Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Why would privately-owned roads be kept in better condition than public ones? You're putting a lot of faith in corporate enterprise to act fairly and responsibly when there's very little evidence to suggest most private companies would do so.
Except that that wouldn't happen. The money for upkeep is taken from the revenue that the people would be paying for using it. If the project (highway) couldn't pay for itself, why would the private company take it on? Sure, maybe potholes get filled really quickly. The people using the road still have to pay for it. If it requires the additional hiring of a road crew to be on duty 24/7, who do you think takes that cost?
And even if it's a secure investment, the company's still going to need to turn a profit on it in order to do it. Unless it's supposed to be some type of tech development or strategic move or something?
It's not only the revenue that a private company would be interested in, it's the relative security of the investment.
The benefit for the people is two fold - they dont have to worry about the cost of upkeep (when was the last time a pothole on a public road was filled anywhere close to within 24 hours?) and, as you mentioned, the city gets a big wad of cash now that they can use to pay off high interest debt, balance their budget, etc. I wouldnt necessarily call it a "loan" because if it were, the city would be paying interest. In this case, not only is the city getting the money, but they are avoiding all the costs that usually associate with managing a road as well.
Why would privately-owned roads be kept in better condition than public ones? You're putting a lot of faith in corporate enterprise to act fairly and responsibly when there's very little evidence to suggest most private companies would do so.
Tends to be part of the lease deal, as I mentioned above with the Skyway example. The cost of any maintenance is far outweighed by the revenue generated. Road/highway leases tend to be very strict in this sense, but it's in the company's best interest to abide by the regulations set in the agreement based solely on the amount of profit they are set to make.
I dont know why anyone on here thinks that a city would simply hand over a highway to a private company and say "All yours! Do with it as you please!" For a group of folks that have so much faith in the government (compared to private organizations) you guys aren't giving them enough credit in this area.
I'm not sure what it's like in Europe, but here in the states the difference between public and private roads is like night and day (at least in my experience). Especially in Chicago after winter.
Except that that wouldn't happen. The money for upkeep is taken from the revenue that the people would be paying for using it. If the project (highway) couldn't pay for itself, why would the private company take it on? Sure, maybe potholes get filled really quickly. The people using the road still have to pay for it. If it requires the additional hiring of a road crew to be on duty 24/7, who do you think takes that cost?
And even if it's a secure investment, the company's still going to need to turn a profit on it in order to do it. Unless it's supposed to be some type of tech development or strategic move or something?
It's not only a secure investment, but as I mentioned to Andrew above they tend to be very profitable.
As long as you prevent any chance of a monopoly I really dont see how anyone could suggest the downsides outweigh the benefits with the occasional private highway or two.
I dont know why anyone on here thinks that a city would simply hand over a highway to a private company and say "All yours! Do with it as you please!" For a group of folks that have so much faith in the government (compared to private organizations) you guys aren't giving them enough credit in this area.
I think it comes from the peoples ability to vote in Gov't and not the board of directors at a privately owned company.
I always figured the best system is a combination of private companies and gov't (at any level).
Matt Taibbi was asked about this in his "mailbag" column posted today, in reference to Newsweek's recent change in ownership and subsequent publication of an ode to privatization. Taibbi answers at length, ending this way:
You’re right: the reasons for not selling these assets go far beyond the obvious patriotic issue of not selling the fucking “hydroelectric empire of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” to Asians and Arabs to pay for, essentially, bailouts and tax breaks for rich white people in Manhattan. Not only are these deals are almost always horrible values for the state – in Chicago, they sold off 75 years of parking meter revenue for about a fifth of what those meters were worth – they also invoke pretty serious national security issues. In the age of terrorism, are these right-wing types seriously advocating the sale, to foreigners, of Amtrak, of highways and dams, of bridges? Do we all want to be like the citizens of Chicago, watching parking meter rates quadruple overnight because some fund manager in Dubai decides he’s not satisfied with his returns? And again, even if Ferguson is right and we can fetch $233 billion for all this federal infrastructure, all that does is pay for a little over a fourth of the $858 billion extension of the Bush tax breaks, and maybe a twentieth of the financial bailouts, so it’s not like this is some kind of ongoing a solution to the revenue problem going forward. It’s just a really stupid, one-off giveaway of national sovereignty when the market is at its very lowest – selling bridges and grazing lands to finance extra vacations for Jamie Dimon and George Soros. Awesome idea.
Needless to say, I think might have a clue about this whole false narrative that the corporate media is falling over itself to promote.
Whole thing is here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-friedman-naked-swaps-and-madoff-20110228
Well, if Matt Taibbi says so....
Well, if Matt Taibbi says so....
Easy, The Closer! He's giving his opinion, one I happen to agree with. I stand back in amazement at the arguments used to make a case for privatization and the fact that anyone can repeats them with a straight face.
Such horseshit. Let me help in terms you can understand YT.
We're living in a home that is underwater, you can blame the previous owners (Bush - Washington) or you could blame the market (those greedy executives) or you could blame yourself for letting it get this bad (the american people who voted in people you disagree with) but the bottomline is you're in a house that is underwater and you are at risk of losing it to the bank (defaulting on our debt). All privitization is.. is renting a fucking room. Yeah you may not get how much you're paying for electricity, the mortgage, the cable or whatever else it is that is burdening your finances preventing you from balancing your books but you're getting something and you always have the option of kicking that guy out if he acts crazy.. yeah there is a chance that he is a murderer or a rapist but that's what background checks are for and that's what rules are for. You can complain about how much the cost of your bills are all you want but without an injection of funds they're still going to be unpaid and when you negotiated your salary (the bush tax cuts that were agreed between everyone) and didn't get the money you need to pay your bills you need to look at alternatives forms of income.
Now you can disagree with the notion of renting out a room in your house but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and sometimes it even works out.
The ship for raising taxes has sailed, no one is going to raise taxes between now and 2013.. they'll talk about it! sure as hell they will to win your vote but it just isn't going to happen until the earliest of October 2013 and it won't hit the books until January 2014.. So what are our choices between NOW and THEN? Perhaps cut down on your cable channels, turn off a few lights and rent out a room.
Easy, The Closer! He's giving his opinion, one I happen to agree with. I stand back in amazement at the arguments used to make a case for privatization and the fact that anyone can repeats them with a straight face.
Just joshin ya. I tend like like Taibbi and very much respect his opinion (I think you actually turned me on to him back when he wrote his first article about Goldman) but I dont see his rationale here.
Again, nobody is talking about transferring ownership of our entire highway system, our water treatment facilities, our schools, etc.
He also speaks about the dent (or lack thereof) this would make in the federal deficit when decisions like these are made at the local level (and could dramatically impact deficits within a specific city or municipality).
Such horseshit. Let me help in terms you can understand YT.
We're living in a home that is underwater, you can blame the previous owners (Bush - Washington) or you could blame the market (those greedy executives) or you could blame yourself for letting it get this bad (the american people who voted in people you disagree with) but the bottomline is you're in a house that is underwater and you are at risk of losing it to the bank (defaulting on our debt). All privitization is.. is renting a fucking room. Yeah you may not get how much you're paying for electricity, the mortgage, the cable or whatever else it is that is burdening your finances preventing you from balancing your books but you're getting something and you always have the option of kicking that guy out if he acts crazy.. yeah there is a chance that he is a murderer or a rapist but that's what background checks are for and that's what rules are for. You can complain about how much the cost of your bills are all you want but without an injection of funds they're still going to be unpaid and when you negotiated your salary (the bush tax cuts that were agreed between everyone) and didn't get the money you need to pay your bills you need to look at alternatives forms of income.
Now you can disagree with the notion of renting out a room in your house but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and sometimes it even works out.
The ship for raising taxes has sailed, no one is going to raise taxes between now and 2013.. they'll talk about it! sure as hell they will to win your vote but it just isn't going to happen until the earliest of October 2013 and it won't hit the books until January 2014.. So what are our choices between NOW and THEN? Perhaps cut down on your cable channels, turn off a few lights and rent out a room.
Snaieke, you can condescend to me but that doesn't make you right. This might be a better analogy. Your apartment building is underwater. You have a rich person living in the penthouse who isn't paying any rent, so you tell your other tenants not only do they have to double their rents but you're going to let businesses move in and charge your old tenants every time they turn on a light, at a rate set by the business' whim. But when the business starts charging ridiculous sums every time his roommate turns on a light, nothing can be done about it because you signed a contract. And when all your paying tenants move out or die, your reputation and grounds are so trashed you're forced into bankruptcy.
Originally Posted by The Closer
Just joshin ya. I tend like like Taibbi and very much respect his opinion (I think you actually turned me on to him back when he wrote his first article about Goldman) but I dont see his rationale here.
Again, nobody is talking about transferring ownership of our entire highway system, our water treatment facilities, our schools, etc.
He also speaks about the dent (or lack thereof) this would make in the federal deficit when decisions like these are made at the local level (and could dramatically impact deficits within a specific city or municipality).
But how can you ignore the history of horror stories where privatization is concerned? Don't you remember Enron? How about the billions "lost" in Iraq? How about the tremendous waste, fraud and abuse of the contractors there? How about the point Taibbi makes about the parking meters in Chicago? What Walker wants to do in Wisconsin is SELL the state's heating, cooling and power plants at a rate he sets, with no bids, no hearings, no votes, in a state that relies HEAVILY on these utilities, especially heating, and which the taxpayers have paid for over decades in much larger sums than the governor will charge the Koch brothers or whomever.
But how can you ignore the history of horror stories where privatization is concerned? Don't you remember Enron? How about the billions "lost" in Iraq? How about the tremendous waste, fraud and abuse of the contractors there? How about the point Taibbi makes about the parking meters in Chicago? What Walker wants to do in Wisconsin is SELL the state's heating, cooling and power plants at a rate he sets, with no bids, no hearings, no votes, in a state that relies HEAVILY on these utilities, especially heating, and which the taxpayers have paid for over decades in much larger sums than the governor will charge the Koch brothers or whomever.
As a resident of Chicago, I can say that Taibbi has it wrong on the parking meters. I think I mentioned that above.
Your problem is you continuously paint all things private with the same brush. What does Enron have to do with the Chicago Skyway? What does Iraq have to do with the 73 in California? That's no different that Snaieke saying "don't you remember Stalin's gulags!?!?!" as an argument against a single payer health care system. After all, the gulags were administered by the government.
No clue about what Walker wants to do in Wisconsin, but based on your description it sounds like the exact opposite way I or any other sane person would recommend when taking a look at potentially leasing a publicly owned facility to a private entity.
Again, what I'm talking about is perhaps a handful of highways across the US located in areas that desperately need the cash. If these transactions are done right, and there are numerous measures in place to protect the public (as there always have been so far), then there is really no major downside.
You say "if these transactions are done right" as if the kind of capitalism we're seeing in this country doesn't have the track record that it does. I don't want to sound Snaieke-level crazy, but can you name on private company that has not treated a public utility or property like a commodity to be sucked dry?
The parking meter deal is a regressive tax. The money it earned the city is a drop in the bucket--it's gone already. Yet doesn't Chicago have the highest parking meter rates in the country and you're going to have .75 increases each year? Imagine if you earned minimum wage--it would make a much bigger difference to you then.
You say "if these transactions are done right" as if the kind of capitalism we're seeing in this country doesn't have the track record that it does.
Gimme a break. It's no secret that any private company's ultimate goal is to make a profit, but theyre not all EEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLL.
For proof, see any of the 2,200 privately owned highway bridges across the US. Or the Chicago Skyway.
Question: Let's say there are two roads connecting City A to City B, and let's assume that both roads can be considered direct routes. It would be just as easy and convenient for you to take one as it would the other. Suppose that the state is in a dire financial position, and that as an alternative to cutting back on public sector jobs or raising taxes, the state is considering leasing the road for 50 years to a company that will pay the state $2 billion. Aside from the conditions that the road has to be maintained to a higher standard than public roads at all times, the toll that the company will the public to use the road must be in line with other tolls throughout the US and may never rise faster than inflation. If any of the conditions arent met, the company forfeits the right to the tolls at the state keeps the cash.
Seriously, what's wrong with that?
The Closer, please a) don't talk to me like a child. What's with that? And b) will you address the issues I brought up instead of making broad generalizations that I'm sure with bing.com and five minutes I could find enough egregious situations to contradict said generalization?
I wasnt talking to you like a child, and I apologize if it seemed that way. As I've mentioned more than once in this thread, if a situation like that were to present itself I dont see why anybody could look at it and have any objections that arent ideological. I'm sure that if you did indeed do some research, you would find that with a few exceptions there arent many complaints over the 2,200 or so private roadways/bridges in the US. No price gouging, no widespread infrastructure collapse, etc. To be fair, the Dulles Greenway has faced some criticism. Of course, the jury is still out on the new road in Indiana.
What issues did you bring up that I didnt address? From what I've read from both you and Taibbi, you oppose this in general on the grounds that either A) all corporations are greedy and will fuck us over the first chance they get because look at what the banks and the contractors in Iraq did, or B) we shouldnt look at making public entities private because it's un-American and will create a slippery slope where Dubai and North Korea call the shots in our schools and national parks.
There's really no point in trying to argue against either of those. Not because theyre correct, but because when someone makes such knee jerk ideological arguments there tends to be no chance in changing their minds.
ETA if you do fall into that category then that's a-o-k with me as youre entitled to your opinion. I just wont bother debating with you about it.
I'm sure that if you did indeed do some research, you would find that with a few exceptions there arent many complaints over the 2,200 or so private roadways/bridges in the US. No price gouging, no widespread infrastructure collapse, etc.
You talk about these private roadways/bridges as if they existed in a vaccuum, completely unaffected by, say, all the public highways that are used to get to them. C'mon, Closer.
I wasnt talking to you like a child, and I apologize if it seemed that way. As I've mentioned more than once in this thread, if a situation like that were to present itself I dont see why anybody could look at it and have any objections that arent ideological. I'm sure that if you did indeed do some research, you would find that with a few exceptions there arent many complaints over the 2,200 or so private roadways/bridges in the US. No price gouging, no widespread infrastructure collapse, etc. To be fair, the Dulles Greenway has faced some criticism. Of course, the jury is still out on the new road in Indiana.
What issues did you bring up that I didnt address? From what I've read from both you and Taibbi, you oppose this in general on the grounds that either A) all corporations are greedy and will fuck us over the first chance they get because look at what the banks and the contractors in Iraq did, or B) we shouldnt look at making public entities private because it's un-American and will create a slippery slope where Dubai and North Korea call the shots in our schools and national parks.
There's really no point in trying to argue against either of those. Not because theyre correct, but because when someone makes such knee jerk ideological arguments there tends to be no chance in changing their minds.
ETA if you do fall into that category then that's a-o-k with me as youre entitled to your opinion. I just wont bother debating with you about it.
I wasnt talking to you like a child, and I apologize if it seemed that way. As I've mentioned more than once in this thread, if a situation like that were to present itself I dont see why anybody could look at it and have any objections that arent ideological. I'm sure that if you did indeed do some research, you would find that with a few exceptions there arent many complaints over the 2,200 or so private roadways/bridges in the US. No price gouging, no widespread infrastructure collapse, etc. To be fair, the Dulles Greenway has faced some criticism. Of course, the jury is still out on the new road in Indiana.
What issues did you bring up that I didnt address? From what I've read from both you and Taibbi, you oppose this in general on the grounds that either A) all corporations are greedy and will fuck us over the first chance they get because look at what the banks and the contractors in Iraq did, or B) we shouldnt look at making public entities private because it's un-American and will create a slippery slope where Dubai and North Korea call the shots in our schools and national parks.
There's really no point in trying to argue against either of those. Not because theyre correct, but because when someone makes such knee jerk ideological arguments there tends to be no chance in changing their minds.
ETA if you do fall into that category then that's a-o-k with me as youre entitled to your opinion. I just wont bother debating with you about it.
I dont necessarily believe that privatization is the cure to all our ills. You've seen me on here strongly advocating a universal health care system. I believe in a strong public school system as well, so I'm not one of those "everything public is horrible" kinds of people.
My point (again) that when done right - as they often have been - leasing a road or a bridge to a private company can be a win-win for all parties involved. Can cities miss out on future revenue by leasing a road for 30-50 years? You betcha, but they are made whole by the fact that they can take the $1-3 billion they made during this transaction, pay down a heft portion of their debt, which thereby drives the cities borrowing costs lower. Not to mention, they get to avoid work furloughs, tax increases, etc.
As for the parking meters, I think I mentioned on the first page that while they are a tad more expensive than they were before, the exponential increase in the amount of them (and therefore the availability of parking) goes a long way to making up for it. Parking is only "expensive" in high traffic areas (eg near the Loop) during high demand times. I live about 1.5 miles south of the Sears Tower, and it cost my buddies $1.50 to park for 3 hours in front of my place the other night. Does it suck that Sunday's arent free any more? Sure, but it's not the end of the world. Taibbi mentioned the rate hikes after the new meters were put in - what he doesnt mention was that the rate hikes were set and approved by the city and due to be implemented anyway. It was purely a coincidence that this occurred soon after the deal. All of the rate hikes that occurred within the first year were also set by the city and had nothing to do with the private company.
As to whether or not I think it was a good deal - I dont think it was. Daley didn't do right by us, and it seems that we stand to lose roughly $12 billion over the term of the 75 year lease. If we had gotten $2 billion more, I dont think anybody could call it the transaction anything else than a success.
Hey, how did privatization work out for economies like Peru, whose industries (under Western/World Bank influence) were basically put on the auction block at fire sale prices?
The Closer, fine, but to that I say: Do you believe:
a) Individuals are fallible/prone to greed;
b) Cronyism is rampant and crony deals are usually not a "win/win" for taxpayers;
c) The Constitution does not guarantee the right to air grievances with private corporations, whereas it does with the government;
d) White collar crime/lawlessness/lack of law enforcement for same remains a big problem in the post-Bush years;
e) Many deals, especially those in which cronyism plays a role, are done in secret without the public knowing until the deed is done;
e) All of the above.
If the answer to those questions are yes, then you need to take a close look at each individual situation in which some "free market" "conservative" is advocating for the privatization of the commons. There is a whole other argument I could make about the commons being our collective responsibility, as is setting a good model with public jobs rather than the race-to-the-bottom/let's make American workers compete with Chinese workers making .25/day model, but that's for another day.
Hey, how did privatization work out for economies like Peru, whose industries (under Western/World Bank influence) were basically put on the auction block at fire sale prices?
Because what I'm advocating is the privatization if literally all of our publicly owned assets?
You know that between 0 and 60 there's 59 different speeds, right?
Because what I'm advocating is the privatization if literally all of our publicly owned assets?
You know that between 0 and 60 there's 59 different speeds, right?
Hey, easy sparky. Best I can tell, this conversation spun off of this article, which includes this quote:
"The mystery is why freedom-loving Americans are so averse to privatization—a policy that has been a huge success nearly everywhere it’s been tried. From Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, where the word “privatization” was coined, to present-day China, selling off government-owned industries has not only improved the fiscal position of governments; it has usually enhanced the efficiency with which the sold assets are managed."
The idea of privatization as a miracle cure is laughably stupid. Has it worked in other areas of the world? It depends on who you ask and when you ask them. My question had more to do with that then what you're saying.
The Closer, fine, but to that I say: Do you believe:
a) Individuals are fallible/prone to greed;
b) Cronyism is rampant and crony deals are usually not a "win/win" for taxpayers;
c) The Constitution does not guarantee the right to air grievances with private corporations, whereas it does with the government;
d) White collar crime/lawlessness/lack of law enforcement for same remains a big problem in the post-Bush years;
e) Many deals, especially those in which cronyism plays a role, are done in secret without the public knowing until the deed is done;
e) All of the above.
If the answer to those questions are yes, then you need to take a close look at each individual situation in which some "free market" "conservative" is advocating for the privatization of the commons. There is a whole other argument I could make about the commons being our collective responsibility, as is setting a good model with public jobs rather than the race-to-the-bottom/let's make American workers compete with Chinese workers making .25/day model, but that's for another day.
Which is exactly what I've said over the course of a dozen or so posts.
Hey, easy sparky. Best I can tell, this conversation spun off of this article, which includes this quote:
"The mystery is why freedom-loving Americans are so averse to privatization—a policy that has been a huge success nearly everywhere it’s been tried. From Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, where the word “privatization” was coined, to present-day China, selling off government-owned industries has not only improved the fiscal position of governments; it has usually enhanced the efficiency with which the sold assets are managed."
The idea of privatization as a miracle cure is laughably stupid. Has it worked in other areas of the world? It depends on who you ask and when you ask them. My question had more to do with what you're saying.
I see what you mean and I agree - I've never condoned or suggested complete privatization or anything even remotely resembling it.
My whole point is that, when done right (which is possible, believe it or not) these things can work. Does it always make sense? No. Is it a good idea to look at this for water treatment facilities or power plants? No.
But if a long list of conditions are met and the benefits for the public outweigh the concessions, leasing a road wont automatically give us all Ebola AIDS. That's all I'm saying.
Originally Posted by The Closer
My point (again) that when done right - as they often have been - leasing a road or a bridge to a private company can be a win-win for all parties involved. Can cities miss out on future revenue by leasing a road for 30-50 years? You betcha, but they are made whole by the fact that they can take the $1-3 billion they made during this transaction, pay down a heft portion of their debt, which thereby drives the cities borrowing costs lower. Not to mention, they get to avoid work furloughs, tax increases, etc. <The Closer
Yeah, but the problem is, why does a City or State enter into a Privatization agreement? Is it due to a rational calculus like the one you lay out? Or is it a desperate Hail Mary attempt to dig themselves out of a hole cause by short term election cycle driven thinking + stupidity? And if it's the later, what are the chances that they'll someone do better in the future?
Signed,
A resident of California
More often it's going to be the latter minus the stupidity. As I've mentioned, something like this would be a viable alternative to raising taxes or cutting into the public sector when a state or municipality is in financial trouble.
It's no secret that in the long run the state will lose some of the potential profit, but per my previous post they would even out when you consider the benefits of not having an additioanl $1-2 billion in debt hanging around your neck.
(Reuters) - A Republican budget plan due to be unveiled on Tuesday would cut $5.8 trillion from U.S. spending over the next 10 years, a congressional aide familiar with the proposal said on Monday.
The plan, which would take effect when the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, is expected to propose sweeping changes to the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, as well as hard caps on government spending and tax cuts.
I'm looking forward to seeing this! That's 580 billion a year.. and touching the major entitlement programs!
Of course the Republicans would cut that much. They'd slash and burn every fucking public service in the country to get to that figure.
So, what are the odds of this plan just being mind-numbingly bat-shit crazy? I enjoyed Rand Paul's a couple months ago. Hopefully, this has the same level of humor.
I'm looking forward to seeing this! That's 580 billion a year.. and touching the major entitlement programs!
You're just a sociopathic fuck.
I wonder how many corporate tax cuts will be protected by said budget.
I wonder how many corporate tax cuts will be protected by said budget.
The one saving grace of the plan (that I know of) is that they want to lower the corporate tax rate to 25% but close all the loopholes...basically they lifted it directly from the Fiscal Commission's budget plan.
The one saving grace of the plan (that I know of) is that they want to lower the corporate tax rate to 25% but close all the loopholes...basically they lifted it directly from the Fiscal Commission's budget plan.
If they actually shut down the double Irish structure and the check the box loophole, I'd be very surprised.
I'm pretty sure they do, but obviously I haven't read the plan. Everything I have read though points in that direction.
Bowles-Simpson Plan FTW!
I'm pretty sure they do, but obviously I haven't read the plan. Everything I have read though points in that direction.
Bowles-Simpson Plan FTW!
Bowles-Simpson FTW -- just in case you think grandma hasn't eaten enough cat food in her life.
So the plan cuts the top bracket's income tax from 35% to 25%... fucking brilliant.
Quote:
So, what are the odds of this plan just being mind-numbingly bat-shit crazy? I enjoyed Rand Paul's a couple months ago. Hopefully, this has the same level of humor.
The projections in the plan are out of a comic book, how can any sane adult believe this crap?
Ryan Avent flags that claim from the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, which put together the first number-crunch of Paul Ryan's budget. (The CDA study is the second appendix in the budget.)
From the study, here's how Heritage sees the employment rate moving if the Ryan budget passes or if it doesn't pass.
GOP Budget No GOP Budget
2012 6.4 8.4
2013 5.5 7.6
2014 4.8 6.8
2015 4.0 5.9
2016 3.5 5.3
2017 3.4 5.3
2018 3.3 5.2
2019 3.1 5.2
2020 2.9 5.2
2021 2.8 5.2
So Ryan thinks he can reduce unemployment by 2% in less than a year!!!
lol @ the idea our unemployment rate will be comparable to Japan's.
So the plan cuts the top bracket's income tax from 35% to 25%... fucking brilliant.
Well, if the Closer's right about the loop holes, then it might work. If not, 2/3s of America's C-Corps do not have any tax liability so lowering the rate does bupkis for them.
Well, if the Closer's right about the loop holes, then it might work. If not, 2/3s of America's C-Corps do not have any tax liability so lowering the rate does bupkis for them.
No no, you misunderstand. In addition to cutting the corporate tax rate from 35-25%, it cuts the individual income tax rate for the top bracket from 35%-25%. This plan is so unserious that in a just world Ryan and his GOP sycophants would be laughed out of office.
You realize that if you close loop holes and reduce deductions you can actually increase the tax base while still lowering the marginal tax rate, right?
Why do both when we need to increase government income? Close the loopholes and that's it.
Because a 35% top marginal tax bracket with no deductions is ridiculous.
Because a 35% top marginal tax bracket with no deductions is ridiculous.
Why? If the deficit needs addressing so badly, why is that ridiculous?
I'm not going to pretend like I'm some expert on this complicated topic but I pretty much view the current Republican platform as class warfare on the poor and middle class. (What, the natural flow of wealth in capitalism isn't enough of a transfer of wealth for the wealthy? Fuck that.) National Democrats, by and large, aren't exactly on the other side of the debate. More like the caught moderating the debate between the teabaggers and the far-left, who have very little actual political leverage.
Nifty little article and CBO Budget embed:
I guess the GOP's plan would actually increase deficits because of the revenue cuts outpacing spending cuts more than if they didn't do anything. Awesome job!
The GOP is literally holding the country hostage right now. We're about to have a government shutdown, and they've got a gun to our heads wrt the debt limit. I'm not one to get overexcited about mundane political machinations, however frightening, but can we get a fucking protest?
Why do both when we need to increase government income? Close the loopholes and that's it.
Ryan's plan generates income and reduces spending. This is EXACTLY what needs to happen. Even if this doesn't materialize or if there are tweaks, this is the best start so far that has come out of anyone in Washington.
As to your earlier question about unemployment. The theory is (keep in mind, it's a theory) that companies and individuals are afraid to invest in America right now. The endless deficits and bond auctions with the threat of inflation \ hyperinflation is scaring off investors in the American economy. If the government laid out a plan that would end our out of control deficits it would ease that "tension" and allow people to open new business's, expand existing business's, etc.. in essense it would get America back on track. Now, if you don't subscribe to that theory.. sorry, can't help you.
