Debt Ceiling

Sandy Clark

0 posts

8/8/2011 9:08 AM

The debt turned out to be the big issue and the dem talking heads are trying to blame the tea party. If I recall, it was only because of the efforts of the tea party that cuts in spending even came up! Well, at 65 years old, it looks like my IRA and 401-K are going on another joy ride and not for the good. My forecast 72 as a retirement age may have just been extended to 80!

Wahlin Scott B

8/8/2011 10:08 AM

We have known long before Obama came on the scene that we have a problem with spending. Obama discussed it before becoming president, but only Tea Partiers wanted to do it while faced with a grinding recession. Making a big deal out of raising the debt ceiling especially in light of the history of it was strictly a play to the Tea Party.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

8/8/2011 10:08 AM

jkauffm1 said:
Grosenthal said: I don't want to get into the middle of a dog fight but government both local and federal create lots of jobs. Civil servants positions are jobs and pay taxes. Government's bid out contracts to do work on roads, infrastructure, support our troops, support Federal infrastructure, building development of our infrastrucutre like dams, bridges and much more. Without this our country would not work. I will not need to provide proof as it is all around you, some of you may even be public employees, I have been. Parks both national regional local for instance have golf courses, most of which are self sustaining or profitable supporting other less profitable park enterprise facilities. You are arguing about the wrong point. Governments do their part to produce and stimulate jobs, but it is not their job to support and stimulate the economy by itself. It is just a part of the economic mechanism of our capitalist society......Think about it do not argue, be nice to each other...peace is in every step.....

What I was trying to get at with all my longer posts is not that governments don't employ people -- you have given us lots of examples on how governments do have employees. But, I'm talking about delving deeper, going beyond the surface, and determining if the government actually created a job where there would not have been one otherwise. The bottom line is that the government doesn't create wealth and doesn't create jobs. It DOES employ people, but it does it using wealth it confiscated from others -- from people who could have used it to build wealth, invest, and create jobs. The government doesn't add new jobs to the economy -- it takes wealth out of the economy's left-hand pocket and puts it in the right-hand pocket, losing some to bureaucratic inefficiencies along the way, thus producing a negative ROI.

I don't disagree that the government plays a vital role in our economy, which is part of the reason I oppose a federal balanced budget amendment. But, let's not confuse this role with the accounting of job creation. An entity that has no money of its own (remember, the government belongs to the people) can not create jobs. It can redistribute the welath of others and use it to employ people, but it can not create jobs. See the previous posts for more detailed discussion.

Around our city hall and county courthouse, there is a coffee and bicycle shop, some diners, sandwich shops, a subway, bail bonds, a couple of gas stations, etc. all small businesses.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Sean Hoolehan

0 posts

8/8/2011 2:08 PM

wahlins said: We have known long before Obama came on the scene that we have a problem with spending. Obama discussed it before becoming president, but only Tea Partiers wanted to do it while faced with a grinding recession. Making a big deal out of raising the debt ceiling especially in light of the history of it was strictly a play to the Tea Party.

Since Obama has been President federal spending has increased 28%. It seems our spending problem got worse. The debt limit deal was a compromise by both parties. 1 year from now should be pretty interesting. I can not see how Obama can hold onto his position without a economic recovery. The silver lining is maybe his stimulus will start to deliver.

Wahlin Scott B

8/8/2011 2:08 PM

Hoolehan said:
wahlins said: We have known long before Obama came on the scene that we have a problem with spending. Obama discussed it before becoming president, but only Tea Partiers wanted to do it while faced with a grinding recession. Making a big deal out of raising the debt ceiling especially in light of the history of it was strictly a play to the Tea Party.

Since Obama has been President federal spending has increased 28%. It seems our spending problem got worse. The debt limit deal was a compromise by both parties. 1 year from now should be pretty interesting. I can not see how Obama can hold onto his position without a economic recovery. The silver lining is maybe his stimulus will start to deliver.

Do you have a footnote for this?

Wahlin Scott B

8/8/2011 3:08 PM

[img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/mb01.jpg[/img">

Keith Lamb

3 posts

8/8/2011 5:08 PM

Scott, you're just creeping me out now.

Wahlin Scott B

8/8/2011 5:08 PM

alohakane said: Scott, you're just creeping me out now.

[youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIvH2dPolsM[/youtube">

Ronald Kirkman

42 posts

8/8/2011 9:08 PM

JK,

I understand your posts as I'm sure many on the forum do. You are up against a LIBERAL in Scott, so you don't have much of a chance. So, relax and hopefully this mindless leader we have as president will be voted out of office in November of 2012. Remember, the TEA PARTY is the cause of the AA+ rating and probably the cause of all the problems in the country. However, I think the 3 biggest problems in the country are Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Also remember, Obama does not want to cut any more and he wants to raise taxes. He caused the market to really go down today in his speech.

Peter Bowman

11 posts

8/8/2011 10:08 PM

wahlins said: [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/mb01.jpg[/img">

Great choice of sources, Scott. You consistently stoop to new lows.

Is that the same Newsweek that sold for a dollar a couple months back? New owner might get 73 cents now, if he's lucky.

Clay Putnam

33 posts

8/9/2011 12:08 AM

wahlins said: [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/mb01.jpg[/img">

Newsweek is getting slammed by it's own peers for this cover. It's not that difficult to figure out why it sold for buck. I think the Enquirer has more street cred nowadays.

Sandy Clark

0 posts

8/9/2011 9:08 AM

When the NOW gang sticks up for Bachman and how Newsweek portrays her, you know the magazine has stepped over the line. When was the last time NOW ever stuck up for any conservative female? If you don't buy 100% into abortion, NOW pretty well things you are a caveman!

McCallum David K

8/9/2011 10:08 AM

Ooooooooooooops...........tell us how you really feel Ron. I just hope he stops making speeches...everytime he talks the market tanks more...............yes they actually graph that stuff Scott....he talks the market goes south.

I would love one time for him to say......."you know we are part of the problem too, maybe our choices have not been the best for the country"..............he's like a 6 year old blaming his little brother for everthing that happens.............it's never my fault.......blame Bush

Wahlin Scott B

8/9/2011 10:08 AM

I apologize for posting the Newsweek Cover. I have never read to magazine to know their political leanings and just assumed MB was okay with the photo.

Clay Putnam

33 posts

8/10/2011 4:08 AM

jkauffm1 said:
wahlins said:

JK, You completely failed to justify your opinion that government does not create jobs that increase the wealth of our country. In fact, your premise is asinine considering that without our government and it's employees the world would all be speaking German now.

Scott, we must not be participating in the same conversation, because I have not once taken ANY kind of position regarding desirability of the government, its services, or its employees -- I have remained completely neutral on the benefit of the government. If you think otherwise, plese post your proof for all to see. We're not debating the benefit of government here (although we can, I suppose). Here, we're debating your belief that the government can create jobs. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have government, which is wy I don't understand your reference to WWII -- I never said that we shouldn't have government. I only said that, economically, it doesn't create jobs.

Its not impossible that I didn't make a good argument for my case, but I think I presented enough information to at least give a framework to back up my position. But, you haven't once presented any information backing up your position. If you think that the government creates jobs, please tell us why. If you tell me why you believe the way you do and explain to me how it works, maybe I can switch and support your position. But, at this point, you have provided no explanation for your position.
.

It got awfully quite in here.

Ronald Conard

4 posts

8/10/2011 10:08 AM

Sorry guys. I was just double checking the forum filters.

McCallum David K

8/10/2011 11:08 AM

Just glad I was next in line Ron and got to see it. Apparently they work.

Peter Bowman

11 posts

8/17/2011 11:08 PM

This fom an email I received from a relative...

[u">Federal Budget in Understandable Terms[/u">

For current fiscal year:

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $ 3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

[u">Let's think about these numbers in easy terms, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's your household budget.[/u">

Annual family income: $21,700.
Money the family spent: $38,200.
New debt on the credit card: $16,500.
Previous balance on the credit card: $142,710.
Total budget cuts: $385.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

8/18/2011 9:08 AM

Pete,

as sad as it sounds there are households out there probably like that. Not that it's ideal. I wonder how many business's might be like that when they are trying to expand. It all goes back to compromising on what we cut and what are we spending money on, what is the return on investment.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

McCallum David K

8/22/2011 1:08 PM

Excellent post (analogy) Pete and unfortunately all to true I think. Many households and our government living way above our means. An excellent commentary on the inside cover of Club & Resort Business by the publisher MR. William Donohue. Like your post, his letter makes a perfect analogy of how our federal government operates and puts it into a country club setting.

If as Pelosi and others in the administration keep saying that for every $1 of unemployment benefit someone receives or other government handout (food stamps) it turns into $1.72 why do we not simply print enough money at one time to cover our debt and we will end up with a surplus and our worries will be over. As the professor from Maine said..........its as simple as a computer keystroke.

Their theory is much like the French economist of the 1850's or 60's (his name escapes me)......the Broken Window Theory of economics. If someone breaks the window of a business it's actually good fortune as the glass man gets to replace the window...........ta da...........a transfer of money. Good for the economy right? Not really what if the business man was going to buy more goods to sell, or upgrade his store and now does not have the money to do so......perhaps even laying off an employee. For every $100 the government takes from a 100,000 citizens to do something for the "good of the community"...build a new road for instance that perhaps only benefits 1000 citizens. Would the $10,000,000 have been better spent, benefiting a wider swath of the local economy by keeping it in the hands of the citizens and let them decide the best use for it.....spend it, save it........your choice.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

8/22/2011 1:08 PM

McCallum said: For every $100 the government takes from a 100,000 citizens to do something for the "good of the community"...build a new road for instance that perhaps only benefits 1000 citizens. Would the $10,000,000 have been better spent, benefiting a wider swath of the local economy by keeping it in the hands of the citizens and let them decide the best use for it.....spend it, save it........your choice.

Dave, I like much of your analogy but me as a private citizen is not going to pay for a new road or repaving of an existing road. That is unless a toll booth is put up on it. It is in this instance that I would prefer to pay some taxes because I and others the common good will all benefit from it. The only instance that business might pay for new is when they are building a new building, they will pay for infrastructure improvements but usually when that is done, it is either a tax break or a CID where some of the tax money or a little bit higher sales tax goes to pay for the improvement. I don't think that is a bad thing, the people that use the infrastructure to get to that business helps pay for the improvement. The problem with government spending in my opinion is how projects and money decides to get spent, not by the greatest need or return on investment but by who needs a favor. This would all be a good debate issue, of course we don't debate anymore, one side is right (or should I say correct) and one side is wrong.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

McCallum David K

8/25/2011 1:08 PM

Mel,
At some point some common sense has to be used. I am not only talking about in Washington DC but in America. We continually send these same men and women back and wonder why nothing changes. It's the definition of insanity and we are the crazy ones cause we keep doing it. They laugh all the way back to Washington each election cycle.

Common sense is needed in taxes as well as the debt ceiling. We just can;t keep raising it each time we near it again. If Mel comes home today from the golf course and finds the sewer has back up in your house a foot from the ceiling...........what's Mel going to do.......call a carpenter to raise the ceiling or pump out the damn crap? I think common sense would prevail..........or hope so for your families sake.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

8/25/2011 2:08 PM

David,

I agree about the taxes issue to a point, the country is having trouble yet we haven't raised taxes we have cut them. Yet on the local and state level, in some instances taxes are getting raised, usually in the form of a sales tax. In the past couple of years sales taxes in our area has been about 50-50. Last year a sales tax for 5 years or if needed longer, was passed to bail out our police and fire pension fund. In order for that to get passes changes were made in regards to new hires. 5 years ago a sales tax was extended and upped for parks, with a portion to go to storm water, this year that renewal won't be put on the ballot, yet the storm water problems will continue. We regularly renew our CIP projects sales tax, we'll see how that goes when it comes up for renewal, but people support the work done with it. When we have had new shopping stores come in a CID is usually attached which is higher sales tax in that area for 30 years to help pay off the infrastructure improvements, despite the higher sales tax and the option to go shop elsewhere, the company will still build it's store knowing that people will shop there. (this last example tells me that taxes do not kill jobs or why would they go ahead and build?)

I am with you 100% on our election habits, we are the fools getting suckered by the politicians, and then we don't hold them responsible, just keep voting R's or D's.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Wahlin Scott B

8/25/2011 2:08 PM

Sales taxes are very regressive taxes meaning they tax the middle class and poor much more than they tax the rich. The first spend their money and the latter hoard theirs. Tax the rich the same as the middle class and our problems are solved. If some must see that as "punishment" then so be it.

Kauffman John M

8/25/2011 3:08 PM

I'm not convinced that sales taxes impact the poor or middle class more than the rich. You will never pay more of your income in taxes than the tax rate, since money is finite. meaning that if your sales tax is 10%, you will never pay more than 10% of your income in taxes (assuming this is the only tax levied). You could reduce your tax burden by buying less, but there is no value in dodging sales tax by using less money. The point of avoiding a tax is to have more money with which to buy something. If you are taxed at the point of sale, what good is it to try to save money and avoid the tax -- you will just pay the tax when you want to use the savings.

The sales tax seems like it would be a perfect fit for Obama. He has complained for years about corporate jets, expensive cars, and extravagant vacations and lifestyles. All those things must be bought, so it woudl stand to reason that Obama would like the national sales tax, since it taxes all the things that rich people can do with their money.

Just to throw a wrench in things, let's consider this:

Taxes have often been used to promote or discourage behaviors. Taxes are increased on cigarettes to discourage smoking. Tariffs (taxes) have been levied on foreign products to encourage domestic pruchase and discourage foreign purchase. The governmetn allows you to deduct mortgage interest from your income tax liability, encouraging you to buy a house. The governmetn also allows you to deduct student loan interest, encouraging you to buy an education.

We have empirical evidence that levying a tax on income drives incomes to be lower when possible, such as those who can choose when to recognize income. If we tax sales, would the same trand for incomr apply and drive sales lower?

Wahlin Scott B

8/25/2011 5:08 PM

jkauffm1 said: I'm not convinced that sales taxes impact the poor or middle class more than the rich. You will never pay more of your income in taxes than the tax rate, since money is finite. meaning that if your sales tax is 10%, you will never pay more than 10% of your income in taxes (assuming this is the only tax levied). You could reduce your tax burden by buying less, but there is no value in dodging sales tax by using less money. The point of avoiding a tax is to have more money with which to buy something. If you are taxed at the point of sale, what good is it to try to save money and avoid the tax -- you will just pay the tax when you want to use the savings.

The sales tax seems like it would be a perfect fit for Obama. He has complained for years about corporate jets, expensive cars, and extravagant vacations and lifestyles. All those things must be bought, so it woudl stand to reason that Obama would like the national sales tax, since it taxes all the things that rich people can do with their money.

Just to throw a wrench in things, let's consider this:

Taxes have often been used to promote or discourage behaviors. Taxes are increased on cigarettes to discourage smoking. Tariffs (taxes) have been levied on foreign products to encourage domestic pruchase and discourage foreign purchase. The governmetn allows you to deduct mortgage interest from your income tax liability, encouraging you to buy a house. The governmetn also allows you to deduct student loan interest, encouraging you to buy an education.

We have empirical evidence that levying a tax on income drives incomes to be lower when possible, such as those who can choose when to recognize income. If we tax sales, would the same trand for incomr apply and drive sales lower?

What color is the sky on a clear day? (Just checking!)

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

8/25/2011 9:08 PM

JK, all the comments that deal with the impact of sales tax on the poor and rich mostly deal with looking at the basic necessities such as food and clothing. It is basically looking at the percentage of one's income spent on sales taxes. Say for fun, the average family spends $6,000 on groceries, if one family has one person making $10 an hour this comes out to 28% of their income. While the guy making $15 an hour spends only 19% of their income on groceries. Of course we are really just looking at sales taxes, 5% of 6,000 is only $300 where maybe 7% is $420. But for those making those wages $120 could be a fair amount of money. Not that I have a problem with that, it is dictated on what people buy, I want to save money I buy the cheaper stuff. And one hopes that sales taxes are being used to better the community. But I believe the problem with relying just on a sales tax, because of the basic necessities it takes more of their salaries then those making more. You are also hoping that those making more money buy more things, thus making more on sales taxes....but how many TV's are they going to buy? How many cars? And what happens if prescriptions have sales taxes on them....with our health issues that would be a killer. I think there still needs to be income taxes, now the discussion can begin on percentages, brackets etc. That's just my opinion.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Wahlin Scott B

9/1/2011 3:09 PM

[youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-pCoG6hDY8[/youtube">

Forum Groups

Debt Ceiling Cancel

Forum Groups

Debt Ceiling Cancel The title field is required!

Debt Ceiling Cancel