We may never recover??? - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**151** 02-10-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

You're not going to starve it if you allow it to borrow. And if you force it to borrow, you'll end up worse than if you gave it what it wanted in the first place. I say keep it lean with selective spending cuts rather than with unaffordable tax cuts, and borrow only in emergencies. Right now is kind of an emergency.

Right now is kind of an emergency? Really? We have been "borrowing" for how long already? What differentiates the 10 years ago from today's emergency? Borrowing should be an emergency measure. However, our friends in Congress has been having emergencies for decades. Sorry. You cried "Wolf" every day. Now you expect us to rush to your aid when you cry "Wolf" again?

aklim · #**152** 02-10-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

SDI gobbles up pristine land in remote places.

What percentage, may I ask?

Honus · #**153** 02-10-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

A truth of life:
In good times or bad, government grows.

That seems to be true at the federal level, where they have the power to print money. I am not sure it holds true at the state and local levels. I notice that the Town where I work seems to take the opposite approach. When things are booming, the Town feels as if it doesn't have to invest in infrastructure because they can force developers to do it. When things are tight, they don't do infrastructure maintenance, repair, or improvement because they don't have the money coming in.

aklim · #**154** 02-10-2009, 12:47 PM

Why does this post make me think of that song "We may never love like this again."?

Botnst · #**155** 02-10-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

You're not going to starve it if you allow it to borrow. And if you force it to borrow, you'll end up worse than if you gave it what it wanted in the first place. I say keep it lean with selective spending cuts rather than with unaffordable tax cuts, and borrow only in emergencies. Right now is kind of an emergency.

I agree with the first half I disagree that there is an emergency.

I think it is contrived and exaggerated.

DieselAddict · #**156** 02-10-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I agree with the first half I disagree that there is an emergency.

I think it is contrived and exaggerated.

Most economists say this is the worst recession since the Great Depression. Are you an economist?

DieselAddict · #**157** 02-10-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

True about unemployment. Nothing like sending several hundred thousand men into armed conflict to get the unemployment numbers down.

So far can you (anybody) provide any example of economics being unambiguously predictive? Economics not science, it's sort of a descriptive discipline. It tells us what happened, which we already know, and then where 2 or 3 economists gather you will find 6-7 opinions as to why it happened and 9-10 probably outcomes.

In all honesty, I would place more faith in CMAC's telepathic abilities that an economists predictive ability.

Unemployment went down not just because men were sent to battle but also because women and other non-combatants went to work in the factories that were contracted by the government to make weapons. No one said economics is an exact science, but again I don't think you'll find a single credible economist who says the government shouldn't have done any bailout in the current crisis. If there is one, please provide a link.

DieselAddict · #**158** 02-10-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Think about this. Would YOU love to average your financial worth with Bill Gates? I know I would.

I wouldn't. I see no reason why and it would be unfair to Bill Gates. But I think it's fair that he pays more tax than I do.

aklim · #**159** 02-10-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

No one said economics is an exact science

I don't think you'll find a single credible economist who says the government shouldn't have done any bailout in the current crisis.

I doubt it is even close.

I suppose it depends on what they are saying doesn't it? Communism was a great idea too. You just have to ignore some "pesky" issues. Same here. Will govt intervention fix the problem that we are having? Absolutely. Have we forgotten something? Could be. A mother could fix the problem of her infant going hungry by sticking her boobs in his mouth. This relationship can go on for a long time. OTOH, will the kid be self sufficient or will he constantly be at the boob when he is hungry? Same thing. What message is the govt trying to send? That every time life hands you lemons you go suck on Mommy's boobs instead of making lemonade? Do you think we are as self sufficient as we were 100 years ago? I think not. Is that a good thing? I think not.

Also, lets not forget that the "fix" govt promises is only a theory based on if all the good stuff happens. Have they figured in what if things go on as usual or is the economist theory that govt intervention is best based on the notion that if the govt does all it is supposed to do and none of the bad things, such and so forth will happen?

aklim · #**160** 02-10-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I see no reason why and it would be unfair to Bill Gates.

But I think it's fair that he pays more tax than I do.

I don't know about you but the work harder and smarter thing seems to bother me. To me, it is fair that he is where he is because he worked smarter and harder than I have. I am where I am because I worked smarter and harder than those lower on the ladder and so on and so forth.

Why? He uses proportionately more resources than you do or simply because he can afford it?

MS Fowler · #**161** 02-10-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That seems to be true at the federal level, where they have the power to print money. I am not sure it holds true at the state and local levels. I notice that the Town where I work seems to take the opposite approach. When things are booming, the Town feels as if it doesn't have to invest in infrastructure because they can force developers to do it. When things are tight, they don't do infrastructure maintenance, repair, or improvement because they don't have the money coming in.

WOW! I am impressed. Cherish your Town.

I know I use a lot of examples of democrat craziness. That is MY experience; I live in MD--a state to the left of Kennedy's MA. Democrats have total control at the State level. Many of the Counties are repub-run, but on a state-wide level, Balt, and the DC suburbs carry more weight then the rest of the land mass of the state. If I lived in a state where repubs had been running things for 40 or 50 years, I would probably have examples of repub craziness.

DieselAddict · #**162** 02-10-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I doubt it is even close.

I suppose it depends on what they are saying doesn't it? Communism was a great idea too. You just have to ignore some "pesky" issues. Same here. Will govt intervention fix the problem that we are having? Absolutely. Have we forgotten something? Could be. A mother could fix the problem of her infant going hungry by sticking her boobs in his mouth. This relationship can go on for a long time. OTOH, will the kid be self sufficient or will he constantly be at the boob when he is hungry? Same thing. What message is the govt trying to send? That every time life hands you lemons you go suck on Mommy's boobs instead of making lemonade? Do you think we are as self sufficient as we were 100 years ago? I think not. Is that a good thing? I think not.

Also, lets not forget that the "fix" govt promises is only a theory based on if all the good stuff happens. Have they figured in what if things go on as usual or is the economist theory that govt intervention is best based on the notion that if the govt does all it is supposed to do and none of the bad things, such and so forth will happen?

If you read the news more you'd know that a big chuck of the bailout is loans, i.e. the money is to be paid back. And the rest will be withdrawn as needed as the economy picks up so as to avoid a permanent dependency. Of course there are no guarantees of success and no one has said otherwise. It's all about calculated risk. What is the cost and benefit of action vs. non-action? So far all evidence points to non-action as being more costly in the long run, hence we have these bailouts.

DieselAddict · #**163** 02-10-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't know about you but the work harder and smarter thing seems to bother me. To me, it is fair that he is where he is because he worked smarter and harder than I have. I am where I am because I worked smarter and harder than those lower on the ladder and so on and so forth.

Why? He uses proportionately more resources than you do or simply because he can afford it?

Doesn't bother me. I'm assuming you made a typo in your post here as it sounds like it bothers you.

Both. Capitalism tends to redistribute wealth from the not-so-rich to the rich so taxation aims to reverse the process to some extent and fund national needs in the process. I have proposed doing away with the income tax and simply have a high federal sales tax but that would have its own downfalls. The redistribution effect would be somewhat smaller and the sales tax would have to be really high to maintain the same tax revenue. But most importantly it wouldn't work in our consumer-driven economy. We'd need to transition away from that to something else to maintain the same living standard.

aklim · #**164** 02-10-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

If you read the news more you'd know that a big chuck of the bailout is loans, i.e. the money is to be paid back. And the rest will be withdrawn as needed as the economy picks up so as to avoid a permanent dependency.

So far all evidence points to non-action as being more costly in the long run, hence we have these bailouts.

ONLY IF THEY ARE SOLVENT. You don't have to pay back a loan if you go under. So, if GM goes under, which it should, what happens to the loan money?

How did they calculate "in the long run"? If their calculation is based off whether the business will be afloat in 5 years or not, I suspect you are right. Didn't you once make a case for alternative energy where you said the tax breaks prevented the alternative energy companies (new kids on the block) from displacing the dinosaurs (current inefficient systems)? If the companies they are bailing out cannot survive bad times on their own, why should we keep them around? So we can bail them out again when bad times come along? Or should we let them die out and someone fresh start up something else? If it was one or two major companies or simply one sector, sure. If it is all over the board, maybe it is time to start again. If my car has a bad trans, I'll fix it. If the trans, engine, rear end, AC system, lights, etc, etc are all bad, I don't see how I can support fixing it all up.

aklim · #**165** 02-10-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I have proposed doing away with the income tax and simply have a high federal sales tax but that would have its own downfalls.

The redistribution effect would be somewhat smaller and the sales tax would have to be really high to maintain the same tax revenue.

But most importantly it wouldn't work in our consumer-driven economy. We'd need to transition away from that to something else to maintain the same living standard.

A consumption tax then? If I buy a $100K house, I pay 20K in taxes and if I buy a $500K house, I pay $100K in taxes? That I can support as long as there are NO loopholes. Straight consumption. No other taxes. No city tax, state tax, county tax, street tax, etc, etc. I actually like that idea. Why? Because it makes it much harder for Congress to play tax tricks. That way they can't promise "no new taxes" but increase the old or promise "no tax increase" but add a few. Currently, there are so many different taxes to the point I don't even have a clue as to what I pay in taxes in the end.

How high is "really high"? With all the ways they nickle and dime us with this tax, that tax and what not, we don't really know what we are paying in taxes. This way, if they need more money, they can't simply increase a tax here and there. They'd have to piss off people by showing them on their payslip exactly what they are taking out.