Another help for those mortgages underwater.

I said I voted for Ron Paul....so yes I pulled my SUV right in the middle of all those Bentley's and voted in the GOP primary. Voted for Obama over McCain. Would do the same again. Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see, Ron Paul...and then Obama.

Isn't that a little like carrying on a flirtation with Megan Fox, but then suddenly and inexplicably deciding that you have the hots for Rosie O'Donnell?

Let's see, Ron Paul...and then Obama.

Isn't that a little like carrying on a flirtation with Megan Fox, but then suddenly and inexplicably deciding that you have the hots for Rosie O'Donnell? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yea but after Megan Fox lost it was either Grandpa Jones from HeeHaw or Rosie.

Come on now, I like Grandpa but he was to damn old to be running anything but a bingo game.

What about Japan , PJ. Originally Posted by WTF

1.8%

I disagree that they are growing slower than we are. The UK is getting out of the recession faster than we are and is generally growing as fast as we are. We can't under-invest in infrastructure forever and pay no price. Frankly, we've been coasting for a long time in our investment in education a couple of generations ago. In the past 30 years, we've been falling further and further behind in education and that will is catching up to us.

As for the $500B extra, it would be a lot easier to pay back if we were having jobs in the recovery instead of enduring a jobless recovery for another 3 or 4 years. And that's what will happen if we don't invest adequately now when times are bad. See the graph in this article for an example:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...icymakers.html Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Was talking to a cardiologist just today.
He and his wife were educated in Canada. She has a law degree.
It cost them $15k for the both of them. "They take education seriously up there." he said. No jobs there so they came here to work. As soon as a job opens up back in Canada they're moving back he says.

1.8% Originally Posted by pjorourke

Cuba, Columbia , Brazil

Cuba, Columbia , Brazil Originally Posted by WTF

3.4% (although I doubt anyone believes it), 3.5%, 2.9%

What about Japan , PJ. Originally Posted by WTF

1.8% Originally Posted by pjorourke

Way to go, Japan!

(But that's what tends to happen when you put that wonderful Krugman prescription of massive "stimulus" spending into practice.)

Capt. Midnight, I don't hate the rich. If you knew anything about me you'd find that statement laughable.

I think that the rich pay a far lower share of income taxes than they should and that the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible. And I know whereof I speak. My taxes were cut the first year of the Bush tax cuts by six figures while most Americans got a $300 rebate. Think about that. I got six figures, most working stiffs got $300. That's criminal. (I don't get that much of a cut every year, because I don't have that good a year, every year. But every year, my tax cut under the Bush cuts is larger than many people's entire income.)

We can't maintain a decent society with that kind of income inequality and that sort of unequal tax treatment as a society. If you want to support a political regimen that continues to enrich me at your expense and the expense of other working Americans, be my guest. But don't accuse me of hating the rich. I think that as one of those who has been richly blessed, I should do my fair share. And I shouldn't have to do it voluntarily and take home less than the others in our society who make a similar income.

I think that as one of those who has been richly blessed, I should do my fair share. And I shouldn't have to do it voluntarily and take home less than the others in our society who make a similar income. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well that is your morality. Some people think its immoral to fuck outside of marriage. I don't see where you have any more right to impose your views on other high earners than the Baptists do to impose their views on you. If you think you make too much, give more to charity.

Well that is your morality. Some people think its immoral to fuck outside of marriage. I don't see where you have any more right to impose your views on other high earners than the Baptists do to impose their views on you. If you think you make too much, give more to charity. Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, it is a moral obligation to pay ones bills. Had we done so...there would not be this huge deficit.

Now if you want get get into a discussion about just what we should be spending our tax dollars on that is another story.

But to pay for wars and courts and jails and firefighters requires a tax on society. Tax cuts are fine if the country was running a surplus. It was not. In fact Bush gave a tax cut in time of war. Really stupid thing to do. He encouraged consumer spending....a long term nightmare that we are paying for now.

Way to go, Japan!

(But that's what tends to happen when you put that wonderful Krugman prescription of massive "stimulus" spending into practice.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sounds like China, Columbia and Cuba are the other models to follow.

Well that is your morality. Some people think its immoral to fuck outside of marriage. I don't see where you have any more right to impose your views on other high earners than the Baptists do to impose their views on you. If you think you make too much, give more to charity. Originally Posted by pjorourke

In all respect PJ I agree with you on many things. However I believe you may not understand or see the picture TTH does. Though we may not be able to stop the flood there are many that can be saved. I could use a life safer right now myself but I haven't stopped kicking my legs and moving my arms. What about the bastard with no legs?

MA and WTF, you are missing my point. I said nothing about how tax funds are spent, there is plenty of room for discussion there.

I was just addressing TTH's very narrow point that because he thought his taxes should be bigger to pay for public welfare, everyone else with similar incomes should as well. I merely noted that he was imposing his sense of morality on others who may not share the same point of view. If it is really his view that he owes society, fine pay society through charity.

MA and WTF, you are missing my point. I said nothing about how tax funds are spent, there is plenty of room for discussion there.

I was just addressing TTH's very narrow point that because he thought his taxes should be bigger to pay for public welfare, everyone else with similar incomes should as well. I merely noted that he was imposing his sense of morality on others who may not share the same point of view. If it is really his view that he owes society, fine pay society through charity. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I agree with ya....let TTH pay more if he wants! lol

My point is that we need to pay for what we do want. That includes military and social services. If we want those things and all it entails then we need to understand that SOMEBODY has to pay for those services. The poor pay their share in regressive taxes. The rich will have to pay in progressive......but it needs to be paid for. To gripe about paying taxes and not be willing to give up a program that you think is essential is hypocritical. That was my point. Tax cuts such as Bush granted were irresponsible. It was like a pusher giving you free drugs until he hooks you.

I think that the rich pay a far lower share of income taxes than they should...We can't maintain a decent society with that kind of income inequality and that sort of unequal tax treatment as a society. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

My point is that we need to pay for what we do want. That includes military and social services. If we want those things and all it entails then we need to understand that SOMEBODY has to pay for those services. The poor pay their share in regressive taxes. The rich will have to pay in progressive......but it needs to be paid for. Originally Posted by WTF

I'm curious: Just who do you guys think is going to pay for all this spending? Do you not realize that restoring the top tax bracket to pre-2001 levels would cover less than 4% of our current budget deficit?

The tax burden on America's middle class families is very low compared to that levied on their European counterparts. In fact, the article linked by M.A. notes that close to 50% of Americans pay very little income tax. Countries like France, Germany, and the U.K. don't finance their lavish welfare states with high taxes on the "rich" (although their rates are higher than ours). They do it by taxing the hell out of the middle class.

Volcker's VAT statement earlier this week is a trial balloon the size of the Hindenburg. Looks to me like the Obama administration is preparing the groundwork for the delicate task of telling the middle class that the bills are coming due.

The VAT debate will probably make the recent health care debate look like a friendly game of pickup basketball. If politicians want to turn the U.S. into something a lot more like a European-style social democracy, they're going to have to convince non-affluent Americans that they'll somehow end up getting a good overall deal.

If you think they had a tough time making the sale on health care, just wait until you see how tough this one's going to be.