Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Austerity V. Government Spending/Investment

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:26:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Which will start to pay the debt faster? Which will improve the economy faster and more permanently? Which will do a better job of helping us gain/preserve our freedom?
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 8:14:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Austerity may pay down the debt faster, but it will slow the recovery (there's two sides to that coin). We're in a global financial crisis. The last thing we should do is strip social safety nets which keep families afloat, in addition to making cuts to social security programs, which people have payed into. Austerity measures haven't worked in Europe. Point in fact, they've been detrimental, as much of Europe has gone through a double-dip recession, and some even teetering on triple-dip.

If you want to pay down the debt without harming the economy, the tax rates on the upper income brackets have to revert to their 90s levels.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 8:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:14:09 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

If you want to pay down the debt without harming the economy, the tax rates on the upper income brackets have to revert to their 90s levels.

I'm guessing the rich have a few trillion they'd be willing to dish out.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 8:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:21:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:09 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

If you want to pay down the debt without harming the economy, the tax rates on the upper income brackets have to revert to their 90s levels.

I'm guessing the rich have a few trillion they'd be willing to dish out.

No one's asking them to shell out a few trillion all at once to pay it own. Truthfully, it's not that serious of a problem at the moment. Most countries regularly maintain a level of debt, and said debt commonly explodes under recessions. The first thing to do is to have a full recovery with a growing GDP. As for the rich, merely altering the tax code to revert back to 90s levels for income levels over $250,000 is projected to raise a little under $1 trillion in 10 years. If you're serious about the debt, and don't want to harm economic recovery, this is what you have to do.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 8:29:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:24:11 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:21:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:09 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

If you want to pay down the debt without harming the economy, the tax rates on the upper income brackets have to revert to their 90s levels.

I'm guessing the rich have a few trillion they'd be willing to dish out.

No one's asking them to shell out a few trillion all at once to pay it own. Truthfully, it's not that serious of a problem at the moment. Most countries regularly maintain a level of debt, and said debt commonly explodes under recessions.

The U.S. has an insane debt to GDP ratio.

The first thing to do is to have a full recovery with a growing GDP. As for the rich, merely altering the tax code to revert back to 90s levels for income levels over $250,000 is projected to raise a little under $1 trillion in 10 years. If you're serious about the debt, and don't want to harm economic recovery, this is what you have to do.

Not really. I don't want to sound like a broken record but taxing wealth doesn't improve the economy. It might pay down the debt but without a coherent plan for major expenditure reduction, it really amounts to nothing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 9:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 8:29:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:24:11 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:21:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:09 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

If you want to pay down the debt without harming the economy, the tax rates on the upper income brackets have to revert to their 90s levels.

I'm guessing the rich have a few trillion they'd be willing to dish out.

No one's asking them to shell out a few trillion all at once to pay it own. Truthfully, it's not that serious of a problem at the moment. Most countries regularly maintain a level of debt, and said debt commonly explodes under recessions.

The U.S. has an insane debt to GDP ratio.

It's not an issue right now. Most countries maintain a high debt, even in peace times. Further, the debt usually explodes during recessions and depressions. It's nothing we haven't had before, and it's not something we won't recover from. We need an economic recovery before we can worry about economic debt. Fact is, the interest on the debt is presently at historic lows. It's just not an issue right now.

The first thing to do is to have a full recovery with a growing GDP. As for the rich, merely altering the tax code to revert back to 90s levels for income levels over $250,000 is projected to raise a little under $1 trillion in 10 years. If you're serious about the debt, and don't want to harm economic recovery, this is what you have to do.

Not really. I don't want to sound like a broken record but taxing wealth doesn't improve the economy. It might pay down the debt but without a coherent plan for major expenditure reduction, it really amounts to nothing.


I never claimed that taxing the wealthy improves the economy. I claimed that taxing the wealthy reduces the debt without harming economic recovery.