Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not a Canadian so I'm not going to argue the point, but the story that I've read about the Canadian turnaround is that they cut spending from a high of 53% of GDP in 1993 to a low of just under 40% by 2008. Today it's around 44% due to the recession.
At the Canadian federal level, they cut capital gains taxes twice, down to 14.5% today. A series of corporate tax rate cuts beginning in 2001 have seen rates cut from 28% down to 15%. Many provinces have followed suit by cutting both corporate and personal income taxes on top of that. If this is wrong, please provide a link that contradicts what I said. And notice that they cut spending first.
You say it's about ideology, I say it's about what works and what is economically effective. I don't give a damn about what's fair, I care about doing whatever is the most optimal way to get this economy revived and creating jobs. IMHO, sucking money out of the major investors who provide capital to startup or expand is hardly optimal. They'll put their money elsewhere, as they have been for a few years now.
The Canadian government raised taxes in the mid-90s, but most of the pain was on the spending side. There was absolutely no way the Liberal party would have been able to push through a fiscal adjustment entirely on the spending side. They lowered taxes once they started running surpluses and paying off the debt. But Canadians are still more "socialist" than Americans.
And that's what we should do here. Focus primarily on the spending side but also raise taxes. If we have to do that by flattening the tax structure and getting rid of loopholes, fine, that works. But we have to take from the revenue side as well. I say 75% spending and 25% tax increases, but if you want to do 80/20 or thereabouts, that works for me. But to say it all must be one way, that's not serious. Or if it is, take it to the people and tell them you are going to cut SS and medicare and defense. And if they give you a mandate to do it that way, fine. But that's not the mandate the people have given the government. That's why the intransigent ideologues are the problem.
I'm not a Canadian so I'm not going to argue the point, but the story that I've read about the Canadian turnaround is that they cut spending from a high of 53% of GDP in 1993 to a low of just under 40% by 2008. Today it's around 44% due to the recession.
At the Canadian federal level, they cut capital gains taxes twice, down to 14.5% today. A series of corporate tax rate cuts beginning in 2001 have seen rates cut from 28% down to 15%. Many provinces have followed suit by cutting both corporate and personal income taxes on top of that. If this is wrong, please provide a link that contradicts what I said. And notice that they cut spending first.
You say it's about ideology, I say it's about what works and what is economically effective. I don't give a damn about what's fair, I care about doing whatever is the most optimal way to get this economy revived and creating jobs. IMHO, sucking money out of the major investors who provide capital to startup or expand is hardly optimal. They'll put their money elsewhere, as they have been for a few years now.
The Canadian government raised taxes in the mid-90s, but most of the pain was on the spending side. There was absolutely no way the Liberal party would have been able to push through a fiscal adjustment entirely on the spending side. They lowered taxes once they started running surpluses and paying off the debt. But Canadians are still more "socialist" than Americans.
And that's what we should do here. Focus primarily on the spending side but also raise taxes. If we have to do that by flattening the tax structure and getting rid of loopholes, fine, that works. But we have to take from the revenue side as well. I say 75% spending and 25% tax increases, but if you want to do 80/20 or thereabouts, that works for me. But to say it all must be one way, that's not serious. Or if it is, take it to the people and tell them you are going to cut SS and medicare and defense. And if they give you a mandate to do it that way, fine. But that's not the mandate the people have given the government. That's why the intransigent ideologues are the problem.
We will get out of this hole. We just have to start being responsible. And eventually, we will.
"You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill.
If you only cut spending by say 225 trillion, you haven't really addressed the underlying problem we have, which is the entitlements. There's no getting around it, you can trim around the edges and use all kinds of accounting tricks, but those programs are going bust and must be reformed. And no amount of tax hikes is going to change that. Wehave a spending problem, we're spending too much and wasting a lot of it. Talk to me about raising taxes after the gov't starts spending our money more wisely.
I'm beginning to look beyond Obama. President Romney? President Perry?
You think. I don't trust the right wing with a Republican President. Divided government in the only way to go with both parties dominated by extremes.
This is an unusual time. President Romney, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell all facing each other in 2013? Wouldn't surprise me.
There has to be a better way to reduce costs than another government entitlement program...we just can't afford it.
What we can't afford is to spend 1.8 times any other country on health care especially when we are spending something like 2X on defense.
I agree, we can't afford either of those two options, a new entitlement or the status quo.
So we must find a third option.
Remember when the president suddenly offered the Republicans a grand bargain on deficit reduction and put entitlements on the table if the Republicans would only consider eliminating tax loopholes for private jet owners and other millionaires? Remember how so many progressives howled about the betrayal? Imagine what the world would like today if the president had not taken that step.
You have probably been subjected to an endless litany from progressives that this was all a fake crisis and that we don't really have a debt problem. That was never true. We do have a debt problem. We have a debt problem because Standard & Poor has come to the conclusion that we'll never be able to raise revenues. The Republicans' ideology has ruined our credit rating. The president could have been blamed for this downgrade if he hadn't shown a willingness to put entitlements on the table. In that case, both sides would be equally to blame. But the president wisely took the necessary action to protect our credit rating, and he was rebuffed when Eric Cantor and then John Boehner walked out of the negotiations.
I'm not a Canadian so I'm not going to argue the point, but the story that I've read about the Canadian turnaround is that they cut spending from a high of 53% of GDP in 1993 to a low of just under 40% by 2008. Today it's around 44% due to the recession.
At the Canadian federal level, they cut capital gains taxes twice, down to 14.5% today. A series of corporate tax rate cuts beginning in 2001 have seen rates cut from 28% down to 15%. Many provinces have followed suit by cutting both corporate and personal income taxes on top of that. If this is wrong, please provide a link that contradicts what I said. And notice that they cut spending first.
You say it's about ideology, I say it's about what works and what is economically effective. I don't give a damn about what's fair, I care about doing whatever is the most optimal way to get this economy revived and creating jobs. IMHO, sucking money out of the major investors who provide capital to startup or expand is hardly optimal. They'll put their money elsewhere, as they have been for a few years now.
I would be willing to be taxed at the rate I was taxed under Clinton.Anyone who believes there should be higher taxes should be taxed at least 10% more than they currently pay...
I've found that most people who are for higher taxes are for other people to pay them...
The government takes in enough - it needs to learn how to live within that...
I would be willing to be taxed at the rate I was taxed under Clinton.Anyone who believes there should be higher taxes should be taxed at least 10% more than they currently pay...
I've found that most people who are for higher taxes are for other people to pay them...
The government takes in enough - it needs to learn how to live within that...
I have no problem sacrificing for my country, because in the end, it benefits me.
I would be willing to be taxed at the rate I was taxed under Clinton.Anyone who believes there should be higher taxes should be taxed at least 10% more than they currently pay...
I've found that most people who are for higher taxes are for other people to pay them...
The government takes in enough - it needs to learn how to live within that...
I have no problem sacrificing for my country, because in the end, it benefits me.
So we were downgraded because we spend too much. Does this really shock anyone?
I would be willing to be taxed at the rate I was taxed under Clinton.Anyone who believes there should be higher taxes should be taxed at least 10% more than they currently pay...
I've found that most people who are for higher taxes are for other people to pay them...
The government takes in enough - it needs to learn how to live within that...
I have no problem sacrificing for my country, because in the end, it benefits me.
You do know you can send in more than you owe now, don't you?
You do know that if you're owed a refund on your taxes, you can change that amount to zero, right?
Do you do these things now?
You can, you know...
I would be willing to be taxed at the rate I was taxed under Clinton.
I have no problem sacrificing for my country, because in the end, it benefits me.
You do know you can send in more than you owe now, don't you?
You do know that if you're owed a refund on your taxes, you can change that amount to zero, right?
Do you do these things now?
You can, you know...
You assume that they even pay taxes
Republican Ideology, Not Obama, Ruined our Credit Rating
Remember when the president suddenly offered the Republicans a grand bargain on deficit reduction and put entitlements on the table if the Republicans would only consider eliminating tax loopholes for private jet owners and other millionaires? Remember how so many progressives howled about the betrayal? Imagine what the world would like today if the president had not taken that step.
You have probably been subjected to an endless litany from progressives that this was all a fake crisis and that we don't really have a debt problem. That was never true. We do have a debt problem. We have a debt problem because Standard & Poor has come to the conclusion that we'll never be able to raise revenues. The Republicans' ideology has ruined our credit rating. The president could have been blamed for this downgrade if he hadn't shown a willingness to put entitlements on the table. In that case, both sides would be equally to blame. But the president wisely took the necessary action to protect our credit rating, and he was rebuffed when Eric Cantor and then John Boehner walked out of the negotiations.
Republican Ideology, Not Obama, Ruined our Credit Rating | AlterNet
