Printable View
or is it "McDonnel" ....
"It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ....and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned..." He was right.
more:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/vir...nnells_re.html
Its amazing how concerned the republicans have become about debt and the deficit since they lost the white house and congress.
it's pretty amazing how prescient this 2004 article is.
Quote:
O’Neill watched all this with anguish. Shortly before he was fired, he confronted Cheney about the Administration’s latest proposal to cut taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over ten years, pointing out that the country was “moving toward a fiscal crisis.” The Vice-President stopped him. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. “We won the midterms. This is our due.” In fact, Reagan didn’t prove anything of the kind. Early in his first term, Congress was forced to adopt emergency tax increases and spending cuts to restrain the ballooning budget shortfall. Despite this remedial action, it wasn’t until the early nineties, when George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton raised taxes, that the nation’s finances were put in proper order, opening the way to the longest economic expansion on record.
it was also Jefferson who suggested a progressive income tax with a geometric increase in the rate. he was right there, too"Quote:
Originally Posted by barnesfoto
Quote:
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise [[Letter to Madison, 1785)
Yes, the hypocrisy in this issue is flashing neon bright, the repubs contributed to the spend - fest too...
However, the BIGGER MORE CRUCIAL QUESTION is where is OUR concern about the deficit?? ... and what is this administration REALLY going to do to correct it, withstanding partisan politics of "they did it" etc. We are now at 1.4 trillion and counting... and printing more money is weakening our dollar... more and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Zacha, I certainly think you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand why the "average" American obsesses so much about topics like the deficit and relative value of the dollar. I would think people would be more concerned about pocketbook issues, like gainful employment, access to education, and condition of our infrastructure--things that each of us encounter in our daily lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
I mean, how does the deficit affect the average person on a daily basis? No one seemed to care about the deficit this much in early 2003, after we gave away a shitload of money in the form of tax cuts, and embarked on a needless war.
And the value of the dollar? How many people complaining about the value of the dollar are planning to travel abroad anytime soon?
I'm flummoxed at the amount of relative importance that some people place on certain issues. The time to fix the deficit is once our economy is growing again.
Here is how to fix the deficit:
let the Bush giveaway to the rich expire
raise the capital gains tax to 50% for investments held less than 1 year and 1 day, decreasing it by 5% for each year it is held until it reaches 15%. After 10 years and 1 day, drop it to 7.5% [[which will have the side effect of promoting healthy long-term investment over bubble-producing short-term bandwagoneering)
a small transaction tax on all forms of securities [[say, .5%)
Impose tarriffs on goods coming from regions with sub-standard labor and environmental records
Seize the assets of corporations that fail to fully account for where they are spending our money [[bye bye KBR & Haliburton)
end no-bid contracts
Disallow righting off the depreciation of moth-balled faciities
This would have implications that are far reaching and potentially extremely damaging. You would reduce the attractiveness of investing in the stock market since potential returns would be dramatically slashed. Even if I don't think I'll need the money for seven years [[which is what I calculate is your period to get to the minimum tax), there's no saying that a job loss, an illness, an emergency or something else wouldn't cause me to need it sooner, and then what, I'm going to take a one-third penalty in my gains? Many people will simply stay out of the market if this were the case. This lower investment into the market would cause the markets to, at best, stagnate, and more likely, decline. This would further erode the average citizen's retirement portfolios, reduce the availability of companies to raise money for capital investments and expansions through stock offerings. This would have a direct negative impact on our ability both to grow our economy and to add jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
On paper, this would raise a lot more tax revenue that could go to reduce the deficit, but in reality, this would probably do more harm than good because the current level of money flowing in and out of the system that's available to apply these taxes towards would be slashed, and not just by a little.
Why is it obsessing by being concerned about the debt and value of our dollar? It is, after all our debt and our dollars we're talking about. The value of our Federal Reserve Notes does affect all of us in our everyday lives. Zacha was probably referring more to inflation than to exchange rates, although exchange rates are one indicator of how our faith-based paper money is perceived and valued . It's not just a concern for those traveling abroad. Increasing the money supply causes inflation. If there are more printed funny-money dollars chasing goods, after time, the price of those goods will rise as a result. Look at the housing bubble for instance, easy and reckless credit schemes basically created more money resulting in more people buying houses, which pushed house prices up [[unnaturally).Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
We know, we're trying to help you with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Except we're in no danger of inflation. Far from it. Do keep trying to sound smart, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
good point, we will make exemptions for emergency needsQuote:
Originally Posted by sirrealone
i highly doubt it. long term it is still the best game going. speculators would go buhbye, and good riddance to them [[although I also think an exemption would be made for venture capital investment in start-ups)Quote:
Many people will simply stay out of the market if this were the case.
Which is precisely why financial advisors recommend you keep 3-6 months worth of expenses in liquid form, such as a savings account.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirrealone
Yep, JS... I was referring to inflation [[the price of goods rising as one evidence) and devaluing of the dollar. This is already evident via a visit to Windsor, lunch for two at McDonalds [[not that I support the idea of consuming fast food), or your local grocery store. The same money that used to get you three bags of groceries is now rendering only two. Clearly, our US dollar is simply buying less and perceived worth less internationally ala our exchange rates by the way! I am in the process of doing some research on more evidence of this applicable to the local house hold and will reply back with a link or two... but right now it is time for me to dash off to work to grab some more of these "depreciated" green backs :p! You understand : )
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
How do you isolate the variable in this case? In other words, if groceries cost you more, how do you attribute that to a lowering value of the dollar, especially when most items in your local grocery store are produced domestically?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
How do you ensure that increased prices are the result of the internationally-traded value of the dollar, vis-a-vis increased fuel costs, and the failure of incomes to keep pace with inflation over the past ten years?
So, you think Jefferson would have considered Wall Street and the banks the "labor" rather than the leeches on the labor? You seriously think he would have been against banking reform and regulation? Read some John Locke to understand America's founding theories on labor and property rights or some Thomas Paine to understand Jefferson's strongest influences regarding the interaction between citizens and their government. Here's a Jefferson quote that's more on point.Quote:
Originally Posted by barnesfoto
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, [[Attributed)
3rd president of US [[1743 - 1826)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/37700.html
Wow, even these few Wikipedia excerpts regarding Jefferson show he sounds more like Obama did on Tuesday than McConnell did. McConnell really has some balls on him to try to pass himself off as a Jeffersonian.
Jefferson's vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. His agrarianism stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
He also advocated that the national debt should be eliminated. He did not believe that living individuals had a moral obligation to repay the debts of previous generations. He said that repaying such debts was "a question of generosity and not of right."
Jefferson in 1816 wrote to George Logan,
“In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it's government and the probity of it's citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it's people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
He denounced the 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison as a violation of democracy, but he did not have enough support in Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment to overturn it.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
Quote: "Except we're in no danger of inflation. Far from it."
LOL....
And on another thread, someone questioned why I think people who lean right are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Quote:
Consumer Price Index Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until
8:30 a.m. [[EST) Friday, January 15, 2010 USDL-10-0011
Technical information: [[202) 691-7000 Reed.Steve@bls.gov www.bls.gov/cpi
Media Contact: [[202) 691-5902 PressOffice@bls.gov
Consumer Price Index - December 2009
On a seasonally adjusted basis, the December Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers [[CPI-U) rose 0.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the index
increased 2.7 percent before seasonal adjustment.
If we're going to experience inflation, you're going to see the Fed raise its interest rate from Zero. This hasn't happened, and Ben Bernanke has given no hint whatsover that the Fed is considering raising this rate anytime soon.
Laugh away, silly boy.
.Quote:
McConnell really has some balls on him to try to pass himself off as a Jeffersonian.
I've too have noticed this strange trend among the righties quoting Jefferson. It's odd. While he's admirable as an architect and lawmaker, perhaps the thing about him that most appeals to conservocrites that he was a weal thy man who wrote nice fuzzy essays about the value of "hard work" while his slaves worked the plantation.
As for Mc Donnell speech, here's a couple interesting tidbits that few people seemed to catch.
When McDonnell opposes Obama’s proposed efforts break up big banks, regulate the financial sector, and impose a financial responsibility fee to financial institutions which helped cause the current recession, it should be noted that the very industry McDonnell is fighting to defend underwrote the platform on which he is speaking, both virtually and in Richmond.
source: http://www.care2.com/causes/politics...-new-social-me
The funding behind Mc Donnel's PAC:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/27/...l-wallst-sotu/
President Obama has, to this point, been the phony populist that he is on some other matters such as clean energy, ending wars, reducing unemployment, lowering taxes, and protecting our rights.
Four or five of Obama's top twenty campaign contributors were Wall Street banks, he accepted their unregulated donations for his inaugeration party, he left the campaign trail to lobby and vote for Bush's Wall Street bailout, he has overseen a Treasury that has been giving the banks additional money, he is expanding the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve and stands in the way of it being audited, and has riddled his administration with Goldman-Sachs executives just as Bush did.
Presedent Obama might be heading in the right direction by listening to Volker instead of Bernanke & Geithner as he has.
"The Obama administration has reacted very quickly — perhaps too quickly — post the Massachusetts Senate election. After proposing a tax on bank liabilities, Obama is taking an even tougher line, adopting recommendations from Paul Volcker that banks be limited in their size and scope. Before getting to specifics, it’s worth noting how Geithner and Summers appear to have lost favor. "
The Ascent of Volcker