What's in it for the American people?

Hopefully, it will be an incentive to save instead of spending. It will be a flat tax of some kind on consumption maybe with a monthly prebate for those below the average yearly income level which is ~$50k.

We are sick and tired of being forced to pay taxes with the belief that no matter who wins the election, our voices are not heard and our money is wasted on agendas we did not ask for. This way if Washington does not do what we want, we can choose to not pay them. Politicians vote what they think is best for us and not we we actually want. Enough is enough. And they will be continually kicked out of office until the government becomes more fiscally responsible.

ND, I think you're exactly right.

In a horrible economy, you CANNOT start raising taxes, dramatically. OTOH, if you take a knife to the federal budget, and start firing folks in the govt, you also have a negative effect on the economy. Both sides are right, both political parties are wrong.

A sensible approach right now, is to extend the Bush tax cuts 2 more years, and "see what happens". In the meantime, let the fed continue to nurse along the economy. Congress should work hard to create incentives to start new business, hire workers, and spend capital on equipment.

The best time to fully work on income/expenses, is when the dust settles a bit. Much like a portfolio, making drastic changes during times of volatility, almost always leads to good intentions gone bad results.

Well said, guys. With the fed printing money, and being a consumer economy, we are going to have to just spend, inflate and grow our way out of this mess, and let the chips fall where they may. The government cutting will come, a dem was elected governor in my state and I think that's fine, let the dem cut the dem government workers.

Most of this has been about jockeying for position on the taxation and regulation side, and the short term threat is reduced.

(duplicate).

Personal outstanding consumer debt has dropped, delinquincies have fallen 18% (does not take into account mortgage payments, of course). One argument being made about why this economy has slowed down despite the efforts of the fed is because people are saving. 10% can't save because they are unemployed. Those that are employed have seen their salaries drop, particularly in the tech industry. People have been working very hard to cut personal spending. Those stimilus checks that arrived in mailboxes? Not a budge. Consumer debt went down, though! another point is if you're stretched, financially, due to loss of job or what have you, how can you expect to save? Sell your home? Uhhh..

I have another question for you all. Even if the we cuts taxes, let's be honest; some of these earnings have been record breaking while unemployment stays steady. Is it not apparent that companies do not feel the need to help with jobs when they can make profit with less overhead?

I'm much more interested to see what happens with jobs. I think when that's in play, that would be the best time to fully work on income/expenses. I hear what you guys are saying, though.

Job creation is only driven by real demand. That is a problem, from what you say.

Extending Bush tax cuts is about trying to hold up demand for the middle earners, and will just make the rich richer. That is invevitable, it won't do anything to create real demand.

[quote=BondGuy]

Ana, i agree with you on the emotional response of voters.

Boehner is a tough guy that wrote the repub partisan rule book in the nineties, so, expect no less from him than no compromise.

The repubs only want to undo the cost controls of the healthcare bill, which leaves room for compromise.

The repubs can no longer sit on their hands. If change doesn't happen now after this election, they'll own it.

The debate is over whether obama failed on policy or process. Probably both. He promised to change the way DC did business and instead became Pelosi's bitch. Going forward, expect to see a very different prez. One like Reagan in 84 or Clinton in 94. Both of whom recieved eerily similar rebukes two years in. If that doesn't happen, Obama finishes out the term and rides in to the history books.

On a positive Obama note, with life for most on this board, pretty damn good, It is easy to discount the bag of shit Obama was handed as he came into office. The guy, while alienating the repubs and conservatives has done a really good job of stabilizing the economy. And, unlike those on mainstreet who can be tricked by the campaign rhetoric, we know the truth that, that was no small task.

As for tax cuts not increasing deficits, lets see: Not the case when Ronnie wrote the White Paper on deficit spending in the eighties. Bush 1 paid the political price for Reagan's flawed tax policy. And, didn't work during the boom economy for Bush 2 from 2002 to 2007. Both cases saw deficits soar. Again, you can try this at home by cutting your income below your expenses and see what happens to your debt. going an extra step and cutting your expenses sounds good but only works if those expenses are cut to less than your income.

Applying this simple financial concept to the republican's proposed cuts seems lost on them. While we are already a trillion dollars in the hole on the budget, they are proposing 100 billion in cuts next year. This while at the same time proposing no increase in revs. In fact they want to cut revs. I leave the math to you, but if you question how we got to 13 trillion in national debt, well, there's your answer. 

[/quote]

Unbelievable.  This is the fundamental difference in how Democrats and Republicans view your money.  A man earns $100 of which he sends $35 to the federal government and keeps $65.  Conservatives see this as $35 in revenue, while liberals see this as a $65 expense, an expense that if not reduced to $60 will add $700billion to the national debt.  Welcome to Amerika where you should be happy with what your  government lets you keep if some politician (who will vote himself a pay raise and spend your money on stupid crap as long as it gets him votes) decides you can.

Spending creates deficits.  I am not saying that overspending is a disease limited to one party, both parties are infected.  However, as I illustrated in the "The way we were" thread, liberals have certainly earned their reputations as big spenders.

BTW, federal tax receipts went up after Bush cut taxes.  How on earth is that possible?  Must be voodoo. 

[quote=BondGuy]

Big, i think you've got it nailed. We'll see if either side gets religion and drops the partison BS. The messege is clear, people want this mess cleaned up. Both parties are going to have to work together to get that done. The clock is ticking. And you can bet Bill Clinton got a call last night from the big guy asking "Now what?"

[/quote]

Bill!!!

jesus christ

Bill  damnit

BiLl, get over here and watch this

man

look at that...................

SOB  did you hear what he just said?

Damnit Honey.

DID HE JUST SAY THAT?       THIS IDIOT BELEIVES ALL OF HIS BS

MAN

HOW THE FUKC DID I EVER LOSE TO THIS MF TOOL?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Personal outstanding consumer debt has dropped, delinquincies have fallen 18% (does not take into account mortgage payments, of course). One argument being made about why this economy has slowed down despite the efforts of the fed is because people are saving. 10% can't save because they are unemployed. Those that are employed have seen their salaries drop, particularly in the tech industry. People have been working very hard to cut personal spending. Those stimilus checks that arrived in mailboxes? Not a budge. Consumer debt went down, though! another point is if you're stretched, financially, due to loss of job or what have you, how can you expect to save? Sell your home? Uhhh..

I have another question for you all. Even if the we cuts taxes, let's be honest; some of these earnings have been record breaking while unemployment stays steady. Is it not apparent that companies do not feel the need to help with jobs when they can make profit with less overhead?

I'm much more interested to see what happens with jobs. I think when that's in play, that would be the best time to fully work on income/expenses. I hear what you guys are saying, though.

[/quote]

First and foremost, companies have no obligation to help with job creation. They exist only to make money for their shareholders/owners. In the event that they take an operational loss such as introducing 'New Coke' or Smith and Wesson introducing a Mountain Bike line, do the employees volunteer to take 25% pay reductions? The risk of failure is the opposite side of the reward for success. From a practical standpoint it's in the business' best interest to create a desire for people to want to work there so they provide benefits and profit shareing etc. That is just a product of self-serving decisions made in what is thought to be in the companies best interest. That is exactly how it should work.

Job creation is quite related to this governmental idea of Keynsian economics. However the government has it wrong. Keynesian economics (I'll refer to it as KE from here on) is a debateable concept. The theory has limitations and possibilities. Despite where you weigh in on the theory, you have to accept one given which both sides must agree upon. That given is that KE presupposes that the money the government spends is spent in a worthwhile way. Government hasn't accomplished worthwhile spending. Even if KE works in theory, it can't work in application without spending worthwhile.

A second point about how job creation is tied to KE is how government policy affects aggregate demand. Demand is a function of future expectations. If you expect there to be inflation in the future you will spend more readily now. If you expect deflation you will save more readily now. Uncertainty in the future clouds expectations. Clouded expectations reduce aggregate demand (i.e. paralysis to make decisions). Government should not cloud the future. Unfortunately all this government has been able to do is make the future more uncertain (more looming regulation that isn't clear, potentially higher or lower tax rates on wages, no clarity on future estate taxes, etc). Jobs are clearly a huge function of policy, and that policy has failed to deliver what is needed.

That is the referrendum on Obama and the Dems more than anything else.

deleted, double post