PatriotsReign

....I don't think so fella's!!!!

California voters, most of whom are democrats, recently defeated an increase in state income tax by a 2 to 1 margin...those are DEMOCRATS people!

If our federal gov't believes Americans are willing "to sacrifice"....they better get ready to be voted out of office...THAT my friends is a


...no if's, and's or but's!

The "Change" Americans want is not more gov't to raise the living standards for some. This is America and WE are responsible for raising ourselves to better living standards.

And that folks is what it is and the ballot box is gonna be shakn' next election.

There's a lot of good ideas out there, but asking Americans to pay more to make them reality is the wrong way to do it. here's a novel idea

CUT SPENDING IN OTHER AREAS!

The early results are in and Americans overwhelmingly are NOT supporting socialistic-tax levels.

"Yes we can" is quickly turning into "No, we won't!!"...and I'll admit, I voted for Obama.

PatsFanInVa

Tax hikes, my friend, are

Guar-ant-eed

...if we want to continue to live like industrialized westerners. And look out, we're going to have to live more like them in the future. That's another

Guar-ant-ee.

Borrow-and-spend Republicans have been giving up exactly the same goodies as the Dems always did, except they gave them to arms manufacturers and oil companies rather than the citizens of the nation to which they swear their putative allegiances.

As the bill comes due on the borrowing frenzy we'll finally face the fact that taxation is what government uses to spend money, in non-crazy countries.

Now, if the ignoramous contingent is able to clamor and gather people to the banner of "wahhhhhh my taxes went up," so be it. We are still capable of dooming ourselves through the undertaxation mantra.

If however, we recognize that goods and services cost money, we can be grownups and pay our way.

I think it's fair to say that we have national priorities now that do not consist of fighting fantasy wars against phantom WMDs and linkages that do not exist. They consist of doing the hard work to make inroads into renewable energy, public transit, conservation, an updated grid, and rational health care policy. In each of these areas, it has been shown that laissez faire capitalism is a failure.

This should not be a surprise. We have embraced laissez faire capitalism as a religion of sorts, and it is just wrong for some specific cases. When laissez faire capitalism creates a disaster like last September's, we become aware of its limits. It is a growth engine dependent on greed; but when the greed we like (i.e., the greed of parasitically living off others' labor because, as a capitalist, you fund the acquisition of resources the workers do not buy, and therefore you own the profits) is replaced by the greed we don't like (i.e., you try to take the actual worker and products out of the loop and make money through ponzi schemes and a paper economy,) we do not create wealth, but debt. The valuation of actual wealth (the real economy) sinks precipitously, to the point where we try to convince foreign companies to take pieces of companies, for free. And they're not even sure they want to do it.

Big side-track there. The point here is that government has a role.

In finance and elsewhere, there is a regulatory role for the common good. If you create systemic risk, that is not something you as an individual speculator care about, as long as your individual speculation does well. That is why you need adult supervision.

In some other ways, the market can just be flat wrong.

Example: I really really like some neo-muscle-cars that GM came up with recently, and my wife does too. They don't get great mileage. The cooler the car, the worse mileage it gets.

My gut says get the damn muscle car. My brain says WTF for. If I were rich enough to get it I'd drop north of a hundred grand and get a ZR-1, if I listened to my gut. Now, what exactly do I need 638 horsepower for? Because it's a really large number and feels really really powerful to drive. It's also really really impractical and really really bad for the environment.

But you are quite likely like me. Or maybe you want a truck that can tow a train if need be. But how often, really, do you have to tow a train? The answer is basically "better to have a truck that can tow a train and not need it, than need a truck that can tow a train and not have it." And my gut says, yeah that makes sense.

My brain, on the other hand, gets it. And I think Americans are getting closer and closer to that realization, but not fast enough and not close enough.

Here again, I believe government has a role. If gas prices aren't going to the $4 point of their own volition, I say add a couple of cents per month for a couple years to our gas taxes. Gas guzzlers are bad. Electric cars are good. That's pretty much a fact. We just like things that are bad. The new fuel economy standards are a step in that same direction, but frankly, we need there to be enough disincentive to drive the gas guzzlers to make the fuel economy standards an organic thing you can't escape with loopholes.

And then there is just plain paying your way (beyond taxes meant to achieve a specific goal.) For a long time we've been effectively taxing future generations by borrow-and-spend leadership.

Frankly, in our current position, borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend are your options. Even now, because the economy is in such a shambles to start with, we're keeping both interest rates and taxation irresponsibly low by the standards of better times. It's unwise to raise either at the moment. It's unavoidable that we raise both, in the long run.

Final coda: Borrow-and-spend may soon be unavailable as an option, as our foreign credit line becomes a dicier proposition.

As for California, home of wacky tax-revolt propositions (though Democratic as well): we'll see how they'll feel once "the beast" starts starving. Might be an object lesson in another way.

PFnV

tanked_as_usual

<SNIP>

blah blah blah........

aren't the arms manufacturers americans working real jobs and paying taxes?

beats the crap out of 'feeding the animals'

democrats have led the charge in every new wave of spending.........given the legislative branch was run by democrats for over 30 years prior to 1994, it is no suprise that whenver there was a democrat as pres, financial disaster ensued.......

the government learned to steal from social security under johnson......for what??? THE VIETNAM WAR!!!!

under carter, the government simply folded up shop and was ready to mount a hammer and sickle on the front of the white house

and under clinton, the electorate quickly learned that they needed to put repubs in control for any hope of success

but feel free to continue to live in your cocoon of stupidity

BelichickFan

PR, sorry but you'll be paying more. Maybe the moron president will not make it an "income tax" increase so he can claim accuracy on his crap about not raising taxes on those making under $250K. But they'll get more from you whether it's a sales tax, gas tax, health insurance tax - obama the magic taxer will be at your door.

2010 will be interesting, I think the American people are smart enough to see through this, we'll see if they say so at the ballot box in the midterms.

PatriotsReign

PFiVA and BF....I did not guarantee we won't be paying more taxes. Are you guys reading ok old buds? I said I guarantee people will be voted out of office.

And PFiVA...you did not discuss CUTTING programs at length. Why don't you ever discuss that? How bout waste?

Don't you agree that NOW is not the time to be discussing massive spending? I've railed against "Bail-outs" from the beginning and not to say "I told you so"...but I sure did! We wasted money on the auto industry and we forced financial institutions to take TARP money even when they didn't want it. It seems to me now is the time when we should be cutting spending in all area's that are not essential. Not looking for essential areas to spend money.

There will be a time, but it's not now.

I agree with you that gov't has and should have a role in regulating corp. America and specifically, the financial industry. We allowed them to set up a house of cards and look what happened!

But the economic role of our gov't is not economic planning or gov't ownership of industry. And that my friend is where it's looking mighty frightening.

I will also re-state my contention that Americans will not support MASSIVE increases in taxes. And "If" they are implimented in the short-term, it will sink our economy for a long time to come. Another thing I can guarantee is that despite all this talk of optimistic signs of economic recovery, that's all it is, is TALK. That's not pessimism, it's realism.

We'll soon see the stock markets take another dive...anyone wanna take bets?

BelichickFan

That's why obama is having to talk the talk of fiscal restraint while he bleeds the country dry. 2010 will be interesting, I expect a bloodletting of Democrats losing due to the current craziness which will likely be exacerbated by the Dems forcing through more stuff and the country will be reminded they like a split government. I don't want to get too optimistic, though, after the tidal wave of hate for Republicans which is still out there.

I'm hoping the S&P makes it to 1,000, that would be a pretty good "getting out" point for me.

PatriotsReign

I'm thinking something similar BF.

STFarmy

I completely agree with you. The problem is that cutting programs will shake up people already established in those programs, which will lead to conflict. Also, said people looking to protect their gov't-funded programs will tell the people "hey, look, they're trying to take away things we want to offer you." Since this is a potential PR (public relations, not Patriots Reign ) nightmare, most politicians shy away from it for the easier course where they piss off the least amount of people possibe.

We need someone who is not business as usual and isn't afraid of perhaps not being reelected. Bush could have done good things in his second term, as he didn't have to worry about this, but obviously he did squat (or worse than squat depending on who you ask). It would be nice, for once, to have someone that actually is looking to change the culture of power in Washington (and state gov'ts for that matter) and not just use it as a catchy slogan.

PatriotsReign

Excellent points Army! One of the biggest problems with gov't is that once a program is started, it seems to last forever. THAT'S JUST WRONG! What can we do about that? I think every single program whether it's military, infrastructure or social, should be evaluated on it's effectiveness and value.

But the powers that be seem to think every new program must mean INCREMENTAL dollars...that's not true.