[doulos14]

Maybe I missed it, but just to throw it out there. Sure increasing the tax revenue will bring more money into the government and could reduce the deficit. But regardless of where the money comes from, you really expect me to believe that this new 1.5 trillion dollars isn't going to be spent on something? Increasing taxes gives the government more money to spend, regardless of where the money comes from. This isn't about saving money, or who should be taxed, but if we are going to give the government more money to spend. Now depending on what they spend the money on, its debatable, but do I really want to see an increase in taxes, hidden behind a "reduction in the deficit?"

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

sure it does. and it has the added benefit of showing three different ideologies or guidelines as to what make you "rich" versus "middle class". as most people tend to just consider the "rich" as "anyone who makes more than me" it's counter productive, really. such a vaporous term will most likely be defined to suit your own agenda.

Indeed

In the Gilbert model no wages are given.

In Thompson and Hickey, upper is $500K+, upper middle is high 5 figure to commonly above $100K, lower middle is $35-$75K, working is $16-$30K, lower class is unspecified wages.

The Beeghley model seems like it's all over the board. The super-rich are $350K+, but the rich have total equity values over $1mil. The middle class is a combined income pushing $100K and the working class has a combined income pushing $66K. The poor's household income is $18K. I feel like this model has some odd gaps going on.

[Dwight Schrute]

agreed, thesteve. shows how three different people will classify "poor" or "middle class" or "rich" completely different. I see a duck in that cloud, but you're adamant it's a taco. and for Bryan to argue that 200k is not xyz without any concrete definition as to what xyz is shows a debate based entirely upon his own bias and subjective experience. and I am guilty of the same - what I think or feel is "right" and everyone else is "wrong". isn't that the essence of politics?

bottom line, IMO? our economy is doomed. start brushing up on your Chinese now so you can beg for a cup of water from the holders of our debt.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

bottom line, IMO? our economy is doomed. start brushing up on your Chinese now so you can beg for a cup of water from the holders of our debt.

Not while China requires $50 billion dollars in direct foreign investment a year, there won't be any sort of that shenanigans.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

agreed, thesteve. shows how three different people will classify "poor" or "middle class" or "rich" completely different. I see a duck in that cloud, but you're adamant it's a taco. and for Bryan to argue that 200k is not xyz without any concrete definition as to what xyz is shows a debate based entirely upon his own bias and subjective experience. and I am guilty of the same - what I think or feel is "right" and everyone else is "wrong". isn't that the essence of politics?

bottom line, IMO? our economy is doomed. start brushing up on your Chinese now so you can beg for a cup of water from the holders of our debt.

you do realize that Americans own 2/3 of US debt, don't you? China only hold 8% of our debt.

[Dwight Schrute]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Foreign ownership

As of January 2011, foreigners owned $4.45 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public of $9.49 trillion and 32% of the total debt of $14.1 trillion. The largest holders were the central banks of China, Japan, the United Kingdom and Brazil. The share held by foreign governments has grown over time, rising from 13% of the public debt in 1988 to 25% in 2007.

As of May 2011 the largest single holder of U.S. government debt was China, with 36 percent of all foreign-held U.S. Treasury securities (16% of total US public debt). China's holdings of government debt, as a percentage of all foreign-held government debt, have decreased a bit over the last year, but are up significantly since 2000 (when China held just 6 percent of all foreign-held U.S. Treasury securities).

This exposure to potential financial or political risk should foreign banks stop buying Treasury securities or start selling them heavily was addressed in a June 2008 report issued by the Bank of International Settlements, which stated, "Foreign investors in U.S. dollar assets have seen big losses measured in dollars, and still bigger ones measured in their own currency. While unlikely, indeed highly improbable for public sector investors, a sudden rush for the exits cannot be ruled out completely."

I like the use of your word "only". as in, it's ONLY a few trillion dollars, mere pocket change. heck we could make that up in no time by jacking up the taxes even higher on the evil greedy rich. after all, they deserve it - they drive SUVs and pee on kittens.

bottom line? if everything collapses, the Chinese are at the front of the line. I recommend learning Mandarin.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

bottom line? if everything collapses, the Chinese are at the front of the line. I recommend learning Mandarin.

I have no idea what this is about. Do you honestly believe that the CHinese central bank is going to come in with repossession orders and start hauling off the president's limo?

Sovereign bankruptcy of the world's largest economy is a serious thing. It's not helped by scaring up the Yellow Horde invasion theories.

[Dwight Schrute]

I was thinking more along the lines of cultural influence when we are no longer a major influential world power. what super powers would be left? and what sway would they hold over whatever is left of our country? look at history - a country is in dire straits, another country assists to help rebuild them - at the cost of cultural influence. how many countries in the middle east and africa have we played that trick on? that would be more realistic, IMO, than the governor of Beijing coming over and lugging off the statue of liberty for his living room.