BillsNYC Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/retirement...sion=2009060912 "Normally Paul Krugman, the liberal pundit and Nobel laureate in economics, and Paul Ryan, a conservative Republican congressman from Wisconsin, share little in common except their first names and a scorching passion for views they champion from opposite political poles. So when the two combatants agree on a fundamental threat to the U.S. economy, Americans should heed this alarm as the real thing." "Krugman favors far higher taxes, while Ryan wants to curb spending, but for now what's so big and so dangerous that it distresses such diverse types as Krugman and Ryan - and should scare all Americans - is the Great Debt Threat." "The bill is far too big for only the rich to pick up. There aren't enough of them. America will have to lean on citizens far below the $250,000 income threshold: nurses, electricians, secretaries, and factory workers. Within a decade the average household that pays income tax will owe the equivalent of $155,000 in federal debt, about $90,000 more than last year. What the Obama administration isn't telling Americans is that the only practical solution is a giant tax increase aimed squarely at the middle class. The alternative, big cuts in spending, aren't part of the President's agenda. To keep the debt from wrecking the economy, the U.S. would need to raise annual federal income taxes an average of $11,000 in 2019 for all families that pay them, an increase of about 55%. "The revenues needed are far too big to raise from high earners," says Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley. "The government will have to go where the money is, to the middle class." The most likely levy: a European-style value-added tax (VAT) that would substantially raise the price of everything from autos to restaurant meals."
Alaska Darin Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 The most likely levy: a European-style value-added tax (VAT) that would substantially raise the price of everything from autos to restaurant meals." Which of course will pretty much kill the economy and drop our quality of life like a stone.
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Which of course will pretty much kill the economy and drop our quality of life like a stone. Obama will never let a VAT take hold. He can spend a lot of time blaming the world for the problems he inherited, but he wouldn't be able to tell the millions of middle income voters that he had to go the way of VAT because he inherited such a mess. Coupled with the fact that it's no secret that his legacy is a top priority, he'll nationalize Campbells and hand out free soup and Goldfish before he lets a VAT take hold.
Magox Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/retirement...sion=2009060912 "Normally Paul Krugman, the liberal pundit and Nobel laureate in economics, and Paul Ryan, a conservative Republican congressman from Wisconsin, share little in common except their first names and a scorching passion for views they champion from opposite political poles. So when the two combatants agree on a fundamental threat to the U.S. economy, Americans should heed this alarm as the real thing." "Krugman favors far higher taxes, while Ryan wants to curb spending, but for now what's so big and so dangerous that it distresses such diverse types as Krugman and Ryan - and should scare all Americans - is the Great Debt Threat." "The bill is far too big for only the rich to pick up. There aren't enough of them. America will have to lean on citizens far below the $250,000 income threshold: nurses, electricians, secretaries, and factory workers. Within a decade the average household that pays income tax will owe the equivalent of $155,000 in federal debt, about $90,000 more than last year. What the Obama administration isn't telling Americans is that the only practical solution is a giant tax increase aimed squarely at the middle class. The alternative, big cuts in spending, aren't part of the President's agenda. To keep the debt from wrecking the economy, the U.S. would need to raise annual federal income taxes an average of $11,000 in 2019 for all families that pay them, an increase of about 55%. "The revenues needed are far too big to raise from high earners," says Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley. "The government will have to go where the money is, to the middle class." The most likely levy: a European-style value-added tax (VAT) that would substantially raise the price of everything from autos to restaurant meals." All these programs and initiatives like TARP, Health Care Reform, Omnibus Bill and the farse "Stimulus" that the government has been ramming down our throats could very well cause the next systemic risk to the economy. Just imagine if there is a panic and we see everyone dumping the dollar because of concern of the unsustainability of the U.S dollar, talk about a sh*t storm. I've said this a few times, there are two ways to reduce the debt, you either cut spending or generate more revenues, and we all know that the first option isn't an option. So that leaves higher taxes, and I believe that at the end of the day, this is what we will see. However, I do not see Obama taxing the middle class, he doesn't have the political will to do so. We will see all sorts of "creative" taxes that sound good on the surface, and could very well have political support, but that will have negative "unintended consequences" .
Lemur King Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I am not an economic expert by any means but a few people here make sense. Metals make a LOT more sense than anything related to the dollar. The shitstorm is coming. Most of you don't have the umbrella.
Booster4324 Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I am not an economic expert by any means but a few people here make sense. Metals make a LOT more sense than anything related to the dollar. The shitstorm is coming. Most of you don't have the umbrella. Dwight?
Ramius Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 I am not an economic expert by any means but a few people here make sense. Metals make a LOT more sense than anything related to the dollar. The shitstorm is coming. Most of you don't have the umbrella. Whats it like living with dwight and 9 others in a 100 sq ft shack/bunker?
Chef Jim Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 You know these people are some of the most brilliant people I seen. So we have such a large government the only solution is to raise taxes to levels that will not just hurt the economy, but kill it. Low taxe revenues is not the problem, it's the spending. PAYGO my ass.
Magox Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 You know these people are some of the most brilliant people I seen. So we have such a large government the only solution is to raise taxes to levels that will not just hurt the economy, but kill it. Low taxe revenues is not the problem, it's the spending. PAYGO my ass. That's right, it isn't the low taxation that is the problem like what the Obama campaign trail duped people into believing, it is the spending that is killing us. It started with the Bush administration, and now Obama is making it much worse. I guess they figure we can spend our way out of this mess
Lemur King Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 WHO to declare pandemic today. Imagine if this flu shifts to be more dangerous. Do you have any idea how many people would be dead? Technology growth will eventually lead to some disastrous consequences.
Dwight Drane Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Dwight? No, but I am dumping dollars faster than a sailor coming into port for a weekend after 6 months at sea. If you really want to scratch your head, try finding some ammunition for anything with firepower. Prices are double from a year ago and there is a 3 month lag time. Are there really that many yahoos out there? At a certain point you would think people would figure out that something ain't right, far beyond a little recession. A few thousand Dwight Dranes aren't going to wipe out the entire stockpile of firearms....and you can't blame Obama because it has been 7 months since we were blessed with him. I do laugh when pundits go to the moneyline "This is going to be the problem of our children and grandchildren and it isn't fair to them." That is like your Uncle Jerry being in the ICU after a quadruple bypass and in a coma, and you saying "Jerry really needs to start jogging a little or he's going to be in rough shape 20 years from now."
KD in CA Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Obama will never let a VAT take hold. He can spend a lot of time blaming the world for the problems he inherited, but he wouldn't be able to tell the millions of middle income voters that he had to go the way of VAT because he inherited such a mess. Coupled with the fact that it's no secret that his legacy is a top priority, he'll nationalize Campbells and hand out free soup and Goldfish before he lets a VAT take hold. Come on....that's what second terms are for. He'll need to spend his time doing something -- after all he's going to punt the SS/Medicare disaster to the next sucker.
/dev/null Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 WHO to declare pandemic today They're really furry!
Chump Change Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Those economist's don't know nuthin'! Just who do they think they are? What got us out of the depression? WWII. What will likely end this one? WWIII?
Ramius Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 WHO to declare pandemic today. Imagine if this flu shifts to be more dangerous. Do you have any idea how many people would be dead? Technology growth will eventually lead to some disastrous consequences. Yawn. Thank you for making it obvious you have no clue what the word "pandemic" means.
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 I am not an economic expert by any means but a few people here make sense. Metals make a LOT more sense than anything related to the dollar. The shitstorm is coming. Most of you don't have the umbrella. I do. I'm just not a narcissistic little crybaby about it. And really, if civilization collapses, it makes more sense to put all your money in black pepper or Kentucky burbon. WHO to declare pandemic today. Imagine if this flu shifts to be more dangerous. Do you have any idea how many people would be dead? You don't even know what that means, do you? What was the last pandemic WHO declared?
Lemur King Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 I do. I'm just not a narcissistic little crybaby about it. Says the guy with 19000 posts. You don't even know what that means, do you? What was the last pandemic WHO declared? And if the swine flu was just a little test of a carrier, and instead of carrying a relatively benign flu, carried something much worse, what would the effect on humanity be?
Dwight Drane Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 You don't even know what that means, do you? What was the last pandemic WHO declared? Now Tom.....I know that announcing a pandemic is just a formality and that people aren't running around with their hair on fire, but like I have said many times on this board....you need to look at the next logical and possible steps. What may seem logical to me doesn't seem logical to most here it looks like, and that is fine. I don't do things the "normal" way. But you need to look ahead. You doubt my statement that this swine flu was created in a lab. You also seem to feel there is limited potential for disaster. Now.....if you have ever seen liquid explosives work, and I am sure you have, there are usually 2 seemingly controlled substances contained in their own device. Each may have toxic or even explosive properties, but when the two mix....BLAMMO! Something as simple as sodium and water. Water is harmless.....sodium if dry and contained is fine, and if mixed with the right combo is harmless as well. So far this swine flu looks very mild. I wouldn't call it water, but it isn't a disaster. However.....you have sodium sitting in SE Asia in the form of avian flu. Now that it is obvious that the swine flu is all over the place....don't you think there is a real potential that our water and sodium in this case...mix? Then what do you have? An explosion. This is only the first phase. The longer this is out there and expands, the greater the chance for mutation. This flu popped up out of nowhere...and it started in North America. If you were to release this as a weapon....wouldn't it make sense to release it on your own people first when it is a very mild strain in order for them to develop the proper antibodies so that when the final cycle comes around they have a fighting chance? I am far from a bioscientist so anyone with experience feel free to chime in. It seems like the smart play to me. Especially when you know the deadly strain would most likely take hold in the overpopulated part of the world that happens to house 2 billion of your closest enemies. Feel free to call the bioweapon part of this jibberish, but to underestimate the potential for damage here is folly.
/dev/null Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 You doubt my statement that this swine flu was created in a lab. You also seem to feel there is limited potential for disaster. Now.....if you have ever seen liquid explosives work, and I am sure you have, there are usually 2 seemingly controlled substances contained in their own device. Each may have toxic or even explosive properties, but when the two mix....BLAMMO! There was a farmer had a dog and BLAMMO was his NAMMO B-L-A-MM-O B-L-A-MM-O And BLAMMO was his NAMMO
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Now Tom.....I know that announcing a pandemic is just a formality and that people aren't running around with their hair on fire, but like I have said many times on this board....you need to look at the next logical and possible steps. What may seem logical to me doesn't seem logical to most here it looks like, and that is fine. I don't do things the "normal" way. But you need to look ahead. You doubt my statement that this swine flu was created in a lab. You also seem to feel there is limited potential for disaster. Now.....if you have ever seen liquid explosives work, and I am sure you have, there are usually 2 seemingly controlled substances contained in their own device. Each may have toxic or even explosive properties, but when the two mix....BLAMMO! Something as simple as sodium and water. Water is harmless.....sodium if dry and contained is fine, and if mixed with the right combo is harmless as well. So far this swine flu looks very mild. I wouldn't call it water, but it isn't a disaster. However.....you have sodium sitting in SE Asia in the form of avian flu. Now that it is obvious that the swine flu is all over the place....don't you think there is a real potential that our water and sodium in this case...mix? Then what do you have? An explosion. This is only the first phase. The longer this is out there and expands, the greater the chance for mutation. This flu popped up out of nowhere...and it started in North America. If you were to release this as a weapon....wouldn't it make sense to release it on your own people first when it is a very mild strain in order for them to develop the proper antibodies so that when the final cycle comes around they have a fighting chance? I am far from a bioscientist so anyone with experience feel free to chime in. It seems like the smart play to me. Especially when you know the deadly strain would most likely take hold in the overpopulated part of the world that happens to house 2 billion of your closest enemies. Feel free to call the bioweapon part of this jibberish, but to underestimate the potential for damage here is folly. The bioweapon part of that is gibberish (so's your analogy - but that's beside the point). Seriously. Your reasoning is so convoluted and unrealistic that I can't even begin to tell you how utterly stupid it is. I wish BiB were still here; we'd be laughing our asses off at how utterly retarded your bioweapon theory is. But the potential for a deadly flu pandemic has been known for almost a century (i.e. since the last one). The problem is that you can't even begin to discuss it intelligently because you clearly know nothing about the flu virus. I'm pretty sure I know more about the potential for disaster from a flu epidemic than you (and I know at least four people on the board who know more about it than me). But I also don't consider as one of the Four Horsemen a WHO statement of prevalence that says nothing about mortality - probably because unlike you, I do actually know something about it.
Recommended Posts