Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (697958)	2/9/2013 2:58:50 PM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1576349

>I understand what you're saying, but we all know the figures of interest on the debt at your zero percent rate; last year was $359 billion. That was on money that for the most part wasn't borrowed at a zero percent rate. If it had been, there wouldn't have been interest on it. >Is it correct to assume you believe these interest rates will never rise? Look no further than Jimmy Carter. No. But these, AFAIK, aren't variable rates. The money we borrow now will always have a rate that's roughly zero percent, and really negative accounting for inflation at its current rates. Investing in the American people and its infrastructure is a good investment. That should make money back over time. But we still do need to (gasp!) raise some taxes because we're quite a bit in the hole from the last fifty years or so. We never need to get to the point where we have no debt, but eventually we should reduce it. When unemployment is as high as it is, now isn't the time. >In your analogy, the old people die and their children can't borrow because they are buried paying off the debt their ancestors borrowed. We are nowhere near that being the case. If we want to, we can pay off our debt over several generations. >What's your end game? Honestly, I'm not totally sure. What I'd like to do is not politically feasible at the moment, even if is the right thing to do. But there is no denying that the deficit is being reduced. I want to see a back tax, similar to the "wealth tax" Tench always teases but that we know would never pass. The Bush tax cuts over the last 12 years amounted to nothing more than theft from the treasury. Recovering that money would go a long way to closing our debt. Additionally, we should have a back taxes on the banks and on our companies that deal in war. But we probably do need to also resume spending on infrastructure, teachers, schools, police, firefighters, and on the rest of the public sector to reduce unemployment and do the things that will help keep it down in the future. No wars, no Bush tax cuts, and 4-5 percent unemployment and our deficit is essentially zero on an annual basis. It doesn't need to happen immediately, but it should happen. It's OK if the deficit even goes back up for a few years. Let's use it to reduce unemployment and rebuild this country. If Obama takes Clinton's (surprising) advice from yesterday, it may happen sooner rather than later. -Z

To: steve harris who wrote (697958)	2/9/2013 3:11:22 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576349

Steve -- here is the fundamental problem with leftwing nutjob fiscal thinking: "The Bush tax cuts over the last 12 years amounted to nothing more than theft from the treasury. " They believe this. It never occurs to them that taking the money from those who earned it is theft. Only that allowing them to keep some of the fruits of their industry is. By any reasonable definition, it is crazy talk. But that's why they are unable to articulate any sensible economic policy -- they just have fundamental differences about who owns the money a person earns.