/sci/ - Science & Math

http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream1

because SOCIALISM TERRORISTS MEXICANS IMMIGRANTS COMMUNISM HOMOSEXUALS THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEEEDOM

cuz itll just trickle down xd

>>3707978
>How fucking hard can it be to just TAX THE FUCKING RICH A FEW PERCENT MORE?

incredibly hard because we only have two parties and one is determined to run the country into the groud to prove the government doesn't work

>>3707978
if they want to pay more taxes, they are free to do so

and yet, they don't

oh, and fuck you

A little off topic but this question has been bugging me.

What exactly can we blame Obama for?
Can we blame the depression on him?
Can we blame our debt on him?


Aren't there other people who are more at fault?


I'm not going to lie. I don't know much about politics. But it seems like Obama is getting a lot of shit. I just want to know if there is real basis behind him getting that amount of shit.

because corporatocracy.

lol at people thinking they actually control their own country

if billionaires really cared, they would start their own projects to fix our country without going through the govt middle-man

but they don't give a shit. enjoy living a destitute and futile life

how do they want us to be competitive with china in production, if they keep raising minimum wage?

>>3708005

>Dat feel when I'm working part time jobs to pay for college
>Dat feel when minimum wage is increased

> They WANT TO PAY. Many billionaires said they don't even fucking need the money, they'd be happy to pay more.

> Implying the US government doesn't accept donations.

Confirmed for ignorant retard who bizarrely assumes he has the capacity to discuss issues such as these.

>>3707989

Along those lines.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

>>3708015
>that feel when increasing minimum wage decreases available jobs and increases inflation

>>3707991
Honestly, there isn't.
The amount of complete bullshit that gets pinned on him astounds me, and I don't even support him. All of the biggest criticisms of him are total underhanded fucking bullshit. That birth certificate shit, the way they spun that story of "Obama's shutting down the space program!" when the reality was that HIS actions were far more beneficial towards NASA's future and funding, and research science in general...

It's all fucking unbelievable. He's been the target of a mind-boggling smear-campaign.

The only valid criticism of him that I can see is that he hasn't done fuck-all because he's so busy trying to save face towards everyone.

>TAX THE FUCKING RICH A FEW PERCENT MORE
>mfw everybody in this thread have no understanding of economics

>>3708015
Enjoy your inflated wage

>>3708020
exactly. let's post it so OP can tell the billionaires where to send their checks:

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

>>3708026
you give a lot of credit to the man who is trying to invent "leading from behind"

>>3708033
>>3708020
>>3708018
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_small_decisions

>>3708038
what the fuck are you talking about, dickbrain?
you are saying that billionaires giving donating their wealth to stimulating the economy or paying down the debt is a myopic decision that will have a negative effect?
typical scifag, linking to wiki articles for concepts he patently doesn't understand.

>>3708035
>implying I gave him any credit
I just didn't give him the negative credit of HURR DURR HE'S AN ISLAM FROM NIGERIA; a bit of spectacular idiocy that the white house actually had to WASTE TIME ADDRESSING.

It's unbelievable the shit he's had to put up with.

I don't give him credit for fuckall besides having a benevolent disposition towards scientific research and being charismatic.

Beyond that, to my knowledge he's been a complete failure as a president. However, that's largely BECAUSE of all this insane shit that's been thrown at him.

>>3708050
That is the only interpretation possible, so of course.

Lot of freshman econ going on in this thread.

>>3708055
paying down the debt is a bad thing?
brilliant.

>>3708066
Thank you.

Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in America, on taxation:

"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

the especially funny/sad thing is it wouldn't necessarily be an increase as there's a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans in place, *removing* that would bring taxes closer to *normal* but still that doesn't go through

Taxing the rich would do nothing because there are so few ultra rich. It would add a few billion or so into the system and that would quickly get enveloped by the TRILLIONS the government has to spend every year. Even if their tax rate was 50% of total income, it would be virtually nothing. People like Warren Buffett are wrong on this subject.

If you have managed to jump through enough loopholes to get a huge amount of income, there's no reason the government needs to take a chunk of it. What we need to do in America is drastically reduce the cost of living so that people who are forced to work on the minimum wage can survive. Or conversely increase the minimum wage. I'm thinking of moving to Australia because the minimum wage there is fifteen dollars. I'm pretty sure the reason my life sucks is because the state of Florida is making damn sure I don't have enough money to be happy. Fucking senior citizens.

>>3707988
I keep hearing this but, as much as I'd like to believe they're incompetent, I don't see how getting people to think the government doesn't work will help people in the government, is there some twisted reasoning I'm not aware of?
>>3707989
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way-- I think they're only "taxes" if they're mandated and collected, what you're talking about would be donations, and I don't think you can donate to the US government.

>>3708072
warren buffet is shown to be full of shit for the following reason- he is free to donate his money to the US government, yet chooses not to. someone who legitimately thought he wasn't paying enough would do this before bitching about it. he knows that he wouldn't really be affected by a higher rate, so he agitates for it.

the issue isn't that the wealthiest income tax bracket isn't being taxed enough, it's that the amount of loopholes and tax shelters available to those people are completely obscene. close those up and you will get much, much more money from the people who are ridiculously wealthy without fucking over the professional class that makes 200-500k per year and creates most of the jobs.

if obama was actually interested in creating jobs, he would do something to reverse the flow of jobs out of the country and reverse the flow of illegal, unskilled labor that has dropped the bottom of the job market out. republicans are just as retarded on this subject too, as none of them are coming out against shit like NAFTA or the new pacific free trade union being discussed that perpetually fuck over the american worker.

>>3708091
>People like Warren Buffet who amassed billions over decades of business cycles are wrong on this subject.
>People like me who make minimum wage know how to manage finances better.

Sounds legit.

To actually deal with the debt we need to cut military spending, reform entitlements, and increase revenue by taxing the rich. Raising the minimum wage won't do much. Especially when many have trouble even getting a minimum wage job today.

>>3708091
>Or conversely increase the minimum wage.
why the fuck do people think unskilled, low paid jobs should pay enough to support a family? they are for teenagers and people just starting out to get some job experience before moving up or something to help out a bit til something else comes along.

> mfw buffet is disputing his business' taxes for the last few years
> mfw he is doing this because his business was taxed too much, he claims

>>3708099

1. He's been actively donating all of his money to charitable organizations.

2. He's pointing out the inherent inequity of the current system of taxation that causes a guy like him to pay much less in taxes.

3. You seriously think plutocrats like the Koch brothers are going to give money to the government? I mean money that benefits the system as a whole, not a politicians whose coffer has been engorged by said brothers.

4. I can understand if you're more concerned with equality of opportunity than equity of outcomes, but there are a lot of people who are concerned with equity of outcomes and a basic level of human decency. Most of this argument is missing the fact when you don't look at what your opponents assumptions are and what they hope their policy proposals hope to accomplish.

>>3708099
The real problem is systemic. Warren Buffett donating money to the government won't solve the problem of extremely low capital gains taxes on the richest. Besides, Buffett already gave away 85% of his $44 billion dollar fortune to charity. Attacking him of all people is quite stupid.

>>3708091
720 billion.
>>3708113
Or 3-4 people in a household all working. Standards of living are a bit high. A full family could live in some of these bedrooms people have.

>>3708122

Buffett confirmed troll.

>>3708127

He doesn't actually pay any less, at all. His salary income is taxed at the corresponding level as everyone else's.

Did you know that if we tax the top 10% for 100% of their annual income. We would obtain (if lucky) mabey 50-90 billion a year... were a few trillion in debt?

Yes that will not even fucking dent the current debt problem we have.

>>3708127 but there are a lot of people who are concerned with equity of outcomes and a basic level of human decency.

There is no such thing as equality in equality of outcome. You're saying that those who can do uneven levels of work should have the same reward. That's horseshit.

You can scream "human decency" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that you'd be dogging someone for someone else's sake. Believe it or not, that doesn't make the situation more fair.

>>3708144

If the gubbmint took all profits from the top 500 companies, and took every penny over 250,000 made by those people, we would be able to pay for about half a year of spending. Spending is the problem alone. Period.

>>3708138
>His salary income is taxed at the corresponding level as everyone else's.
Nope. Though hopefully people paying attention to a tripfag anyway.

>He said last year he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4%, less than the 33% to 41% paid by the employees in his office.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14533987

>>3708133 720 billion.

720 billion what?

>>3708110

You realize that you're using logical fallacy to support your claim. I come from a family of a single mother who made 12,000 dollars a year supporting three kids, am 24, and suffer from a mental illness at the moment. I never had stable housing because my family moved a lot, I also could not keep a job at the same place for more than six months due to this.

Buffett had the mentality to acquire vast amounts more of money than he ever needs because he had read security analysis 20 times and had no interest in things like sports, art, music or literature. Just because he is of the personality and mind to acquire huge amounts of money doesn't mean that he has any expertise on government spending. Nor do I, which is why you argue points instead of making random associations.

>>3708155
*aren't paying attention, TEE HEE

>>3708150
>>3708150
>>3708150

This, this x1000.

>>3708155

Is there anything he did that is illegal, that he pays so few taxes. If there is nothing illegal, the laws must be fixed. Stop telling other people what to do and counting their money, you fucking tool.

>>3708168
u jelly of my facts and citations?

Why should they pay taxes at all?

>>3708127
>4. I can understand if you're more concerned with equality of opportunity than equity of outcomes, but there are a lot of people who are concerned with equity of outcomes and a basic level of human decency. Most of this argument is missing the fact when you don't look at what your opponents assumptions are and what they hope their policy proposals hope to accomplish.
the problem is that you care about 'equity of outcomes' without honestly taking into account differing levels of natural ability, you end up with a culture that reveres mediocrity instead of excellence like ours.

if you care about human decency, you would do everything in your power to ensure that you do not engender dependence as well. funny that most of the people who argue for human decency seem to love having government dependents and destroying the family unit.

>>3708128
i am attacking him because he is a disingenuous twat. he does everything in his power to avoid taxation...and then argues for taxing the upper middle class more while such changes to income tax rates will do jack shit to him. i agree that the problem is systemic, but the real solution is to clamp down on the loopholes and shelters dicks like buffet abuse and set about rebuilding the american middle class by reversing incentives corporations have to offshore jobs (as well as obvious shit like SS, medicare/medicad, and military funding reform).

>>3708150

I'm with you on spending, but I'm trying hard to figure out how taking all profits from the top 500 companies wouldn't amount to a lot of revenue for the government.

Not saying I'd be for it either. I'm just curious as to what the numbers would actually be.

>>3708158
720 billion, is how much money we would raise by removing the bush tax cuts.

>>3708155

Haha, he is literally taxes, as per his salary, at the same rate. He simply takes his capital gains taxes, includes them, and it brings down the overall average.

>>3708150

Half of all spending goes to fund the wars.

And it is as clear as day that the wars are fucked up and need to be stopped.

>>3708177
>720 billion

>>3708001
>they would start their own projects to fix our country without going through the govt middle-man

they already do

>implying the government can help at all.

Reality has defeated this idea so many time it's funny to watch reiterated time and time again.

>>3708177

You support raising taxes in the middle class and lowest income earners?

The Bush tax cuts cut all taxes for all brackets. The bottom bracket got the biggest percentage cut. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would raise the percentage of taxes the MOST on the lowest bracket.

>>3708183
Only when you remove medicare and Social Security from the budget.

>>3708180
Well shit, I guess I owe you an apology then.

>>3708177

Per year? Or since the cuts went into place (which is approaching ~10 years or so)?

>>3708177
730 billion of worthless government spending.

>>3708183

> half

No. The vast majority of spending is medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare.

>>3708199
720 billion being pushed into the economy rather than locked up in illiquid assets

>>3708183 Half of all spending goes to fund the wars.

Not even close. Kindly note this is from 2009.

>>3708203
>40% goes to SS, Medicade, Medicare
>40% of government income is payroll tax.

What a travesty

>>3708201
>he thinks tangible things are illiquid
>he thinks putting money in the bank means it won't be loaned out
>he thinks the rich keep their money under their mattress
>he thinks the government should steal peoples money to create demand
>he probably complains about the debt people are in and how materialistic they are

Keynesians

>>3708211
>Can't into Liquidity Trap

>mfw corporatocracy
>mfw voting republican if you're not a millionaire or billionaire is like shooting yourself in the foot... with a fucking rocket launcher

>>3708210

>40% of government income is payroll tax.

1/10
Not even close

>>3708214
>believes in liquidity traps
>believes recessions are not necessary

If you want SSI, Medicare, and Welfare/Infrastructure

You're going to need to tax more and cut foreign wars.

You can't have both. It's like avg Americans failed Algebra I... hmmm maybe

>>3708005

manufacturing jobs... paying less than the current minimum wage.....sounds like a dream come true.

>>3708218
>believes in liquidity traps
Thats possibly the least substantive post i've seen all day

>>3708215
>implying it is in your interest for the government to tax the rich
>implying the dems don't want to tax everyone more

>>3708113

For one thing, the whole "corporate ladder" system is obviously failing because of the financial crisis. All it took was for a few rich people to be extremely greedy and irresponsible for the entire system to practically fall apart.

The issue isn't about the purpose of a minimum wage job, it's can you live off of a minimum wage job, as many people do, and living off of it, I can safely say no. I recently got my real estate license and that almost guarantees I'll make at least six times over the minimum wage (Probably ten times if I work at it) but for the past ten years having to live on minimum wage for various reasons it has been HELL. I have to borrow so much money to offset the cost of living in Florida, and no, I'm not going to move away from my family. There's no reason they can't make it about ten dollars. Companies would adjust. The wrong amounts of money go to the wrong places in America, I fully believe that having lived it.

>>3708210

You're reading that wrong. That's how much is paid out (budgeted for), not how much revenue came in from it.

Do some math real quick. The average person (per IRS's website) pays roughly 4% of their income in SS taxes. For a 50k a year job, that's ~1200 a year. Over 30 years (say) that's 60k accrued to what should be your SS payment rewards. I guarantee you that the average SS recipient receives more than that. 60k would be barely enough to sustain someone who had been living on a 50k annual income. The rest comes out of general taxation.

The worst part of this is that the Feds have routinely taken the money that had been built up in SS's accounts to pay for other things. So now all 100% of the funds going into SS come from general taxation.

>>3708224
If the options are relocate to china and make 4 an hour.
remain unemployed
make 6 an hour here

I certainly would work for less than minimum wage.

>>3708113

Also it has nothing to do with supporting a family, I can't even support myself.

>tax the rich.
>tax is so high it stops a new influx of rich people.
>ultra rich are unchallenged.
>ultra rich just get richer due to no competition.

>>3708231
>>3708216
>http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/piechart_2011_US_fed
2/10 for making me reply

>>3708228
>Companies would adjust
Yeah, by firing workers who dont produce $10/hr worth of value. Then those people go on unemployment and the government pays for their food and housing. It sucks minimum wage is so low, but the alternative is worse

>>3708223

Since I have never taken advantage of any of those programs and have only instead had money from my earned wages taken out for them, I don't see why this would be the only avenue "I" would want.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE NOT PAID FOR BY INCOME TAXES. IF YOU HAVE A JOB YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS.

>2011
>Still living in a shitty nation that outlaws healthy herbs like cannabis but promotes the use of tobacco and alcohol

MFW

>>3708231
>The worst part of this is that the Feds have routinely taken the money that had been built up in SS's accounts to pay for other things
This, fuck. I mean they replaced it with treasury bonds, right? But even then thats still just gearing up towards "oh its just money the government owes to itself so we can write it off"

Really invalidates government legitimacy when they take money saying its for one thing, then spend it on a war

>>3708242

That's not terribly far off. The upper middle class is very heavily taxed, however when you get into that top 2% it drops off a lot, and when in the top 1% you're essentially not taxed at all.

Why not like... reduce Social Security funding by 1% per year, and use those funds to generate new jobs?

Good thing we Saved Social Security by putting it into the stock market around 2006, eh guys?

>>3708228
Why not make it 50, companies will adjust by employing less people and requiring more from them. You create more poverty than anything

>implying you can't live off of minimum wage

>>3708224
Would be a net benefit for all as more employed equal more wealth created as a whole.

>>3708254
The benefits of cannabis are individual and diminished by regular usage.

Also, alcohol is good for you, in moderation.

>>3708252

That is true, but social security is a trust which has been borrowed from many times to fund other projects. While a higher income tax on the top earners in the nation wouldn't directly give money to social security it would stop money from being taken out of it and allow money borrowed to be paid back into it (eventually). Though yeah, it wouldn't do much for medicare. That is a whole nother mess.

>>3708266

>>3708254
>legalize weed
>ban non organic food

Yeah man weed is totally harmless.

>implying social security and medicare can be fixed their unpaid liabilities out pace world GDP many times.

But if we tax the rich, what happens when I get rich?

>>3708290
You get rich slower.

>>3708277
Why would I be mad? I'm gloating. I hear the inability to parse others emotions is a sign of autism, might want to get that checked out.

Offshore accounts.

Move to Switzerland, the Caribbean, or Ireland.

>>3708303
I just like using that image.

>>3708203

Does that graph include discretionary spending?

>>3708312
Yes. It also includes expenditures funded by money stolen from social insurance revenue.

>>3708290
you most likely won't get rich, retard. Social mobility success in america is low.

>>3708308
>I just like using that image.
Go back to reddit, faggot

>watch leftist documentaries about resource based economies and coca cola
>believe everything they say
>post on /sci/

>mfw i used to believe in loose change
>mfw every European i meet believe in loose change and feel superior to obviously dumb and blind Americans.

>>3708320
Now you're really mad.

>>3708318
Can no one understand satire anymore?

>>3708318

> mfw 95 percent of millionaires in 'merica did not inherit it
> mfw that is the best of any country

Solution:

Don't tax anyone. Congress can effectively tax the country by devaluing fiat currency. They will never balance their budget anyway. This is fair to the poor because only those with liquid wealth will be baying taxes.

>>3708318
probably because he will reach a higher tax bracket and his business will implode.

>mfw they calculate social mobility in terms of wealth distribution rather than actual gains made generationally

>>3708329
And it all trickled down.

>>3708113
it's a pretty straightforward thing:
-minimum wage is the lowest people can legally be paid
- so, unfortunately, many employers won't pay more than that
- some people need any job they can
- some of these people have families to support
- most people don't want to see their neighbors starve
- most people also don't want to just give people money, even if they clearly need it
thus, we get minimum wages that are theoretically able to support more than one person

>>3708357

>Mfw supposedly "Pro-Free Market Trickle Down" politicians promised less Government, and although they did cut taxes, they increased spending and increased the size and scope of Government in every imaginable aspect of life
>Mfw cutting taxes but increasing spending and maintaining an ever increasing deficit consumes savings and makes everyone poorer (except for the politically-connected corporations, of course)

>Mfw the "Free market" got the blame when Reaganomics failed when there was no free market at all

>>3708254
healthy? I'm a little more open than before to it not being so harmful, but it's going to take an awful lot for me to consider it might be healthy
and we tried getting rid of alcohol, it didn't work-- if you want to go somewhere without it, you can try the middle east... I hear Syria is beautiful this time of year...

>>3708383
>my vocal spectrum when there are only liars and third parties

>>3708388

It does me no good to convince you that it's good for you. If you wish to live blindly, following the will of the government, then the ways of Plato are not for you.

>>3708159
ah, but what he does know is how to make money-- so if he's telling the US government how it's done, I think they should listen

>>3707978
I'd love it if what you said came to pass but unfortunately we have a bunch of retards in congress that would block any such motion because... well... they're retards.

>>3708329
A lot of people are worth more than a million, a million is not that much anymore

Id say look at billionaires

>>3708429
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Government is not a for-profit entity. Buffet probably knows less about how it should be run than you or I.

>>3708440
Even pascal was once worth a million. very poor now though.

>>3708440

This includes above, also.

>>3707978
>Jesus Christ.
lolz christfag

>>3708334

Pretty sure they are doing this, for the most part. In times where the economy isnt in the shit, though, this is a bad idea. Funding the governments actions purely through seignorage leads to very high inflation, which in the short run will fuck over the financial sector even harder, and in the long run fuck over trade.

>>3708447
you may have a point with it not being for profit, I'm not sure so: he obviously knows how to *save* money, so if he's telling etc. etc.
and you think he knows *less*? maybe just as much, but I wouldn't say less, heck even just from his age... this is probably going nowhere, I'm just going to watch for a while

>>3708526
He knows how to run his portfolio and life in general. Such long-term experience would significantly impact his ability to think in a different way.

Governments are not for-profit entities. Their role in the market is significantly different than any private firm's role. Businesses hate waste, because they want profits. Governments don't have profit, so they necessarily have more waste. This is inevitable. To you or I, though, it basically means nothing, because running the government like a business is not going to change anything for us. Even if the government *were* run like a business, it'd only mean that waste was funneled into private pockets. But that's exactly what waste is, anyway!

Efficient governance is just about putting resources where they can do the role needed. Governments destroy information, so pricing mechanisms that for-profit entities rely on are basically out.

Good government is very hard.

>>3708526

Buffett is a smart man. He is also a public figure for many companies such as coca cola. In any interview he will say that the rich should be taxed more because it helps his public image. I'm not saying he believes or doesn't believe the rich should be taxed, but regardless, having money is not adequate credential for deciding how governments should spend theirs. It's like asking someone buying 500 dollars worth of groceries how the supermarket should be run.

>>3708015

>Dat feel when you're uneducated ass gets laid off when they increase the minimum wage

I think in reality just taxing the rich doesnt amount to much gains in tax revenue. Some people think that it wont hinder the economy and the government will magically make a bunch of money, versus other people think that all it will do is hinder the economy and the government will actually make less money. The reality is its about a 50/50 trade off that doesnt result in much gain or loss for the government. But, I could be wrong about this. Hauser's law is really my only understanding about tax revenues.

Even if we do make immense revenues from just taxing the rich, it certainly isnt enough to cover the reckless spending of our government.

>>3708254
>promotes the use of tobacco
>by taxing it to high heavens
>by attempting to label it "poison"

Current US debt: $14.7 trillion
Current US deficit: $1.65 trillion
Current US discretionary spending: $1.3 trillion
>Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.
Current US nondiscretionary spending: $660 billion
Current US GDP: $14.9 trillion

Now we can possibly have an informed discussion about our fiscal problem and possible solutions.

Increase the top tax rate back to 40%. Invest that revenue into unemployment insurance and welfare. That money will be recycled into the economy (no way to "save" welfare checks or unemployment insurance).

Revoke financial assistance to all banks failing to lend at 45% or more to applicants.

End both wars.

Restructure Medicare.

10 years from now our deficit will be halved, our debt will level off and our economy will once again grow at a steady 3.5%.

Anyone that disagrees with this is retarded or a troll.

>>3708803

Sounds good.

One major difference I would point out is that if social security isnt reformed, it will cost an astounding 30% of GDP to finance in the coming decades.

In my opinion we should get rid of social security all together, but the problem can be reasonably avoided by raising the SS taxes, or by raising the age.

>>3708803
>Revoke financial assistance to all banks failing to lend at 45% or more to applicants.
Ugh. Return of robo-signing?

>>3708803
>Revoke financial assistance to all banks failing to lend at 45% or more to applicants.
This...just wow. What the fuck were you trying to say?

>>3708803

You left off "mandatory" spending. 3.6 trillion total for all spending. In other words, defense spending is much, much less than welfare, medicare, medicaid, and social security.

>>3708837
see
>>3708210

>>3708828
>>3708827

They're currently refusing to lend to even their longest-standing customers. We're gonna have to swallow a few shitty loans to get things moving again.

>>3708819
Unless you believe, and I'm sure you don't, that a major, major portion of that 30% of GDP for SS is waste, then "reform" won't mean shit because that money *will* be needed. You'll just transfer the burden from people that paid into it all their lives to people who are paying it now. If that is your idea of reform---and I'm not saying it is---it's crazy.

SS should be untouchable. Raising the age limit isn't unreasonable, though.

>>3708803
> Increase the top tax rate back to 40%.
Not crazy.
> Invest that revenue into unemployment insurance and welfare.
Ehhhh... If your idea of welfare is something like a negative income tax scheme, I'm for it, but benefits-based welfare has just got to go.

I know shit about medicare, but I agree with the war thing.

So long as we're dreaming: remove the DEA and legalize drugs. All of them. Fuck it, we got more important shit to deal with.

>>3708888
>benefits-based welfare has just got to go
What's wrong with food stamps? (Unless you mean something more)

>>3708888

What do you mean by waste money?

Yeah it should be untouchable. Its so irresponsible that it isnt.

Yeah, and other billionaires DON'T want to pay more and they are willing to use their financial weight to manipulate the workings of governments.

>>3708880
Forcing banks to lend based on the number of applications is fucking retarded. You had a chance to clarify your statement which you used to acknowledge that it was a bad idea.

Considering how you referred to "shitty loans" in such a non-systemic manner, I'll assume you're knowledge of interest rates is rusty or still in the kiln.

>>3708911

> the state is the problem

Yep, you got it.

>>3708901
There's nothing wrong, as such, with food stamps. The problem with benefits-based welfare is that it doesn't really work: there is a point where you lose benefits faster than you can earn income. This is a major disincentive.

I think a lot of people are getting this wrong, no one here thinks taxing the rich will solve everything, but it definitely can help and makes sense from a logical perspective.

Ideally 4 things should be done in the u.s. to slow down and slowly reverse debt.

1. Stop all wars and conflicts , freeze military spending for 5 years.

2. Switch to a universal healthcare system, which would actually cut u.s. healthcare spending by at least half.

3. small tax increase on middle class , larger tax increase on rich while getting rid of all tax loop holes.Preferably with incentives to bring back american jobs from overseas.

4. Remodeling of social security , obviously no wants grandpa/grandma to starve but with an increasingly ageing population we have no little legs to stand on. Optimally this should be done with incentives for elderly (65-75) to stay in the work force for longer at slower pace jobs while still offering help to those that need it.

Of course these things would never happen with the current u.s. political system but we need goals in order to achieve them.

Seriously.

How fucking hard can it be to just SPEND LESS MONEY ON FIGHTING TERRIBLE WARS?

They ARE USELESS. Many citizens said they don't even fucking care about the middle east, they'd be happy to decrease military spending.

>>3708922

I'll walk you through it for everyone's benefit:

Before recession: banks were lending to any and every body. Many of those loans were recurrent to customers in good standing. Small businesses depend on low interest loans to make their payroll, expand, stock inventory, etc.

Many of those loans were also to loan seekers without the ability to pay back those loans in the event of a recession.

After the recession: STOP LENDING TO ANYONE NOBODY GETS A DIME HOARD THE BANK BAILOUT MONEY

They killed off both good and bad loans because they were afraid they would not have sufficient liquidity. Now they're instead shoring up their balance sheets.

My proposal: force them to lend. Since the gov can't review every loan application, force them to loan at a significant rate. That will force banks to loan to mostly good custormers but even some bad.

Now kindly learn to read.

>>3708928
Go die in a fire, liberty. You've been proven an imbecile many times over and I don't feel like reading your usual nonsense.

>>3708930
theyre both proven to work better than negative income tax and better at their goal of social compassion, youd be hard pressed to find a politician opposed to giving food stamps to people who cant feed themselves but when its giving out money thats quite likely going to go to drugs or booze people will appreciate the cuts

>>3708978

Who is "liberty"?

>>3708983
They work better than negative income tax if your goal is to maximize the number of people on welfare, and the time they are on welfare.

Negative income tax: the marginal tax on the next dollar earned doesn't effect previous dollars earned.

Benefit-based welfare: if you're above the threshhold, kiss your cereal and milk goodbye

It's pretty derpy. And who gives a fuck if they buy booze with their money? Not me. They're doing it right now anyway.

>>3708964

None of the bailout money should have gone to banks in the first place anyhow , they should have been allowed to fail and better banks would have taken there place.(mostly Canadian and European banks who know how to do manage a business with government handouts)

Actually one of the reasons why Canada was not hit so hard by the global recession , despite such close proximity to the u.s. is due to there banks which were quoted as " being more Swiss then Swiss banks" lol.

America grew the fastest and farthest, in all regards, when the federal government was smaller. Can you imagine someone trying to found a community like the Mormons in this day and age? The beauty of America was that you could live how you wanted, and that small government allowed you to do this. Instead of allowing individual communities to decide how they themselves want to live, the federal government imposes what it believes provides a solution to everyone's problems. It is asinine to believe such a one-size-fits-all solution such as invading a country or adopting socialized medicine will make even a majority of the population content. The federal government needs to be reformed to be a more true representative government, instead of being just a front to be influenced by money and power. There are far too many people with differing problems and values than is possible to address with one broad stroke.

tl;dr: the most competent problem solving governance is local

>>3708988
didn't realise liberty was an autist

>>3708964
Here's something that may help you understand why I do not like the original premise. Banks are ranked by credit agencies (hell, everything is). A good portion of this rating is based on the loans they carry, and the ratio of cash to lent money. If your rating drops, you have to pay more for your own loans (banks lend from each other continuously (as should be evident after the domino-like collapse of the banking system). If you have to pay more for your own loans, then you have less income to produce cash for further loans. The rating thing is serious business to these folks, as minor changes can have very large aggregate effects when you're tossing around trillions of dollars.

If you FORCE these banks to lend, they will raise their rates to offset the risks inherit in such foolish activities (which is counter to the fed policy, and not very helpful for the small business and others who so desperately need those loans). If they do not raise their rates, then they will suffer the inevitable problems associated with increased risk and reduced cash reserves.

It isn't just a "bad idea" out of other potential options, it is fundamentally not a good idea.

>>3708983

How are food stamps better than a NIT?

Food stamps used to be a policy where you got an amount of stamps proportional to how much money you make. You make more money, you get less stamps. Thats not a half bad idea. At some point it changed to where if you are poor enough you qualify for stamps. Thats a bad idea because it can incentivize being poor for certain income ranges.

Then of course food stamps suffer administrative costs.

I think NIT is the way to go, I just can understand why you would say it works worse than food stamps.

Ahhh Americans, I pity you.

I love watching your conservatives go on about "HURR SOCIALISM DURR" like it's the coming of the Antichrist.

I bet 90% of them don't even know what it means. GG, Merikuh.

>>3708988
seriously, dude, was that supposed to be clever?
>>3709010
benefits are better for the economy and better from a sociological point of view for those who receive them

and the whole point is, if someone is dirt fuck poor i would rather pay for their food for a long time than fund their drug use until it kills them, and anyone who is addicted to drugs and on welfare has a good chance of spending most of what they get on drugs rather than trying to make a little bit more money

>>3709050
This is why legalization was part of my plan.

>>3708242
Why si this a bad thing?
The government gets more money, and the rich get to keep theirs. Then later on, when everyone is in less debt, we can lower the tax and allow more mobility.

>>3709050

Do you really think poor people cant handle the money that is given to them?

I feel like there are to ways of looking at this

If I give a poor person money, there is a X% chance they will waste it on something that wont make them better off like drugs.

If I give someone food stamps there is automatically a X% of the money that becomes administrative costs.

I personally feel poor people are capable of handling money given to them. I dont believe there is very much waste then someone is given money to work with. Versus the waste in the food stamp program is understood. I think its around 20% to 40% but I wish I had a real citation.

>>3709033

I bet together we could solve this problem. I'll start.

Banks are currently lending at record-low interest rates to the few customers they do approve. The Fed is holding its interest rate loans at record low interest rates as well.

Many banks still hold significant amounts of US bailout money. That obligates (or should) them to make every effort possible to help recover the economy. Their role is simple: do exactly what they were doing before the recession (minus the really bad loans). Lend to small businesses. Lend to credit-worthy customers. Lend to each other (which they're doing a bit of now).

We have to get credit flowing again. My proposal is to force them to lend via a very poor mechanism: approve 45% of loan applicants. If they don't want to loan to obviously bad applicants then they can advertize their services to attract good applicants.

Your move.

>>3709079
Food stamps also increase transaction costs (though not for the poor themselves, unless they are somehow bargained away for other uses).

>>3709079
So we're making the choice between Crit and +DMG ?

>>3709086
>The Fed is holding its interest rate loans at record low interest rates as well.

Hmm. Not sure why my fingers typed that. The Fed doesn't make loans except through the money window. I herped.

>>3709013
>None of the bailout money should have gone to banks in the first place anyhow

The people that suffer under that scenario is the middle class and poor. The rich and ultra rich have plenty of money saved up to see them through the years of shitty economy.

I don't understand the logic behind what you said at all.

Why can't we legally enforce trickle down economics?

>>3709091

Whats Crit and +DMG?

I was just saying, there are administrative costs, and you cant feasibly lower them without opening up the possibility for people to exploit the system.

If you just gave a poor guy $20, it really comes down to how much confidence you have in human beings. Id like to see some data about how people spend the money in that circumstance, and then some of us could agree on metrics to measure how much of the money given out for free was spent "properly"

>>3709086
How do you intend to force financial institutions to accept X% of loan applications without directly negatively impacting interest rates?

In fact, I'm curious as to what mechanism you would suggest for enforcing this at all? What would happen to a bank when they only accept 10% of all applications?

>>3709134

Trickle down is the idea that rich people have money, and spend and invest that money which "trickles down" to everyone else. Thus taxing rich people hurts the economy and everyone in it.

How could you enforce that?

I think trickle down doesnt hold up, because in reality rich people dont really have more investing power than anyone else. If you give a rich guy money, he spends it or invests it. The same happens if you guy a poor guy money.

>>3709167
but you aren't giving anyone money with trickle down. Tax cuts aren't welfare.

>>3709161

I'll answer your first question with a rhetorical question: is the destructive policy of Too Big To Fail still in effect?

The government is currently guaranteeing the loans of the biggest US banks. We're on the hook. We'll bail them out again if they start to teeter. Why not use that leverage to force banks to loan at existing rates. The government can put that exact language into law. Force them to hold rates steady for the first X loans out the door. Require banks to document the total number of loan applications. Force them to document how many they approve.

Banks are in it for the money. They're also in it to survive. They'd rather hold onto their money (survive) than make loans (profit).

To your second question, the answer if FEES. Fine them for failing to meet the minimum loan approval rate. Fine them and refuse to lend them money. Use TBTF against them.

Win?

>>3709167
At its core, it is a consumption vs investment argument.

>>3707978
It's not the uber rich.

It's the I WANT TO BE UBER RICH-Rich, you know, the ones only make a 300-500 million dollars.

They're middle class rich, obviously.

When they say "You can't raise taxes on the job producers." You say: "The government fucking produces jobs, so we have to tax your ass."

>>3709167
by taxing them. How do you find such obtuse answers to straightforward questions?

>>3708932
>Switch to a universal healthcare system, which would actually cut u.s. healthcare spending by at least half.

HAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
AHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
HAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
HHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>3709195
>"The government fucking produces jobs, so we have to tax your ass."

hilariously misled. Government creates jobs that there is no demand for. Sure you lower unemployment but there is little difference between this and welfare which is just employing people to do nothing.

>>3708911
right, so it makes sense we should use whatever influence we have to pull in the other direction

>>3709200

>AHAHA

Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare Affordable Healthcare ?

I agree.

Obligatory healthcare info graphic I made