Carville: What if the rich lost 40% of their wealth?

[Superfan]

Originally Posted by V Chip

The sky is falling!!

We are not broke. No matter how much you or the doomsday conservatives (or more accurately, the doomsday anti-Obamans) say it, this isn't true. Broke isn't "running a deficit." Broke isn't "balancing a budget" (if this were the case the US has been broke since the 1930 as almost every year since then has produced a deficit).

As UTJ said:

We.
Are.
Not.
Broke.



We can pay our bills. We can borrow if needed (and we are!) at historically low rates, and we meet every one of our debt obligations. And we could easily turn the deficit around yet a large group of people stubbornly refuse to increase the revenues, even if just to the levels they were in the 90s.

Debt clock says otherwise. It goes up not down.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by Superfan

What about current unemployment for young Americans? The amount of people who will now go to college and become unemployed.

What's that have to do with the issues we were discussing?

Originally Posted by Superfan

We also have to not ignore that illegal immigration is against the law.

This is a short-sighted argument that's commonly made.

Yes, of course illegal immigrants have broken a law. The question is, what do you do with them now that they are in our country. You could burn the Constitution, instituting some sort of military sweep to check immigration status of anyone who "looks" like they could be illegal.

Or you can accept the fact that there are already many illegals already in this country. The overwhelming vast majority of them lead productive lives that contribute to our society. They are actually a revenue stream that we are missing. I'm probably going to regret using these words but the crime that illegal immigrants broke is victimless. We need to figure out a way to integrate these people into our country. Maybe that means amnesty or maybe that means alternative programs, but it most definitely means reform.

I want to make it clear -- border security is only distantly related to the wider issue of illegal immigrants currently in America. Let's secure the border, of course. But we need to deal with the sizable population of illegal immigrants in our country in a sane, productive way.

Originally Posted by Superfan

So if they are 18 they arent accountable for their actions that they are now illegal? I can understand being 8 years old and no choice but how can we feel pity after 18?

Do you actually read the posts you are responding to? Or even the policies and news that we are talking about? You seem to only have a vague understanding of the new policy.

To "qualify" for it you would have to had come to America when you were 16 or younger, not 18.

And yea, I don't think we should hold a 21 year old college kid accountable because he "broke" the law when he was brought illegally into the US when he was 6 by his parents.

Originally Posted by Superfan

Government spending = economic policy is out of hand. Taking from the private sector then forcing it into horrible programs in the public sector is waste. The government is not a business and I wish people would stop thinking all government entities is a great thing.

And I wish people would stop thinking that all government is a bad thing.

Government can do great things.
Government can also do bad things.

Sometimes Government spending is far preferably and much more effective than the private sector.
Sometimes the private sector does a more efficient job than the public.

The problem and the solution are not as simple as you are trying to make them out to be.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by Superfan

Debt clock says otherwise. It goes up not down.

My debt went up for many years as I bought more things -- electronics at first, then furniture, then car, then a newer car, then a house, then a second car, then got married (HOLY COW that increases your debt!), then an investment property...

I sure as heck haven't been broke or even close to it. My net worth far exceeds my debt. The US's net worth FAR FAR FAR exceeds our debt.

Your understanding of what "broke" is is broke.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by Superfan

Government spending = economic policy is out of hand. Taking from the private sector then forcing it into horrible programs in the public sector is waste. The government is not a business and I wish people would stop thinking all government entities is a great thing.

how about the horrible private sector entities that are in business and making profit to do nothing but lie, cheat and steal? how about the good government programs that save lives, help people and do work that no private company could profit from?

what about those?

[Superfan]

Originally Posted by drob8785

What's that have to do with the issues we were discussing?



This is a short-sighted argument that's commonly made.

Yes, of course illegal immigrants have broken a law. The question is, what do you do with them now that they are in our country. You could burn the Constitution, instituting some sort of military sweep to check immigration status of anyone who "looks" like they could be illegal.

Or you can accept the fact that there are already many illegals already in this country. The overwhelming vast majority of them lead productive lives that contribute to our society. They are actually a revenue stream that we are missing. I'm probably going to regret using these words but the crime that illegal immigrants broke is victimless. We need to figure out a way to integrate these people into our country. Maybe that means amnesty or maybe that means alternative programs, but it most definitely means reform.

I want to make it clear -- border security is only distantly related to the wider issue of illegal immigrants currently in America. Let's secure the border, of course. But we need to deal with the sizable population of illegal immigrants in our country in a sane, productive way.



Do you actually read the posts you are responding to? Or even the policies and news that we are talking about? You seem to only have a vague understanding of the new policy.

To "qualify" for it you would have to had come to America when you were 16 or younger, not 18.

And yea, I don't think we should hold a 21 year old college kid accountable because he "broke" the law when he was brought illegally into the US when he was 6 by his parents.



And I wish people would stop thinking that all government is a bad thing.

Government can do great things.
Government can also do bad things.

Sometimes Government spending is far preferably and much more effective than the private sector.
Sometimes the private sector does a more efficient job than the public.

The problem and the solution are not as simple as you are trying to make them out to be.

my point about 18 years old is the child who came at 8 years old now is 18. They are responsible for their own actions. The way it was before Obama's speech.

[Superfan]

Originally Posted by dtc

how about the horrible private sector entities that are in business and making profit to do nothing but lie, cheat and steal? how about the good government programs that save lives, help people and do work that no private company could profit from?

what about those?

If Government wouldn't bail them out or force them to do things. It could be even better.

You must mean like St. Jude children's hospital non profit but government run.

[Superfan]

Originally Posted by V Chip

My debt went up for many years as I bought more things -- electronics at first, then furniture, then car, then a newer car, then a house, then a second car, then got married (HOLY COW that increases your debt!), then an investment property...

I sure as heck haven't been broke or even close to it. My net worth far exceeds my debt. The US's net worth FAR FAR FAR exceeds our debt.

Your understanding of what "broke" is is broke.

That's why the government is paying it off like you did. Only issue is if you fail you go down. USA fails we all do.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by Expatriate

Funny, more people on here agree with my easily duped ideas than your 'self researched' ideas.

No, my idea is to eliminate the tax rules that allow 1% of the population to hold 70% of the wealth thus increasing the income equality of the nation. If there were more decent jobs and wages being paid, less folks would rely on government programs. Sure, there is probably a subset of the population that would settle for govt handout, but it is really small compared to the number that would work if they could get a job that paid enough to raise them above poverty level.

No, it would not. Otherwise this country would have been like that in a generation and never have grown a middle class.

Whiners are always easier to find, so don't pull your arm out of place patting yourself on the back.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by V Chip

The sky is falling!!

We are not broke. No matter how much you or the doomsday conservatives (or more accurately, the doomsday anti-Obamans) say it, this isn't true. Broke isn't "running a deficit." Broke isn't "balancing a budget" (if this were the case the US has been broke since the 1930 as almost every year since then has produced a deficit).

As UTJ said:

We.
Are.
Not.
Broke.



We can pay our bills. We can borrow if needed (and we are!) at historically low rates, and we meet every one of our debt obligations. And we could easily turn the deficit around yet a large group of people stubbornly refuse to increase the revenues, even if just to the levels they were in the 90s.

Well if you figure in our unfunded SS and Medicare obligations

We.
Are.
Broke.

I history teaches many of us that more "revenue" to the government doesn't translate to less debt, simply more money for our politicians to burn. And every time tax increases are granted for spending cuts only 1/2 of the equation happens, the tax increases. Spending cuts never seem to take place.

Even in good times, like the Clinton years, while we paid down the public debt, it was done with money borrowed from government trusts and total government debt went up every year.

And for all the talk of the "Buffett rule", that would raise enough in 500 years to cover only this years deficit, so you can't tax your way there.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by drob8785

What's that have to do with the issues we were discussing?



This is a short-sighted argument that's commonly made.

Yes, of course illegal immigrants have broken a law. The question is, what do you do with them now that they are in our country. You could burn the Constitution, instituting some sort of military sweep to check immigration status of anyone who "looks" like they could be illegal.

Or you can accept the fact that there are already many illegals already in this country. The overwhelming vast majority of them lead productive lives that contribute to our society. They are actually a revenue stream that we are missing. I'm probably going to regret using these words but the crime that illegal immigrants broke is victimless. We need to figure out a way to integrate these people into our country. Maybe that means amnesty or maybe that means alternative programs, but it most definitely means reform.

I want to make it clear -- border security is only distantly related to the wider issue of illegal immigrants currently in America. Let's secure the border, of course. But we need to deal with the sizable population of illegal immigrants in our country in a sane, productive way.



Do you actually read the posts you are responding to? Or even the policies and news that we are talking about? You seem to only have a vague understanding of the new policy.

To "qualify" for it you would have to had come to America when you were 16 or younger, not 18.

And yea, I don't think we should hold a 21 year old college kid accountable because he "broke" the law when he was brought illegally into the US when he was 6 by his parents.



And I wish people would stop thinking that all government is a bad thing.

Government can do great things.
Government can also do bad things.

Sometimes Government spending is far preferably and much more effective than the private sector.
Sometimes the private sector does a more efficient job than the public.

The problem and the solution are not as simple as you are trying to make them out to be.

It's amazing that all the libs on this board moan about the destruction of the middle class. Illegal immigration is driving down wages and is doing as much to destroy the middle class as anything else. And my industry is just as bad with a new form of indentured servitude in the form of H1B visas.

If you remember after Katrina, the fast food places were pay 12-15 an hour due to the labor shortage. When we flood our country with low wage, unskilled workers, willing to work cheap and live 12 to a trailer and repatriate the bulk of their money, well, that doesn't help the very people you claim to want to help.

I'm never able to reconcile how those claiming to support the middle class and those living in poverty, mostly under-educated and unskilled, seem to be fine allowing millions of under-educated and unskilled labors stream across the border to compete for jobs and drive down wages of the our own citizens.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by V Chip

Well contrary to popular chicken little belief we are not broke. We're paying our bills and we're not in danger of default (unless one party decides to hold the country hostage again, and even then we wouldn't default for some time). Courthouses and sidewalks for the most part are local issues; again, I don't see why you are railing against those things. There's much bigger fish to fry than sidewalks.

And if you truly believed we were broke, why would you be SO against raising revenue?

We are not broke? 15 trillion in debt. Borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Ok, if you say we are not broke, then I guess I can not argue with you. But being that we are not broke, why the urge to tax the rich more? We are doing fine according to you?

Federal courthouses are not an local issue. They are funded by federal dollars. Most sidewalk projects such as the fancy one going down Johnston and Cajun Dome Blvd are funded through federal grants.

To answer you question, we are broke and the reason i do not want taxes increased on any group is because I want government to first control the spending. I have said that over and over. Any increase in revenue will just lead to increases in spending.

Large lasting effects are the past 12 years. Revenue/pctGDP is nowhere near what is was during the 90s when the country actually started to make inroads against this debt that was iognored for 10 years and now is of utmost importance. And what happened when we finally started to get close to turning it around? The Bush tax cuts.

You keep crying Bush tax cuts but never answer the question of why thep lunge in 2000 BEFORE the tax cuts. Prior to the housing bubble, revenue was climbing at a pretty darn good rate even with the tax cuts. But you just keep ignoring that.

The "climbing pretty healthily" is true -- but is was also based on the housing bubble and was followed by a huge decline when it fell off. The effect is perfectly apparent in the chart, but I guess the declines you see are non-existent.

And I guess the roaring 90's had nothing to do with the dotcom explosion? Funny how back then it was just good politics but for Bush, it was bad politics. Clinton rides the dotcom train until in collapsed his last year in office.All we hear from the liberals is how well Clinton left the country for Bush. But when the same thing happens with Bush with your claimed housing bubble, it was those darn tax cuts that ruined everything.

WHAT??? No, it didn't. It started in 2001.

1999 to 2000 (meaning at the END of 2000) went UP. 2000 to 2001 (meaning the END of 2001) went down. The decline started in 2001. If you don't see that... wow.

You chart and my chart both show the decline started in 2000 but it you want to insist, fine, lets say it started in 2001. You of course blame the Bush tax cuts and I say it was the 9/11 event. Fact is that revenue started to climb again but you simply write that off of the housing bubble. How freaking convenient. Clinton gets credit for the dotcom bubble and Bush gets blamed for the housing bubble.

Are you just going to deny everything that is a fact? Your chart most definitely DID include state and local. I'm amazed that you are so blinded by partisanship that you cannot even admit in two cases where you are 100% wrong. Not mistaken, not an opinion, but 100% factually incorrect.

Maybe I am missing something but I see the same trend in your chart. From 2002 to 2007, it was climbing faster than during Clinton's term.

Once again, after 9/11 wore off, revenue climbed at a healthy pace. What are you even arguing?

Once again, the Bush Tax cuts are a large factor and almost definitely the largest by far in the deline seen from 2000 (at a high) to 2004 (at a low) as the tax cuts took effect in 2001, 2002, then fully implemented in 2003. Each of those saw a decline in revenue in in total and revenue as a percent of GDP in that year and the year after. The recovery in 2005-2007 (steady is 3 years and inconsistent?) was nice but it was mostly illusory, caused by the housing bubble. Even die hard conservatives admit this.

Once again, completely ignoring 9/11. And once again, Bush's increase was iillusory but Clinton's dotcom ride was just good solid leadership. The only difference was Clinton was able to ride his horse for a little longer.

Now here is one with "total" taken off and using only "Federal" (aka, NOT INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL). Very similar, but different.




Yes, and you were wrong in the first post you mentioned it (and I corrected you then, too), and you are wrong again both times here when you claim this.

What is different? They both show the same rise in revenue from 2004 through 2007. The dollar amounts are a little lower but the curves are identical.



And were you serious when you said we are not broke?

[BHM]

Originally Posted by V Chip

My debt went up for many years as I bought more things -- electronics at first, then furniture, then car, then a newer car, then a house, then a second car, then got married (HOLY COW that increases your debt!), then an investment property...

I sure as heck haven't been broke or even close to it. My net worth far exceeds my debt. The US's net worth FAR FAR FAR exceeds our debt.

Your understanding of what "broke" is is broke.

So as long as you can keep getting more and more credit cards, you will never be broke? When you have to borrow 40 buck for every 100 you put towards your bills, that is not broke? Guess we define broke a little differently. When I can have to take out a loan every month to continue paying my bills, I am broke.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Well if you figure in our unfunded SS and Medicare obligations

We.
Are.
Broke.

No we are not.

No matter how often you say "2+2=7" it's not going to be 7. Broke means bankrupt or lacking funds, neither of which are true. In debt? Yes. Going on an unsustainable path? Yes. Broke? Not even close.

Originally Posted by wcklink

It's amazing that all the libs on this board moan about the destruction of the middle class. Illegal immigration is driving down wages and is doing as much to destroy the middle class as anything else.

Moving jobs overseas, increasing corporate global structures, and the broken tax structure are doing FAR FAR FAR more to "destroy" the middle class than illegal immigration is. Illegal Immigration would probably not even be in the top 10.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by Superfan

my point about 18 years old is the child who came at 8 years old now is 18. They are responsible for their own actions. The way it was before Obama's speech.

So you think that an 18 year old should be held accountable for a decision that his parents made for him 10 years ago?

That really makes sense to you?

Originally Posted by wcklink

It's amazing that all the libs on this board moan about the destruction of the middle class. Illegal immigration is driving down wages and is doing as much to destroy the middle class as anything else. And my industry is just as bad with a new form of indentured servitude in the form of H1B visas.

I still have to chuckle when I'm called a "lib" on this board. For me, it's just a confirmation how far to the crazy the right has slid over the last 6-7 years. I supported Bush over Kerry and McCain over Obama.

But God forbid I point out places where Obama's policies make sense. Then I'm just a dirty liberal, right? Because a good conservative is someone who opposes Obama on every issue no matter how much it might work or make sense or be good for this country. Because it's not about making things work or fixing what is wrong in our country, it's about winning in November.

Originally Posted by wcklink

If you remember after Katrina, the fast food places were pay 12-15 an hour due to the labor shortage. When we flood our country with low wage, unskilled workers, willing to work cheap and live 12 to a trailer and repatriate the bulk of their money, well, that doesn't help the very people you claim to want to help.

I'm never able to reconcile how those claiming to support the middle class and those living in poverty, mostly under-educated and unskilled, seem to be fine allowing millions of under-educated and unskilled labors stream across the border to compete for jobs and drive down wages of the our own citizens.

This just proves that you either don't bother to read posts or you're so blinded by your partisanship that you read them but are incapable of understanding them, so you make it up.

What I said (which you quoted):

Originally Posted by drob8785

I want to make it clear -- border security is only distantly related to the wider issue of illegal immigrants currently in America. Let's secure the border, of course. But we need to deal with the sizable population of illegal immigrants in our country in a sane, productive way.

I don't want unsecured borders. I don't want "millions of under-educated and unskilled" laborers to stream into our country. I imagine the overwhelming majority of Americans (even the liberal ones) don't want those things either.

And the policy change that the administration announced doesn't do either of those things. In fact, it most likely does not make it more attractive for families to cross illegally, because the stipulations (be here for 5+ years, get a GED/High School Diploma, its not a path to citizenship or even permanent residency) set the bar pretty high. All this change does is keep productive members of our society who came here illegally as children, well, productive members of our society.

To think that anyone supports open borders because they support this policy shift...I honestly don't know where you come up with this crap.

You are so delusional that you magnify everything related to Obama to the extreme.

He passes a health care reform bill modeled after conservative proposals? SOCIALIST!
He changes administration policy to stop the deportation of a small number of illegal immigrants who came here as children and are now productive and contributing members of our country? OHMYGOD HE WANTS TO OPEN THE BORDERS!
The country elects Barack Obama? IT COMMITS SUICIDE!

[BHM]

Originally Posted by V Chip

No we are not.

No matter how often you say "2+2=7" it's not going to be 7. Broke means bankrupt or lacking funds, neither of which are true. In debt? Yes. Going on an unsustainable path? Yes. Broke? Not even close.



.

And borrowing 40 cents on every dollar to pay your bills is not lacking funds? Good grief, no wonder this country is heading downhill. At what point will we be broke when China is paying 100% of our bills?