|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 9:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something!  I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Your argument is: don't raise taxes because the government is wasteful. Well then how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment? I mean we can all say government is wasteful and point to some examples, but we do need services. They are essential are they not? What do you propose we do to fix our country's finances? That's what Kuros is asking. |
The most obvious way to make government less wasteful is to cut it down to size. Overall, the government is a net wealth squanderer, not a wealth producer. The private sector does not really "waste" by definition, because it generates wealth (unless of course it is receiving tax dollar subsidies from the government to prop itself up, in which case that would be totally wasteful). That is the key difference.
If a government owned business is actually generating wealth in the market place (instead of using tax dollars or borrowing money to fund itself) then that is one thing; but giant bloated bureaucracies are an obscene waste of money and only serve to stifle growth and foster corruption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Your argument is: don't raise taxes because the government is wasteful. Well then how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment? I mean we can all say government is wasteful and point to some examples, but we do need services. They are essential are they not? What do you propose we do to fix our country's finances? That's what Kuros is asking. |
Inaccurate. Its NOT my argument. My argument is don't raise taxes until we control government waste and spending. Lets do that first and then see if we need to.
Check my previous posts. I said we may find that we either don't need to raise that much or possibly none at all.
I offered an idea or two in previous posts but first lets be accurate on what my position is. |
So I looked at your previous posts and saw you had one solid suggestion: reform the tax code. Good idea that could probably boost revenue while not raising the tax rate.
That being said, I will repeat: how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment?
I mean we all KNOW there is waste in government but what policies would you propose that would reduce the possibility for that waste?
To clarify: let's take your printing example. How do you propose a government agency becomes more efficient in that regard? Cut its funding and say, "Do more with less"? You know what happens then? That agency is going to go to Congress the following year and say, "Look, you cut our funding and our efficiency measures show our programs fell apart!" And while Congress might not care if a Dept. of Health and Human Services program falls apart, it most definitely will care if some Pentagon program does (even if is useless and pointless). Why? Because no politician wants to look weak in defense.
SO, yes, while it is all fine and dandy to say let's cut waste and all that good stuff, it is not politically realistic, especially in regards to the Dept. of Defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Your argument is: don't raise taxes because the government is wasteful. Well then how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment? I mean we can all say government is wasteful and point to some examples, but we do need services. They are essential are they not? What do you propose we do to fix our country's finances? That's what Kuros is asking. |
The most obvious way to make government less wasteful is to cut it down to size. Overall, the government is a net wealth squanderer, not a wealth producer. The private sector does not really "waste" by definition, because it generates wealth (unless of course it is receiving tax dollar subsidies from the government to prop itself up, in which case that would be totally wasteful). That is the key difference.
If a government owned business is actually generating wealth in the market place (instead of using tax dollars or borrowing money to fund itself) then that is one thing; but giant bloated bureaucracies are an obscene waste of money and only serve to stifle growth and foster corruption. |
Except voters don't support such measures, so politicians won't back them (since they want to keep their jobs). That and the fact that politicians want to their power. And bigger government=more power for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something! I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
Since you're such a firm believer in the private sector being efficient and whatnot, shouldn't you have confidence in someone else starting up a similar service if Skype is run into the ground by Microsoft? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something! I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
Maybe you could tell us, specifically, how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something! I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
Maybe you could tell us, specifically, how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. |
I have no idea how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. My post was partially tongue in cheek but I confess it wasn't clear by how I wrote it.
Its up to Microsoft's board and those that own the stock to demand it of them if in fact they are wasteful.
I don't purport to know if Microsoft is wasteful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something! I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
Since you're such a firm believer in the private sector being efficient and whatnot, shouldn't you have confidence in someone else starting up a similar service if Skype is run into the ground by Microsoft? |
If there is a need, there is almost always someone willing to fill it. I would expect there to be some competitor.
Bill Gates should be applauded in one sense for building such a big company. Modern day Ford or Rockerfeller to some extent. However, I also have my own personal concerns about companies getting so large they become a power unto themselves.
Sometimes such companies have an inordinate amount of power in Washington DC. Its no secret that the biggest companies have the ear of the politicians and help make public policy.
I am a capitalist but I also don't believe in companies having a free hand. It was partially the reason why we had the economic crisis in the first place. Regulations were relaxed.
The balance between not stifling competition by over-regulating and not letting them be too free to hurt the average person (monopolies, fraud, etc.) is a tough one. I don't pretend to know that balance.
I've found the problem with both parties is that they are too far in either direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Your argument is: don't raise taxes because the government is wasteful. Well then how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment? I mean we can all say government is wasteful and point to some examples, but we do need services. They are essential are they not? What do you propose we do to fix our country's finances? That's what Kuros is asking. |
Inaccurate. Its NOT my argument. My argument is don't raise taxes until we control government waste and spending. Lets do that first and then see if we need to.
Check my previous posts. I said we may find that we either don't need to raise that much or possibly none at all.
I offered an idea or two in previous posts but first lets be accurate on what my position is. |
So I looked at your previous posts and saw you had one solid suggestion: reform the tax code. Good idea that could probably boost revenue while not raising the tax rate.
That being said, I will repeat: how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment?
I mean we all KNOW there is waste in government but what policies would you propose that would reduce the possibility for that waste?
To clarify: let's take your printing example. How do you propose a government agency becomes more efficient in that regard? Cut its funding and say, "Do more with less"? You know what happens then? That agency is going to go to Congress the following year and say, "Look, you cut our funding and our efficiency measures show our programs fell apart!" And while Congress might not care if a Dept. of Health and Human Services program falls apart, it most definitely will care if some Pentagon program does (even if is useless and pointless). Why? Because no politician wants to look weak in defense.
SO, yes, while it is all fine and dandy to say let's cut waste and all that good stuff, it is not politically realistic, especially in regards to the Dept. of Defense. |
You are absolutely right that politically the right thing and/or smart thing o do won't happen because of how things are today.
The following is not only about the government but a few suggestions to transforming the economy into a viable, healthy one.
In addition to my tax code reform which I think is significant. I want to see us out of the world police business. We have too many military bases around the world at great financial costs. Lets close most of them and bring these troops home. Lets cut defense spending. I'm all for a strong defense but its a huge part of our budget and it spends money like drunken sailors....pun intended.
I would however spend more on Veterans care, VA hospitals and benefits.
I would like the President to have line item veto. Too many pork barrell spending is attached to all kinds of bills, especially the budget and that's where we hear of things such as money to study mating habits of gnats, etc.
The most important thing in goverment is to remove the influence of lobbyists. This is not going to happen. Wishful thinking on my part but its the biggest problem. You and I do the voting but the cost of the campaign is born primarily by the various groups (unons, defense industry, big oil, drug companies, AARP, AIPAC, etc.) and those are the groups who the pols in Washington DC listen to while telling you and I they are doing it for our benefit.
I don't mind spending by the government. I just want it spent properly and fairly and for the benefit of the people.
A revenue maker is a national lottery. It would bring in billions.
I would like us out of the oil business. I mean in terms of the nation being an oil based one.
How? Well and this is not feasible politically and may even not be feasilble anyway and its a significant enough suggestion that many could poke big holes in but its an idea I think has some merit.
I would like to see the G8 or even G20 nations decide to ween ourselves off oil on a time table. 20 years...or some other such number that can be determined.
How? Convert our economies to other methods. First I'd propose for the U.S. (and other G8 nations would do it as well) is for the U.S. to convert over time all government vehicles to hybrids or electric which ever is decided upon. I would also get all the states to buy in.
This would creates millions of jobs. American car companies would have a market for these vehicles. Government vehicles from personal use to post office trucks. If we include state and local, we're talking millions of vehicles. I would only buy American made ones so the jobs stay here and revitalize the rust belt states.
I would use a carrot at the end of the stick to entice people to buy these vehicles as well. I would suggest that people can amortize the cost of a hybrid over say 5 years. Each tax year they can write off 1/5 of the cost. I would put a cap on a car's cost at say 30k or 35k, so that Detroit doesn't start making 60k dollar hybrids. I want them to keep the cost of a new car low. Give the people an economic incentive over gas based cars and they'll convert. Forcing them to and it won't work.
The '90s economic boom came because companies primarily tech companies at the time grew exponentially and they of course paid more in taxes from the increase in revenues. I think the same could occur with all the various businesses that would develop from a change from an oil based economy.
One may ask what happens to the businesses that rely on oil? Those people will find new industries. In the late 1800s the biggest stocks on wall street were railroad stocks. A large portion of all jobs were directly or indirectly tied to rail. America changed to auto and then to the jet age. Those new industries created more and better paying jobs. It was a gradual change and my hope is this suggestion would be as well, hence the time table of converting to these cars and vehicles in 10 or 15 or 20 years.
This would be happening in europe and other industrialized nations as well. The rest of the world would have no choice but to convert. If the largest economies acted in concerted fashion to move to these vehicles the rest of the world would have to go along. It would have no economic choice.
Doing so would remove the economic, political and military need for America and the west to be invovled in the middle east. Now where does that leave Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Don't know, don't care. Not the pc thing to say but its honest. They'll have to figure it out themselves. They'll need to create new industries.
My next suggestion won't happen because of NIMBY (Not In MY Backyard) but I would suggest we fix our infrastructure (thousans of bridges, subway tunnels, roads, etc. that are dillipidated and on their last legs). This would create millions of jobs that you can't export. American jobs. We need high speed rail lines similar to KTX in Korea and the hi-speed ones in Japan. California needs one from San Diego to San Francisco. Amtrak is outdated and a money loser. A high speed line from Boston to Washington DC is needed but again, it won't happen. Other hi speed lines as well around the rest of the country.
To control medical costs, I would suggest that the UN offer a one time amount for the right to a cure for a variety of maladies. Maybe 100 billion to any company or country that comes up with a cure for cancer. Varied amounts depending on the cure. 100 billion may sound like a lot but for the world to have a cure for cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold I suggest its worth it. Spread the cost over all nations and its minimal.
These are a just a few things I think may work to solve a lot of our economic problems. Not feasible and I'm sure you and others can possibly poke holes in them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something! I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
Maybe you could tell us, specifically, how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. |
I have no idea how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. My post was partially tongue in cheek but I confess it wasn't clear by how I wrote it.
Its up to Microsoft's board and those that own the stock to demand it of them if in fact they are wasteful.
I don't purport to know if Microsoft is wasteful. |
If only you could display such humility when it comes to discussion of the gov't. But I suppose raising taxes is such a third rail in American politics, that reason and prudence gets thrown out the window.
We have a generational crisis. The interest on the debt is looming. On the left we have people who want to exploit the crisis to expand the Federal gov't. On the right we have people who want to continue the unsustainable (and clearly ineffective) starve the beast philosophy.
Raise taxes and cut spending. But raise taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Your argument is: don't raise taxes because the government is wasteful. Well then how do you think you can make the government less wasteful? What incentives do you propose to streamline the goverment? I mean we can all say government is wasteful and point to some examples, but we do need services. They are essential are they not? What do you propose we do to fix our country's finances? That's what Kuros is asking. |
The most obvious way to make government less wasteful is to cut it down to size. Overall, the government is a net wealth squanderer, not a wealth producer. The private sector does not really "waste" by definition, because it generates wealth (unless of course it is receiving tax dollar subsidies from the government to prop itself up, in which case that would be totally wasteful). That is the key difference.
If a government owned business is actually generating wealth in the market place (instead of using tax dollars or borrowing money to fund itself) then that is one thing; but giant bloated bureaucracies are an obscene waste of money and only serve to stifle growth and foster corruption. |
Except voters don't support such measures, so politicians won't back them (since they want to keep their jobs). That and the fact that politicians want to their power. And bigger government=more power for them. |
Voters don't support what measures? Reducing the size of government? Do you have any evidence (polls etc.) to back up that statement?
Regardless, it's pretty much established that the government doesn't care what the public thinks about anything. They just lie to get elected, and then do whatever they want. In terms of funding, they don't even need direct taxation, they can just borrow an infinite amount from the Fed and tax the public through inflation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Microsoft buys Skype.
| Quote: |
So Microsoft will have a great and powerful weapon both for the enterprise and for consumers.
That sounds great. But that integration is where the problems are going to kick in. Internally, Microsoft has become a huge, bloated, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare. When I think of those brilliant engineers at Skype trying to deal with their counterparts at Microsoft�drones who are consumed with internal rivalries, slowed down by bickering and hierarchy, obsessed with trying to figure out whose butt you need to kiss to get a better performance review and bigger bonus�well, it makes me want to cry. |
Hrmmmm. Microsoft should cut waste, fraud, and abuse before it thinks about buying any other outlets. |
Finally, we agree on something! I'm as much of a capitalist as the next American but the cynical side of me is wary of mega corps like Microsoft buying up companies like these. Maybe there is a competitor out there but I'm not aware of one. I and all my other teacher friends use Skype and I am leery of a behemoth controling something as unique as this. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. |
Maybe you could tell us, specifically, how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. |
I have no idea how Microsoft should cut waste, fraud and abuse. My post was partially tongue in cheek but I confess it wasn't clear by how I wrote it.
Its up to Microsoft's board and those that own the stock to demand it of them if in fact they are wasteful.
I don't purport to know if Microsoft is wasteful. |
If only you could display such humility when it comes to discussion of the gov't. But I suppose raising taxes is such a third rail in American politics, that reason and prudence gets thrown out the window.
We have a generational crisis. The interest on the debt is looming. On the left we have people who want to exploit the crisis to expand the Federal gov't. On the right we have people who want to continue the unsustainable (and clearly ineffective) starve the beast philosophy.
Raise taxes and cut spending. But raise taxes. |
You know. I looked back on how I answered the earliest post and I think it could be construed as rude to some. So, I think you may have something there. Although, I do think there was a certain tone taken with regards to my posts as well. Moreso, Fox than you. I post what I know or believe I know, hence my placing links. I've changed my stance on a number of things in my life when people have brought me cogent, factual information that supports it.
Again, I am not saying don't raise taxes or that there is no need. I'm saying that we shouldn't raise them with the amount of waste, fraud and corruption that goes on in government right now. Raising taxes that covers the amount we waste or via fraud is keeping the problem going.
As far as America's attitude on taxes, the country was found on an anti tax stance with Britian so to some extent its in our national DNA. In fact, one of the first things the founders did once we became a country was institute a tax and the first open rebellion to the government was the Whiskey Rebellion over taxes on that. Its part of our psyche.
I don't believe it will be done. I think its endemic and so pervasive that it can't be done. The american people collectively are generally apathetic or ignorant of the problem. We can only blame ourselves collectively. The people get the government they deserve.
My fear is by the time we wake up, it will probably be too late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senate Dems draft budget: $4 trillion saved over 10 years, half of which are tax increases on households making over $1 million
| Quote: |
Under the blueprint, the top income tax rate would rise to 39.6 percent for individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and families earning more than $1 million. That group, which constitutes the nation�s richest 1 percent of households, would also pay a 20 percent rate on capital gains and dividends, rather than the 15 percent rate now in effect.
In addition to raising rates for the very wealthiest families, the blueprint proposes to obtain fresh revenue by targeting offshore tax havens and corporate shelters. It would also scale back the array of tax breaks and deductions known as tax expenditures, perhaps by focusing on the wealthiest households, which claim an average of $205,000 in tax breaks each year on average income of $1.1 million.
The blueprint would take nearly $900 billion from the Pentagon over the next decade � the same amount recommended by Obama�s fiscal commission. It would slice more than $350 billion from domestic programs. And it would produce interest savings of nearly $600 billion attributable to reduced borrowing.
Only about $80 billion would be cut from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs, and nothing from Social Security. But even without touching those programs, the plan would stabilize borrowing by 2014 and begin pushing the national debt down as a share of the economy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The German Example
| Quote: |
The brief story is that, despite its reputation for austerity, Germany has been far more willing than the United States to use the power of government to help its economy. Yet it has also been more ruthless about cutting wasteful parts of government.
Inflation-adjusted average hourly pay has risen almost 30 percent since 1985 in Germany, the kind of gains American workers have not enjoyed since the �50s and �60s. In this country, hourly pay has risen a scant 6 percent since 1985.
Germany also managed to avoid a housing bubble, unlike the United States, Britain, Ireland, Spain and other countries. German children have stronger math and science skills than ours. Its medium-term budget deficit is smaller. Its unemployment rate is like a mirror image of ours: 6.1 percent, well below where it was when the financial crisis began in 2007. Our rate has risen to 9.1 percent.
I�m not saying that the United States should want to become Germany. Americans remain considerably richer. We have the innovative companies � Wal-Mart, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter � that make other countries swoon. We remain the world�s immigration Mecca.
Yet for all the strengths of the United States, almost nobody claims that the economy is in especially good shape. |
Tax Rates in Germany
Germany individual income tax rates, 2011
| Quote: |
Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 8,004
14% 8,005-52,881
42% 52,882-250,730
45% 250,731 and over
In addition to regular tax, there is a municipal trade tax of 14%-17% that is imposed by the municipality. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're just talking austerity. It won't fix the economy, it'll just destroy what's left of the middle class. The real problem here is not Americans living beyond their means; it's the government wasting trillions and handing trillions more over to the blood suckers on Wall Street. Want to save the middle class? Let the mega-banks collapse next time, wipe out all their made-up ponzi scheme derivatives debt, and put their assets on the chopping block to be sold off at rock bottom prices. It would be the greatest jubilee the world has ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
