Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
If you want to make housing more affordable, encourage your local government to reduce zoning regulations. That is the biggest driver in the rise in cost of housing. San Francisco is a good example of how this happens. Houston is a good example of how low zoning regulations allow for very affordable housing compared to the national average.
The "super-rich" can also hide income better than most. Unless you plan on ending all deductions and turning the nominal income tax rates into the equivalent of the AMT, then this idea of raising taxes on the elite isn't going to work.
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
Hello Woko Haram,
All government spending supports the economy.
Cutting spending can be roughly translated as cutting the GDP.
Cut spending, you cut the economy.
Nope. Let's don't do that.
It has to be raising taxes on the rich.
They can afford it.
We have a great nation. Time for those who have benefited the most to pony up and pay for what has been so good for them.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Hello Woko Haram,
Houston is a good example of why zoning regulations are effective, and what happens when that is ignored. Proper zoning would require that a region maintains enough drainage to prevent flooding in major storms. Since Houston didn't do this, Houston, we have a problem every time a major rain event occurs. Flooding in Houston was made far worse by lack of proper zoning regulations. Bad idea in a region prone to hurricanes in the age of Climate Change.
I am going to leave the nuts and bolts up to the legal wonks. Bottom line: We are not collecting enough revenue to run the government. That has to change or we are doomed.
The super-rich have money to burn. More than they can every spend during their lifetime. They can afford to chip in more to run the country. They could afford to completely eliminate the deficit, and even build a surplus which would begin to eliminate the federal debt all together. That is a worth while goal. If the federal debt is eliminated then the country could do more with less because we would not have to pay the interest on the debt. We are a rich country. We do not have to carry a big debt or be saddled with the crushing burden of servicing that debt.
Interest on US Federal Debt: (The amount we pay each year in interest because we carry so much dept) $379 Billion
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
When discussing the debt it's solely a Republican assessment to look at the (largest) items we spend on? I don't think that to be accurate.
And to cut to the chase, you can't make taxes high enough to cover all the debt and unfunded liabilities we have. So ignoring spending is not an option.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
Hello Casual Leftist,
I wish Bernie could not only get elected, but have a majority Congress ready to enact his ideas. It would be the best thing that has happened to the USA in a very long time, maybe ever. I just don't see the nation being there yet. Although it is awesome to see it so close.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
No, it really doesn't. Some spending can boost the economy. Some doesn't. And not everything boosts it equally effectively.
No, not really. If that was true, then nations that privatized programs would see a decrease in GDP. Sweden has privatized a lot more now than it did in the 80s, and its GDP growth has greatly improved.
There are multiple factors as to whether government spending reduces or increases GDP. Cutting waste in government programs can increase GDP by freeing up resources, for example.
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
That's not true. The reason why Houston has issues with flooding is not related to zoning. The entire region that Houston is part of has had issues with flooding for quite some time, and it doesn't matter whether the city is highly regulated or not. Galveston is substantially more regulated in zoning, and it has just as much of an issue with flooding as Houston, if not more so.
New Orleans is also much more regulated in zoning, and it has more issues with flooding than Houston.
One could actually argue that most areas, including Houston, continue to have issues with flooding since federal funds help to subsidize the cost of living in disaster prone areas. If states didn't have access to federal funds when dealing with disasters, then far less construction would be done in said areas. It would only take a few major floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes to show where people should live and where they shouldn't.
And for areas that were important enough to keep residences there despite disasters, the affected states could maintain proper funds for disaster relief. Florida has already taken steps to do this sort of thing. More states should follow their example, rather than forcing all other states to subsidize their crises.
Once again, it's not about not taxing enough. It's about government being very wasteful and bloated.
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
Bookmarks