion dollars in cuts. He has also
proposed eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, the estate tax, and
taxes on dividends. If he did that, he'd have to eliminate virtually everything
the government does to balance the budget.William Niskannen, the
head of the ultra-conservative CATO Institute, published a study a few years
back in which he analyzed tax rates and federal spending for the past several
decades. He found that when taxes are cut, spending increases, when taxes go up,
spending declines. Apparently if you make people pay for the cost of government
services, they'll settle for less.
President Obama has made it pretty clear he isn't interested in funding social
security with his "payroll tax cut" (and he's not interested in
cutting spending anywhere else to offset that) so can we please stop calling
Republicans irresponsible tax cutters now?
The only real conservative running for president is, of course, Ron Paul. He's
offered a plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget in one year by
eliminating the Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban
Development Departments, the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate
subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Is that what you'd call a "cut nothing" conservative? I'd
say that's a pretty good start.
What we have here is:The same old Tax and Spend
"Liberals"vs.The Tax reducing, Cut Nothing, Deregulate,
and Spend even MORE $$$ "Conseervatives" of the last
administration.Given those 2 options, I favor the first.
Why is the answer always a tax increase (among the more socialist-prone,
anyway)? Here's the problem: government will ALWAYS outspend whatever taxes are
collected. If revenues increase by 1%, our benevolent politicians will increase
spending by 1.5% or more. When will the tax increases stop? For those of us
against tax increases, we see no end. What's wrong with now? Why always later (a
later that never comes)?
It is always somewhat disingenuous when people lump Social Security and
Medicare/Medicaid together as one problem. Social Security currently consumes 5%
of GDP, by 2035 that will rise to 6%, where it is projected to stay. That is not
a crisis. A tax increase equal to 1/2 of 1% of GDP combined with a benefit cut
of the same magnitude will take care of it.Medicare/Medicaid is
entirely different. The problem is not really about numbers, it is about how we
practice medicine in this country. No amount of tax increases and benefit cuts
will make Medicare solvent. We need to reform our medical system and everyone
will have to give up something.