Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on July 12, 2011, 07:14:57 pm
-
Basically, the democrats and republicans need to produce a budget bill for the next year of the government’s operations. if there is no bill, there is no budget, there is no *official* appropriation of money. not only that, but abroad, the world’s finances hang at once by a thread and at second by a metal chain. The world standards organization is threatening the US with a downgrade of their debt, which would drastically reduce the US’s purchasing power. this vacuum in an unstable and still shoddy economy put up by those who may wish to see personal profit as public, would most likely be the first card to fall in this tower of commerce. The world could drastically change, I mean really change, within a very short timespan. I jest not when I say I wonder just whether or not I am partaking in exagerration in my explanation.
Or as a certain kinetically gifted muffin explained:
“when the guys on top topple over the people on the bottom will start to think for themselves”
Please, discuss.
-
The debt limit will be lifted. It seems to be the biggest hurdle I keep hearing about.
This is all a show so the republicans can look "tough on debt."
-
Yep, this is all a dog-and-pony show. The Republicans will drag their heels and piss and moan, but they will pass that bill. Wall Street doesn't want the financial disaster that a default would create, and the Republicans know who foots the bill for their re-election campaigns.
-
Yep, this is all a dog-and-pony show. The Republicans will drag their heels and piss and moan, but they will pass that bill. Wall Street doesn't want the financial disaster that a default would create, and the Republicans know who foots the bill for their re-election campaigns.
That maybe so but out of control debts and deficits is a serious problem.
-
I have my alarm clock set to NPR and as I clawed my way towards consciousness this morning I heard something that had caused me to spontaneously declare WTF?
As most of you know the US gov't is hurtling toward a deadline where they much raise the debt ceiling or the entire system and the economy along with it face plants into concrete like an uncoordinated skateboarder on a grind rail. Now the Reps and Dems have been hemming and hawing about the issue and dragging their heals. My understanding was that the Dems where pushing for budget cuts and some tax increases, whereas the Reps wanted just budget cuts no change in the tax structure. Which I figure is business as usual, once they get done with the dog and pony show they'll come to an agreement. So fast forward to this morning I here that instead the Reps have decided to propose a deal where they allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling sans congress...
So wait wut? If I understand this correctly, they're basically going to forgo dealing with any budget changes or tax adjustments and just raise the debt ceiling?
What the ****?
-
strategy. 2012. Obama responsible to do what they will inevitably do anyways. Obama responsible for the HUUUUGE DEFICIT. Must be thrown out, the muslim infiltrator, him. And sent to Gitmo.
-
Obvious trolling is obvious. It's also not all that amusing.
-
I'm not trolling. I was actually being serious, if you can believe me. Only the tone was "funny".
-
Keep in mind, Obama had to deal with the economic crisis, caused by american bankers not knowing what they're doing. Financial problems were unavoidable.
-
That's indeed the nature of debts. The guy in the present is blamed for the shortcomings of the guy in the past.
-
Look, I did not say that Obama is to blame. I said "Strategy". Republicans are smart politicians. They know that the onus is on them. If the Reps can't bring themselves to accept the ceiling being higher, the whole country falls down and its *their fault*. Too ****ing risky.
So what do they do instead? They cut the losses and plan for the future. Give what appears to be a solution but it is filled with poison. They give Obama the power to lift the ceiling himself, so that the action now resides on Obama. Fox news will be all over "Obamaroof" and the all-too common democrats will to "spend money as the incompetents they are". There are elections next year and Reps will use this as election fodder.
IOW, they know this is inevitable, but they don't want to press the red button. They want Obama to press it.
-
Eh. Blasted political games. As if they couldn't all get together and think off a reasonable solution.
On the other hand, this is pretty civilized compared to what's happening in some other countries... namely the one I live in...
-
As if they couldn't all get together and think off a reasonable solution.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!
-
Wishfull thinking aside (snow will fall on the equator before politicans will actually stop arguing and gather to do something for thier country), somebody should really try to ensure US will not go bankrupt when they're arguing. As we've seen about a year ago, when US sneezes, the entire world has to wipe it's nose.
-
I kind of hope that the federal government collapses . . .
-
The U.S. will not go bankrupt if the debt ceiling gets raised. The debt ceiling is a cap on borrowing, not spending, so Congress will still have the ability to spend money. They'll just have to be careful where they get it since borrowing it from China won't be an option anymore. Continuous deficit spending leading to a consistently rising debt ceiling isn't exactly wise monetary policy in the first place, anyways.
-
They would be able to spend money but the amount of money they could spend would be drastically reduced.
Which, tbh, probably wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; they would exert less informal control over the country as a whole.
-
http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Places-US-Aaa-Government-Bond-Rating-and-Related-Ratings?lang=en&cy=global&docid=PR_221800
Moodys to review possible downgrading of US credit rating.
Edit: The site is pretty busy.. BBC Coverage here :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14142621
-
Man, those rating agencies sure hold a lot of power over countries that are supposed to be of the people, for the people, etc...
-
Yes, clearly we should have some kind of anarchic system that could only be enforced by the threat of violence.
-
Man, those rating agencies sure hold a lot of power over countries that are supposed to be of the people, for the people, etc...
Debt is debt, some is good some is not so good.
-
Yes, clearly we should have some kind of anarchic system that could only be enforced by the threat of violence.
That would be a bad idea IMO. Though not necessarily dissimilar to international law in some respects.
It's funny that you went to that as your response though; nothing I said implied anything of the sort. Do you have something you'd like to say aloud? :)
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-adds-constitutional-amendment-budget-fight-190757159.html
A constitutional amendment, eh? Wow. I don't think people realize that even if this does pass, there really is a good chance it won't. Society is that dysfunctional right now.
-
(snow will fall on the equator before politicans will actually stop arguing and gather to do something for thier country)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Volcan_Cayambe.JPG/800px-Volcan_Cayambe.JPG)
Volcán Cayambe, Ecuador.
I have contributed meaningfully to this discussion.
-
Man, those rating agencies sure hold a lot of power over countries that are supposed to be of the people, for the people, etc...
Debt is debt, some is good some is not so good.
25% debt to credit ratio is what is recommended for personal finances... US is looking like 98% ATM, right?
-
was I the only one expecting a political cartoon where the national debt is actually a character and talks when they read the thread title?
-
So in my view... you've had the free lunch. Now it's time to pay some taxes. Especially if you make boatloads of money. That's what the rest of the developed world does.
-
Not the Friggin US of A, no it aint!
TAzxes are Xocialistic n communist!
Dont let the commy muslim take the Freeeedom our Lord the Saviour of this planet has given us to protect (with gans!)
Taxin the rich is like drainin' the resources from above. Sprinkle Down economics FTW!
/sarcasm .... or rather "how I wish nobody was like that"
-
From what I've heard, the majority of individually rich individuals do pay a fairly high percentage of what they make. A genuine problem seems to be that wealthy corporations seem to be getting off without paying taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
http://www.alternet.org/economy/150598/how_12_multinational_corporations_avoid_paying_taxes/
Outsourcing furthermore reduces the manufacturing worth of the US, while corruption in the name of profiteering hurts the would-be US professionals, whether they be laymen, factory workers, and even scientists and engineers. Chew on that one.
-
Shouldn't the US rating be put at "Junk" a long time ago? If Portugal had it... The US situation seams te be off worse.
-
Its not worse *at all*. Everyone still buys dollars, that's pretty much a guarantee right there. USA is still growing its economy and Portugal is stalled for a decade now. Please don't compare.
-
From what I've heard, the majority of individually rich individuals do pay a fairly high percentage of what they make. A genuine problem seems to be that wealthy corporations seem to be getting off without paying taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
http://www.alternet.org/economy/150598/how_12_multinational_corporations_avoid_paying_taxes/
Outsourcing furthermore reduces the manufacturing worth of the US, while corruption in the name of profiteering hurts the would-be US professionals, whether they be laymen, factory workers, and even scientists and engineers. Chew on that one.
You really hit it here; it's not so much the individuals as much as it is large, extremely profitable companies who have managed through various means to avoid contributing to the society which they are a part of. People like to try and blame the individually rich, but really most of their worth is in their stock options etc, IIRC.
-
Now, it might also be accurate to state that the tax brackets need to be better adapted to suit the lower- and middle- class, featuring a more gradual climb over the lower incomes, rising up more slightly once the individual breaks 100K - making a model to illustrate this would be trivial, though I admit I don't care about doing such at this time. Also keep in mind that no one is really going to ever be satisfied with what the tax brackets settle upon, anyway.
However, commerce, trade, and industry are really what fuels an economy - income is made to be spent. When the companies benefitting from the spending aren't putting back into the system, you've got a major bust moving into the system. It's just a matter of time.
-
Everything I've seen the Obama administration do the past days reeks of financial terrorism. 'warning' taxes will rise, social security can't be paid, yet when this gets passed, it doesn't even go into the economy. Of course the controlled two-party system will waste time debating it and then just pass it when no one's looking.
Also, Thaeris hit it on the head there. Big multinational companies and the biggest banks are the only ones benefiting of the dismal state of the economies of Europe and the USA, and make money on the way up and down. Makes me curious if qui bono (sp?) should be considered.
The only thing that truly is going to change is that the people of the USA do not benefit from the anglo-american empire anymore, the entire economy and workforce seems to have been put as collateral for the empire. Interesting times, curious what we can expect next.
As usual, just my opinion on things. Hope it contributes to the conversation.
-
Meh, we are done for whether they raise the ceiling or not. The question is do we bite the bullet now or later.
-
Also, Thaeris hit it on the head there. Big multinational companies and the biggest banks are the only ones benefiting of the dismal state of the economies of Europe and the USA, and make money on the way up and down. Makes me curious if qui bono (sp?) should be considered.
The thing is, to whom are they exactly going to sell their products if the buying power in USA and EU drops? And to whom banks are going to give loans if it isn't smart for people under the economical situation?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888
Boehner walks out of the talks. I'm not quite sure what game he's playing here, whether he's hoping to push things to the last minute to get concessions, but if so, it seems to be a dangerous thing to be doing with the US economy at stake.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888
Boehner walks out of the talks. I'm not quite sure what game he's playing here, whether he's hoping to push things to the last minute to get concessions, but if so, it seems to be a dangerous thing to be doing with the US economy at stake.
Meh, neither side wants a deal until like six hours before crunch time. Obama wants to say, "Look at me, I am the master of compromise and orchestrated this deal.", Republicans want to say "We won one for the American people, despite the Democrats." and the Democrats want to say, "We won one for the American people, despite the Republicans."
If a deal is not reached and we do suffer some type of default, I will be beyond shocked. As of right now, we are only seeing the APWF(American Politics Wrestling Foundation) put on a good show. Afterwards there will be a lot of trash talking, but in reality they will be just counting their dough. All the while everybody is watching, paying the low, low price of $49.95.
-
I've said it before and I'll say again... Any politician would happily watch the country go down in flames before giving an inch to the other party, as long as they can blame it on said other party.
-
I honestly don't know why everyone is so super confident that they'll reach a compromise. If they do reach one, I won't really be surprised, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't reach one, either. *Shrug* Suffice to say, I won't be surprised at either outcome. The former would occur if both sides realized how childish they're being, while the latter would be the culmination of years of childish animosity between two disagreeable sides. Either way, the Republicans and Democrats (aka the US government) are two halves of a giant dysfunctional family that just can't get along because of their own petty problems.
Whew wish I could word that better, I'm exhausted from cycling all day. :D
-
Damn it to Hell.
I'm making a point of voting Libertarian next time elections roll around.
-
Its not worse *at all*. Everyone still buys dollars, that's pretty much a guarantee right there. USA is still growing its economy and Portugal is stalled for a decade now. Please don't compare.
The dollar is bleeding value everyday, and the middle class is shrinking. It might not have been Portugal but its fast approaching. America's economic glory has come and gone imho, its time for the world to find some equal balance, so we aren't all cast off into the roiling sea when America can't get its **** together.
As for these debt talks 7 days and counting boys, hold on to your shorts
-
I am amused that Republican Party has successfully painted itself as being in the driver's seat and is now attempting to steer for a crash.
Blatantly suicidal urges ahoy.
-
Well I'll definitely be holding onto my hat and waiting to see what happens. Hoping to buy a house in the next year but if the US defaults and the economy tanks it will no doubt cause some disruptions up here. We came through the last down turn relatively unscathed. We'll see if we can pull that magic rabbit out of it's hat a second time.
-
I really see this more as a continuation of the 2008 crash; really, the economy never recovered - stocks did, but for average folks the bad news never seemed to stop.
EDIT: By the way, could the US dollar getting devalued end up helping people with large loans in USD?
-
I really see this more as a continuation of the 2008 crash; really, the economy never recovered - stocks did, but for average folks the bad news never seemed to stop.
EDIT: By the way, can someone help me out here? Could the US dollar getting devalued end up helping people with large loans; namely college students?
Hardly, prices would probably go up.
And I dont think this is a continuation of the 2008 crash, the US addiction to borrowing tons of money has little or nothing to do with the 2008 crash, this would have happened anyways.
-
Well I was thinking that right now the loans are for a set value; so if the dollar tanks, you pay back the same amount with money that's worth less. I mean, it's mitigated by the fact that yea everything will cost more, but just a thought.
-
Yeah fair enough
-
So only a few more days left before the US may default (Not necessarily going to happen should the debt ceiling fail to be raised but very likely). I wonder where the public will place blame for this fiasco after all is said and done. Will it be on the heads of the Republicans who refuse to compromise on anything and draw lines in the sand like spoiled children or will it be the Democrats who didn't cave in but failed to come up with anything that both sides could agree to. Guess we will find out come election time but how can any one continue to have any faith in our leaders when they are so polarized that simple issues become gridlocks.
-
I blame both of them. All of them! Acting like stubborn children, can't even dream of giving an inch to those bastards in the other party. No no, that would be weakness. God forbid they act like responsible adults and reach some kind of compromise for the good of the nation.
-
More worrying is that it looks both of them got their sums wrong and are going to have to come up with a way to cut $500 billion more than their current proposals allow for.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14318377
-
I blame both of them. All of them! Acting like stubborn children, can't even dream of giving an inch to those bastards in the other party. No no, that would be weakness. God forbid they act like responsible adults and reach some kind of compromise for the good of the nation.
Actually, as Jon Stewart put it the other day, it turns out that both sides basically caved to the other at one point...and then said side rejected their proposals. So now I don't know what the hell is going on. :p
-
What's interesting is that the Republicans actually have far more to lose, as they've managed to convince their constituents that they're in the driver's seat, where the Democrats have consistently said that it's not really up to them, it will require compromise.
-
This is what happens when voters vote for a Democrat President and a Congress that's split in two with the majority Senate being useless if the minority collectively object, and a Republican House.
-
This is what happens when voters vote for a Democrat President and a Congress that's split in two with the majority Senate being useless if the minority collectively object, and a Republican House.
Congressional system for the win
-
The tiny sadistic side of me is reading the news and almost hoping for a default - perhaps then Americans will realize that their government needs repair in all kinds of ways other than what many of them thought.
This is what comes of low taxes for the ultra-rich, massive loopholes in the tax code, high corporate tax rates that punish smaller businesses, massive (unaffordable) military spending well beyond defensive need, and a broken medical/social system that costs more and delivers less than any other G8 nation.
Perhaps I'm being a smug Canadian here, but the politics surrounding the current negotiations are exactly what's wrong with the United States as a whole - no one wants to actually work together for the common good and within realistic scenarios other than a very few people surrounded by policy madness on all sides. It's really, really sad.
Oh, and IceFire, don't buy your house yet; interest rates aren't set to rise until later in the fall when the BoC makes it's next adjustment, and you may luck out and see housing prices tank just beforehand. Right now is probably the worst time you could buy a house, although a 5-year locked interest rate may look pretty rosy compared to what's coming.
-
The tiny sadistic side of me is reading the news and almost hoping for a default - perhaps then Americans will realize that their government needs repair in all kinds of ways other than what many of them thought.
As an American who is well aware of those problems and would very much like to see them resolved, I can confidently say that a default would only cause the Americans who are part of the problem to double down on the derp.
-
The tiny sadistic side of me is reading the news and almost hoping for a default - perhaps then Americans will realize that their government needs repair in all kinds of ways other than what many of them thought.
As an American who is well aware of those problems and would very much like to see them resolved, I can confidently say that a default would only cause the Americans who are part of the problem to double down on the derp.
Double down on the derp. I definitely LIKE that saying haha, and may start using it.
-
The tiny sadistic side of me is reading the news and almost hoping for a default - perhaps then Americans will realize that their government needs repair in all kinds of ways other than what many of them thought.
It's best not to think like that, Ryan. A lot of countries have assets in America. If the US defaults, these countries will be hit as well.
From the way I see it, there will not be a happy ending to this. Either America defaults and drags the rest of the world down with it, or it raises the debt ceiling, spends more money, chalks up more debts and postpones repaying its debts again. If the Americans think that some miracle will happen or their God will save them, I don't think that will happen this time round unless some people wake up.
Even if there's a budget surplus for the next ten years, I doubt America would be able to pay off their debts unless they make ludicrously huge profits.
-
Mabye the EU should offer the USA economic aid...
-
but Greece and Portugal.
-
That's the point. I said offer. Nothing would put those guys more at shame then the EU considering them equal to countries like Greece and Portugal.
-
So I'm actually starting to feel a bit of fear about this. I hope it is totally unfounded.
-
Hmm, maybe China will annex us. :rolleyes:
-
This is going to make my job incredibly ****ing hard.
-
I'm just kind of laughing at it at this point. It's so pathetic, what else can you do?
-
I'm just kind of laughing at it at this point. It's so pathetic, what else can you do?
Vote out every last incumbent come next election to show our disgust. Probably would backfire on us though and we would end up with an even larger crop of morons.
-
Is it revolution time yet?
-
Is it revolution time yet?
Almost....
-
I've been getting work calls routed to my home number half the day from people who are flipping out over not getting their paychecks.
-
I'm just kind of laughing at it at this point. It's so pathetic, what else can you do?
Vote out every last incumbent come next election to show our disgust. Probably would backfire on us though and we would end up with an even larger crop of morons.
Well let's hope we don't get fooled again
-
I'm just kind of laughing at it at this point. It's so pathetic, what else can you do?
Vote out every last incumbent come next election to show our disgust. Probably would backfire on us though and we would end up with an even larger crop of morons.
Well let's hope we don't get fooled again
Well...meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
May be showning my age with that one...
-
Yeah, uh, this is being driven by the new crop of crazies the GOP brought in during 2010, combined with the non-crazies' fear of losing a Primary challenge if they don't appear to be just as conservative as the average lunatic Tea Partier. So voting out all the incumbents in favor of new guys? Probably not the best idea.
I blame both of them. All of them! Acting like stubborn children, can't even dream of giving an inch to those bastards in the other party. No no, that would be weakness. God forbid they act like responsible adults and reach some kind of compromise for the good of the nation.
I can only presume you haven't been paying attention. The Reid bill gave the GOP literally everything they asked for, except it also stipulated we wouldn't have to deal with this bull**** again next year. The GOP rejected it. The fundamental problem is that the Tea Party is completely, utterly unwilling to compromise, and the rest of the GOP lives in fear of the Tea Party.
-
I can only presume you haven't been paying attention. The Reid bill gave the GOP literally everything they asked for, except it also stipulated we wouldn't have to deal with this bull**** again next year. The GOP rejected it.
Yep. This is one of those times when it's amazing just how horrible the Democrats' PR strategies are.
Another day or two of this ****, and it's time for Obama to stop talking to the Republicans and order the Treasury to mint that trillion-dollar coin. Put Boehner's face on it for good measure.
-
From the looks of things, there will definitely be an eleventh-hour compromise. Both sides have some plans drawn up, but because they still have time, nobody wants to pass any one of them because none of the plans have everything either side wants.
Honestly speaking, I will be genuinely surprised if the US Government fails to meet the deadline and defaults, because if they do, I think a new government is needed.
-
Rather than getting angry, worried, etc, over this, I think that people should instead be happy about it. I see this as an opportunity. It's not about right or left, Republicans vs Democrats. To let either side get away with simply blaming it on the other would be folly and only allow this hypocrisy to continue.
This is a prime time to begin mounting an effective campaign based on compromise, transparency, accountability, honesty, etc. The public is now, more than ever before, receptive to the idea of breaking away from the two party system that has held us captive for so long.
I see this as a good thing for those who want real change. If handled properly, this could be the beginning of the end for our current government (Democrats and Republicans), and the start of something new. I hope that new thing will be something better; something sane, that makes sense, that isn't vying for control over so much. It's the turn of the world. Let's make something good come of this. :) Because deal or no deal; the debt is still there. The credit downgrade is still likely. These people are fighting over pennies when there are dollars at stake.
Whether or not they reach a compromise isn't really relevant; I think this situation shows that the government is effectively broken. The people that have been entrusted with the care of it have failed - what happens when there is a real calamity? Something even worse than this? Do you think they will make better decisions then? Do you think they'll be reasonable then?
I think it's time the people took the care of the government and placed it where it always belonged; on themselves. Not on people who's only real talent is manipulating numbers.
What do you folks think?
-
I think you're a fool.
It is about right and left. It's about who actually gives a **** and who doesn't; who cares about the common man and who doesn't; who gives a **** if the economy tanks and the country defaults and who doesn't.
It's about the governmental system being deliberately compromised by a bunch of people who know that their only hope of creating their dream government is to pull a NDSAP and cause the existing one to fall so they can assume power. It's about who will be reactionary enough to get votes when the situation goes to ****.
I never thought I'd see you backing that play.
-
What play? That continuing to side with "Democrats" or "Republicans" is foolish? Because that's really all I'm saying.
-
It's odd that in what is, in essence, a hostage situation, you're reluctant to assign culpability to the hostage takers.
Hey, here's all that needs to happen for everything to be fine: the GOP needs to not kill the hostage. That's it, problem solved.
-
I blame both parties.
-
What play? That continuing to side with "Democrats" or "Republicans" is foolish? Because that's really all I'm saying.
What I see as foolish is recognizing (correctly) that both of our parties are flawed, but refusing to recognize that one party is much, much, more deeply flawed than the other. It's a highly unfortunate tendency that I see in a lot of Americans.
-
I blame both parties.
I'll let you in on a secret.
The debt ceiling has been raised for years without comment from either party. It's normally a part of the budget bills and goes totally unremarked.
The Republicans moved to sever those things this year.
What play? That continuing to side with "Democrats" or "Republicans" is foolish? Because that's really all I'm saying.
The deliberate gridlock of the government with the objective of destroying its ability to function in the hopes of causing it to collapse so that the Tea Party can create their dream Christolibertarianwhateverthe**** state that the current system will not allow.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current US system of government. There is everything wrong with the desire of one of the parties to be able to do things that are unconstitutional in nature and only by bringing down the government from the inside, by artificially creating a crisis, can they hope to accomplish it.
-
What play? That continuing to side with "Democrats" or "Republicans" is foolish? Because that's really all I'm saying.
What I see as foolish is recognizing (correctly) that both of our parties are flawed, but refusing to recognize that one party is much, much, more deeply flawed than the other. It's a highly unfortunate tendency that I see in a lot of Americans.
I never said that one party wasn't more deeply flawed than the other.
It's pretty obvious that one party has lost the plot while the other one is at least reading the cliff notes.
I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.
Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?
EDIT: as for NGTM-1R;
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current US system of government.
I agree. Mostly. There are a few too many laws and loopholes, but on the whole the original concept is quite sound. That is why I put in parenthesis before "our current government (Democrats and Republicans)". I was making a point that our current government really is just Dems vs. Repubs.
The Republicans moved to sever those things this year.
...and the other option is what, exactly? Continue to raise the debt limit and spending beyond our means, never really tackling the problem?
Like I said before
There is everything wrong with the desire of one of the parties to be able to do things that are unconstitutional in nature and only by bringing down the government from the inside, by artificially creating a crisis, can they hope to accomplish it.
This crisis isn't exactly new. It's just finally being brought about. It was going to happen sooner or later; unless you'd like to say that we could have continually spent way above our income forever? In which case I would be seriously interested in your theories as to how that is possible?
-
The only fools are the ones who think either party gives a damn about "We The People". The GOP only cares about giving tax breaks to the big corps because that's where they get their votes. The Dems only care about keeping people dependent on the gov and giving them more entitlements because that's where they get their votes.
America used to be the land of opportunity where you could work hard and make a good life for yourself. Now its the land of "give me what I want because I deserve it and will give my vote to whoever gives me the most stuff."
I'm sorry to say that many of my fellow Americans have become lazy and think that they should be successful just because they live in America. We went from Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to Life, Liberty, Free Health Care, Housing, Food, Monthly Check, Free Education, Designer Cloths, TV, Cellphone, Big Car, and No Responsibility. Oh yeah, and somewhere in there we became the World Police Force and Foreign Aid Center too.
Still amazes me that we have to borrow money but still hand it out to other countries like its growing on a tree in the back yard.
-
It's pretty obvious that one party has lost the plot while the other one is at least reading the cliff notes.
More that one has lost the plot while the other is burning the book.
From where I'm standing, siding with the party that isn't actively trying to destroy the country seems like a much better idea than trying to replace the entire government. Hell, the Democratic Party's main flaw is that they lack the resolve and political smarts to call the Republicans out on their bull**** and do something about it.
-
It's pretty obvious that one party has lost the plot while the other one is at least reading the cliff notes.
More that one has lost the plot while the other is burning the book.
From where I'm standing, siding with the party that isn't actively trying to destroy the country seems like a much better idea than trying to replace the entire government. Hell, the Democratic Party's main flaw is that they lack the resolve and political smarts to call the Republicans out on their bull**** and do something about it.
Why do you think that is?
I think it's because it's a system of duality; one can't exist without the other. They play off each other and just go back and forth - there's no compromise, really, one just offers what the other says is bad.
In America, that same sort of idea of "well, we'll choose the lesser of two evils" is really what got us into this mess. It's just a back and forth - everytime the elections roll around, we're presented with this dichotomy of one side vs the other, and whoever seems to be the least crazy gets the votes. Nothing really gets done, because no one really wants to make things work - they want to get "theirs and their own".
The original idea of Congress was that legislation would be debated on the floor towards an open compromise. Now, and for a long time (since the early to mid 70s), bills are decided long before they ever come to the floor; inside the halls of the Capitol, people run around securing votes so that they can be assured of the bills passage. Americans complain about pork, or at least, politicians like to make a big deal out of it come election season. Where does that pork come from? Well it comes from practices like these; you want the Senator from Delaware to say yes to your bill? Well he wants $300,000 for a new bridge in his district so the voters will vote for him again. Extrapolate from there, times 545 people.
-
I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.
Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?
If you are unable to select the lesser evil, then you're not going to make it far in life.
For that matter advocating the collapse of the two party system...ahahahahaha you're joking right? Do you have any idea what that would do? The current issues would be as nothing to the issues that would cause in trying to accomplish anything.
...and the other option is what, exactly? Continue to raise the debt limit and spending beyond our means, never really tackling the problem?
All governments spend beyond their means. Your ignorance of the usefulness of a national debt to the maintenance of good government does you no credit.
Your ignorance of why we spend beyond our means also does you no credit. This crisis is Republican in genesis from beginning to end. It's artificial, manufactured, made up, born of tax breaks and loopholes meant for the rich brought by the party which now wants a balanced budget amendment, created by their insistence the system they manufactured is not working.
It's slight of hand, a show put on whose elements are trickery and deceit.
If you want to live in the Tea Party State, by all means, continue in your apathy. Pretend that all are equally evil and equally undeserving. Pretend that this doesn't have predictable consequences and pretend that it will not only serve the purposes of the reactionary.
You declare, in every word, every breath, that you simply don't actually give a **** what happens to the United States of America. You are dead weight to this discussion, this country. You have no interest in either preserving it or in substantive change for the better. The system, as much as you like to crap on it, works and has worked in the timeframe you propose.
Or do you honestly mean that things have gotten worse since the mid-'70s? I suppose that whole Gay Rights/repeal of DADT thing never happened. I suppose we never won the Cold War. I suppose we never greatly reduced the threat of ending the world in nuclear fire. I suppose the economy tanked in 1970 and never recovered. I suppose that Compton and similar neighborhoods are still full of underprivileged blacks; I suppose that the underprivileged Latinos who apparently never existed haven't started clawing their way up. I suppose the debate on illegal immigration never actually became, y'know, a debate.
You don't like the iterative process of becoming less wrong? Too bad, it's the only one that works. You want to solve everything in one grand revolution? That didn't work for the founding of this country, it didn't work for the Civil War either, and certainly hasn't worked anywhere else.
Now as you have nothing substantive to contribute and no concept of how anything actually got this way or even how it actually works, get out.
-
I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.
Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?
If you are unable to select the lesser evil, then you're not going to make it far in life.
For that matter advocating the collapse of the two party system...ahahahahaha you're joking right? Do you have any idea what that would do? The current issues would be as nothing to the issues that would cause in trying to accomplish anything.
How well are things being accomplished now?
And you're right - if I am unable to select the lesser evil, then I am not going to make it far in life. The lesser evil of evil and lesser evil would be no evil. I don't think anyone these days is right to say that they are able to choose the third option if they stay within the confines of the two party system.
If you want to live in the Tea Party State, by all means, continue in your apathy. Pretend that all are equally evil and equally undeserving. Pretend that this doesn't have predictable consequences and pretend that it will not only serve the purposes of the reactionary.
I don't see how I'm apathetic, and I don't see where I said that we are all equally evil and "equally undeserving". I don't believe I ever made such a claim.
You don't like the iterative process of becoming less wrong? Too bad, it's the only one that works. You want to solve everything in one grand revolution? That didn't work for the founding of this country, it didn't work for the Civil War either, and certainly hasn't worked anywhere else.
I don't think I ever called for a grand revolution, at least, not in the way you're describing. I believe I've been ridiculed by you in other threads for advocating only peace.
As for this;
You declare, in every word, every breath, that you simply don't actually give a **** what happens to the United States of America. You are dead weight to this discussion, this country. You have no interest in either preserving it or in substantive change for the better. The system, as much as you like to crap on it, works and has worked in the timeframe you propose.
Or do you honestly mean that things have gotten worse since the mid-'70s? I suppose that whole Gay Rights/repeal of DADT thing never happened. I suppose we never won the Cold War. I suppose we never greatly reduced the threat of ending the world in nuclear fire. I suppose the economy tanked in 1970 and never recovered. I suppose that Compton and similar neighborhoods are still full of underprivileged blacks; I suppose that the underprivileged Latinos who apparently never existed haven't started clawing their way up. I suppose the debate on illegal immigration never actually became, y'know, a debate.
I never ever said any of what you allude to in the first paragraph. Indeed, honest criticism is what I believe is the best medicine for correcting a problem. As for the second paragraph, I never said any of that, either.
Now as you have nothing substantive to contribute and no concept of how anything actually got this way or even how it actually works, get out.
Is my idea of breaking away from two perpendicularly opposed parties that threatening?
Ugh, sorry for multiquoting like that. :)
-
I'm old and nostalgic
Fixed that for you.
-
On the plus side for you Americans sick of the Tea Party bull****, Canada is always looking for skilled immigrants =)
-
Is my idea of breaking away from two perpendicularly opposed parties that threatening?
Oh, it's plenty threatening, but you missed the point entirely.
You manifestly don't understand the problem, or why we have the problem. Any solution you come up with is perforce both dangerous and stupid.
You are proposing political solutions, but you are very clearly unable to comprehend a political environment, or to function in one. Indeed, the longer this thread goes on the more I am convinced in your inability to comprehend or function in actual reality rather than whatever idealized world lives in your head.
You're not right; you're not even wrong, because you don't understand the questions. Calling you dead weight is painfully apt, as you don't even have a neutral effect on the discussion: the methods you propose would be actively harmful and play into the hands of the enemies of both your idealized idea of government and my more realistic one. And yet even when this is pointed out, you fail to grasp not only the danger to a realistic concept, but the danger to your own concept. It's an incredible, shocking display of what I sincerely hope is willful ignorance.
-
On the plus side for you Americans sick of the Tea Party bull****, Canada is always looking for skilled immigrants =)
Implying the crap won't spill over into Canada if the **** hits the fan. :lol:
-
Where the hell do you get off with this drabble?
I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.
Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?
If you are unable to select the lesser evil, then you're not going to make it far in life.
For that matter advocating the collapse of the two party system...ahahahahaha you're joking right? Do you have any idea what that would do? The current issues would be as nothing to the issues that would cause in trying to accomplish anything.
The problem is the seesawing between two extremes. The parties in practice are little different. I would prefer to have multiple parties and a bit of politician chaos where relevant issues can be discussed and coalitions formed to do something about those issues. It represents the various issues for debate without effectively having to follow party lines. Where's a gay marriage supporter to fit in the Republican party? Where's a fiscal conservative to fit in the Democratic party? Someone pro or against gun control? Et cetera; for every issue there are multiple viewpoints. Taking a slice down the middle and calling one half Republican and the other half Democrat doesn't really work. A three-or-more-party system is more representative of the population.
...and the other option is what, exactly? Continue to raise the debt limit and spending beyond our means, never really tackling the problem?
All governments spend beyond their means. Your ignorance of the usefulness of a national debt to the maintenance of good government does you no credit.
Your ignorance of why we spend beyond our means also does you no credit. This crisis is Republican in genesis from beginning to end. It's artificial, manufactured, made up, born of tax breaks and loopholes meant for the rich brought by the party which now wants a balanced budget amendment, created by their insistence the system they manufactured is not working.
It's slight of hand, a show put on whose elements are trickery and deceit.
I was unaware that spending beyond one's means is a requirement of government. The problem is that, at least in my opinion, governments are formed for the long term. As part of that, you try to protect the future viability of the government by upkeeping every aspect. National debt is important so that the government receives funds prior to receiving tax revenues. Look at how towns and cities fund themselves; they frequently issue revenue or general obligation bonds so that they can operate year round. The issue is that spending has been out of control since 2001. George Bush inherited a good portion of the debt and added a significant portion of his own over his 8 years in office. The issue now is that President Obama has, in nearing 3 years now, spend far more than President Bush did. It's out of control and that's a major issue as the USA won't be financially viable if this trend continues. The Tea Party representatives are perhaps the true roadblock in Washington; they have little interest in reelection and stick to their guns. The more stereotypical Republicans need to cater to the fiscal conservatives to show party unity. Frankly, I think that the Tea Party should either join the Libertarian Party or form a Fiscal Conservative party.
I can hardly believe that you're trying to tack the entire debt on a single party. Last I checked, there are two parties who are both responsible for some aspect of the revenue issue and expenditure issue. In fact, if I remember my history correctly, it was during President Clinton's administration that taxes were cut and the budget balanced--and the national debt reduced.
If you want to live in the Tea Party State, by all means, continue in your apathy. Pretend that all are equally evil and equally undeserving. Pretend that this doesn't have predictable consequences and pretend that it will not only serve the purposes of the reactionary.
You declare, in every word, every breath, that you simply don't actually give a **** what happens to the United States of America. You are dead weight to this discussion, this country. You have no interest in either preserving it or in substantive change for the better. The system, as much as you like to crap on it, works and has worked in the timeframe you propose.
I disagree with this quite a bit. As a cursory, you're getting into personal attacks. I was unaware that the population of the USA was to be of a single mind about all issues. The interest that seems to be UT's is that the government can continue to operate without increasing the debt burden. The debt as it stands, regardless of what Moody's, S&P, & other rating houses say, unruly and unsustainable. A balanced budget would be a substantial change for the better presuming it was done intelligently. That means increasing tax revenues as well as substantial cuts. It'd be like giving a teenager that you don't even know a large line of credit. They're going to use it. They'll be a little cautious and, with each time it works, get a little bit more thoughtless. Pretty soon, they'll rack up a substantial debt that they have no ability to pay off. It's free money with which to do what they wish. The problem with that viewpoint lies in both parties; Republicans who reduce taxes to get elected and Democrats who increase spending faster than revenue. And the same is true in opposite.
Or do you honestly mean that things have gotten worse since the mid-'70s? I suppose that whole Gay Rights/repeal of DADT thing never happened. I suppose we never won the Cold War. I suppose we never greatly reduced the threat of ending the world in nuclear fire. I suppose the economy tanked in 1970 and never recovered. I suppose that Compton and similar neighborhoods are still full of underprivileged blacks; I suppose that the underprivileged Latinos who apparently never existed haven't started clawing their way up. I suppose the debate on illegal immigration never actually became, y'know, a debate.
You don't like the iterative process of becoming less wrong? Too bad, it's the only one that works. You want to solve everything in one grand revolution? That didn't work for the founding of this country, it didn't work for the Civil War either, and certainly hasn't worked anywhere else.
Now as you have nothing substantive to contribute and no concept of how anything actually got this way or even how it actually works, get out.
In some ways, yes they have. The issue is that the economy has changed significantly. The USA is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse. We're no longer competing with Asia; we've quite literally capitulated that battle.
"We can't compete with that cheap Chinese steel! They sell it so cheap!"
"But steel is heavy and bulky--they gotta ship it here to sell it here. Hey--that means we have a head start! We don't have to pay to ship it overseas!"
Less wrong is the only method. I happen to think it's less wrong to reduce spending and the public debt. What would be more wrong is to uphold the status quo and allow the debt to continue at an exponential rate while actual spending continues to be greater than government revenue.
-
Congratulations, you completely missed the point as well.
-
The collapse of the two party system now would be apocalyptic.
The collapse of the two party system 50 years ago would have created many different political views that would have to learn to compromise. As it was, the two party system has provided either party with the capacity to get their way when they want to. Now that need to follow a rampant extreme ideology is to entrenched, and if there were more then two parties, the bickering would multiply, not cease.
As for these things spilling over the border... the economic issues, yes. The social and political issues that CAUSED them, I find it unlikely that they would spill over. Might not matter though, provided that the economic woes are significant enough.
And Unknown, you keep mentioning that dealing with this now is the desirable outcome. It isn't. Much of the world should have realized by now that America is headed for financial collapse (or the tax burden on the next 3-4 generations will be truly crushing). The world needs to be prepared and ready to take that blow, which means amuch more diversified economy and a much more economically sound Asia and Europe, with markets large enough and significant enough to rival America. This is growing in asia, but isnt near ready yet. If the world can be stable enough to take that blow, we can lift America up into the global market again after collapse.
If we aren't, we collapse to, and it becomes a domino effect. Economic deathspiral, no one is in a position of strength. Upping the borrowing limit buys the rest of the world time to act. Everything is damage control now, I personally believe America has dug itself into a hole that it cannot escape from, to many issues confronting the nation, not just overspending.
-
Congratulations, you completely missed the point as well.
Then what was the point? That we should continue doing the same bull**** we've always done because it's easier than balancing a budget? The former through Democratic and Republican administrations has gotten us into this mess and the latter has been done before. Run that budgetary surplus so that we can pay our obligations and improve the strength of our currency. It's not your father's or grandfather world; a lot of **** has changed.
-
Graph time (just because I didn't see these earlier):
(http://dartmouthfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Debt-Graph.png)
Measured as percent of GDP, so it's effectively adjusted for inflation.
If measuring as percent of GDP is misleading for some reason, please let me know why, because AFAICT it's the most meaningful measure.
-
I can see WWII and the latest economic crisis clearly on that graph. I don't recall what could have caused a drop near 1997, but I'm sure something important happened near that date.
-
I can see WWII and the latest economic crisis clearly on that graph. I don't recall what could have caused a drop near 1997, but I'm sure something important happened near that date.
Late-90s economic boom. Clinton's administration and the Houses at the time made a point of balanced-ish budgets. Bush screwed that idea, and started the bailout process when the recession came (as a result of Republican de-regulation, I might add) which Obama was forced to continue. Hence the current rising proportion.
-
Graph time (just because I didn't see these earlier):
Debt as percent of GDP
Measured as percent of GDP, so it's effectively adjusted for inflation.
If measuring as percent of GDP is misleading for some reason, please let me know why, because AFAICT it's the most meaningful measure.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png)
It's misleading because GDP growth is not constant and does indeed fluxuate from year to year. The same goes for population.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/US_Trade_Balance_1980_2010.svg/1000px-US_Trade_Balance_1980_2010.svg.png)
And that's why the old system won't work. The almighty trade deficit.
-
Wtf happened between '08-'09 there? :wtf:
-
The data point for 2009 (second to last) was Obama's first year. As for the data set, less imports presumptively.
-
lrn2lvlshotnub
-
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/
-
I can see WWII and the latest economic crisis clearly on that graph. I don't recall what could have caused a drop near 1997, but I'm sure something important happened near that date.
Late-90s economic boom. Clinton's administration and the Houses at the time made a point of balanced-ish budgets. Bush screwed that idea, and started the bailout process when the recession came (as a result of Republican de-regulation, I might add) which Obama was forced to continue. Hence the current rising proportion.
Indeed.
BTW, I forgot to mention that Reagan's attempt to reduce inflation, which is also clearly visible on that chart.
Wtf happened between '08-'09 there? :wtf:
The latest economic crash, which started a little earlier in America than in Europe.
-
Then what was the point? That we should continue doing the same bull**** we've always done because it's easier than balancing a budget? The former through Democratic and Republican administrations has gotten us into this mess and the latter has been done before. Run that budgetary surplus so that we can pay our obligations and improve the strength of our currency. It's not your father's or grandfather world; a lot of **** has changed.
You worry about running a suprlus when times time are good. When there's been a recession and we're in the middle of an incredibly anemic recovery, that's not when you talk about austerity measures, that's when you run a deficit. For Christ's sake, the austerity measures the GOP wants will cause a double dip recession, because hey, one trillion dollars? That's seven percent of our GDP. If you cut the GDP by 7%, guess what happens?
Nothing good.
And if you cut taxes to, theoretically, make up the difference, well, uh, that completely defeats the point of addressing the deficit, so that's stupid too. Unless, of course, the point is the GOP's theologically-driven need to reduce government, in all circumstances, no matter what. Make no mistake, the plan the GOP is forcing through (and, unbelievably, the Democrats are capitulating to) will be enormously harmful to the country.
-
Then what was the point? That we should continue doing the same bull**** we've always done because it's easier than balancing a budget? The former through Democratic and Republican administrations has gotten us into this mess and the latter has been done before. Run that budgetary surplus so that we can pay our obligations and improve the strength of our currency. It's not your father's or grandfather world; a lot of **** has changed.
You worry about running a suprlus when times time are good. When there's been a recession and we're in the middle of an incredibly anemic recovery, that's not when you talk about austerity measures, that's when you run a deficit. For Christ's sake, the austerity measures the GOP wants will cause a double dip recession, because hey, one trillion dollars? That's seven percent of our GDP. If you cut the GDP by 7%, guess what happens?
Nothing good.
And if you cut taxes to, theoretically, make up the difference, well, uh, that completely defeats the point of addressing the deficit, so that's stupid too. Unless, of course, the point is the GOP's theologically-driven need to reduce government, in all circumstances, no matter what. Make no mistake, the plan the GOP is forcing through (and, unbelievably, the Democrats are capitulating to) will be enormously harmful to the country.
Short-term I have no doubt that it will hurt, to take it from news publications, both Wall Street and Main Street. I see a rise in interest rates as a good thing. In many ways, it's a reset button for lending and borrowing. Whereas the WSJ was getting skittish about a 25 basis point increase in interest rates, they also ignored the other side of the equation. If the choice is between double-dip recession and not-actually-represented inflation? I'll take the recession². Economic performance is in large part driven by market expectations. By the expectations of everyone from ourselves, our elected officials, and those at all levels in a business organization. So yes--I worry about balancing the budget when times are tough. Moreso than when times are plentiful. Among other reasons for the slow "recovery" (mainly lost industry), uncertain outlooks are a viscous cycle. To me, it's better to squish indecision with bad news rather than no news.
I want to reduce all government to its bare minimum. But that's just me. The problem is that, generally, Republicans cut taxes and keep entitlement programs while Democrats keep taxes steady and grow entitlement programs. Both are now guilty of increasing the Defense budget and both are also causes of our current position in world politics.
Now the way I was taught, government spending is supposed to have an effect multiplied by the free market economy. If Mr. Obama spends $230,000 to create a new job, there should be about $700,000 in new cash flow. Not new cash, but new trade. That's not happened from what I have read.
-
Sounds like we have an agreement, that will pass the day before default. Heh, our government is so predictable....
Now that the general public has been scared and thus conditioned, the next few debt ceiling increases will come with minimal resistance.
-
It seems like it'll go through, though I don't think it's a sure thing yet. All I've heard was that the party leaders from the House, Senate, and the President, have agreed; the actual thing hasn't been passed around yet. We'll see what happens tomorrow. :) Again, wouldn't be surprised with either outcome.
-
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama announced on Sunday that Democrats and Republicans leaders have reached an agreement to reduce the U.S. deficit and avoid default.
Obama said the agreement will cut about $1 trillion over 10 years.
Wow, good job. Debate and play politics long enough and then pass something that both parties are happy about. Something that does nothing.
-
You noticed that too, huh? :\ Pennies when dollars are at stake.
-
I'm old and nostalgic
Fixed that for you.
You are at least 50% correct. :)
-
Sounds like we have an agreement, that will pass the day before default. Heh, our government is so predictable....
Now that the general public has been scared and thus conditioned, the next few debt ceiling increases will come with minimal resistance.
I'm more annoyed at the unnecessary brinksmanship that causes both parties to play it right down to the wire, just so they can evade political responsibility for making compromises ("we HAD to compromise, or the country would have collapsed, I super-double-pinky-swear I wouldn't have compromised otherwise").
That said, the deal looks like it is a reasonable (given the circumstances) compromise, and IMO does at least move us somewhat in the right direction.
-
I want to reduce all government to its bare minimum. But that's just me. The problem is that, generally, Republicans cut taxes and keep entitlement programs while Democrats keep taxes steady and grow entitlement programs. Both are now guilty of increasing the Defense budget and both are also causes of our current position in world politics.
A: no, actually, the GOP grows entitlement programs without funding them. In fact, while reducing taxes. Also fights wars without paying for them. Also grows the Federal government enormously. When they're in power. When they're out of power, they throw temper tantrums while they practice their two-pronged religion of rage and self-pity. Oh, and they make the country's economic well-being hostage to their agenda. Awesome.
B: If you want fiscal conservatism, vote Democratic. They actually believe in things like balanced budgets (see Clinton, who was to the left of Obama), they're just not insane enough (sorry, Bob) to make them a priority when the economy is in the ****ter. You'll note most of Obama's deficit is attributable to one-off expenditures, largely in response to the economic crisis and continuing weakness.
I'm more annoyed at the unnecessary brinksmanship that causes both parties to play it right down to the wire, just so they can evade political responsibility for making compromises ("we HAD to compromise, or the country would have collapsed, I super-double-pinky-swear I wouldn't have compromised otherwise").
Can we please dispense with this narrative. When someone takes a hostage (in this case, the world economy), the negotiators do not share the blame for their actions.
-
The deal isn't really a compromise given how much debt we're talking about. How can 1 trillion in 10 years fix the 1.4 quadrillion of total (derivatives included) debt be paid off?
This will only lead to more austerity measures, higher taxes, and lower standards of living - at a very slow pace as incrementalism always does it.
The right direction is completely cutting costs by stopping wars, stopping empire building and cutting government down to size, and use any methods available to support industries and create new jobs in manufacturing, not only service-economy jobs. By producing high quality products for decent competitive prices. From there you can think about the next steps such as immigration and services.
Both parties are part of the same coin in the pocket of top bankers and lobbies, don't expect any positive solutions from them.
EDIT: However, one positive thing is that we have more time to prepare for the imminent economic collapse. Best to use the time well.
-
Representative Gabriel Giffords returns to vote on the issue, earning the right to use the party tag "in(D-Arizona)destructible."
-
Representative Gabriel Giffords returns to vote on the issue, earning the right to use the party tag "in(D-Arizona)destructible."
50 Gamerscore
-
Wow, it looks like the Debt Ceiling debate was a smokescreen for the creation of a 'Super-Congress'.
A few minutes ago, the Senate and House passed the creation of this Super Congress. 6 house representatives + 6 congress men + president now seem to take over the entire decision-making, Congress unable to filibuster or block bills, only 'yes' or 'no' without real substance.
The power of the purse, among other things still controlled by Congress are passed to the President, who has veto-power over the 12 super-congressmen.
Apparently, according to Harry Reid for instance, the power of the Super Congress will be unlimited. No more 51% vote or 66% vote needed to block bills, they can just perform the bill.
A developing story, I'm not too sure just yet what to think of it. It's clearly unconstitutional though, it seems illegal and quite the power grab, but what do others think?
-
Saw it before, didn't mention it because there wasn't a lot of detail and I wasn't sure of it, but yea from what I gathered it's pretty much what you said. :\
Can you give a link so I can pass it around to show people, please? :)
-
There's lots of stories from all sides of the spectrum as far as I know, I'll list a few I saw on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QEIenOeY0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html?ref=email_share
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/31/super-congress-debt-ceiling-deficit-deal_n_914272.html
http://gunowners.org/a08012011.htm
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2154-if-the-republic-had-not-died-a-long-time-ago-this-would-indeed-be-the-death-of-the-republic-reprise.html
Many other sources and stories, it's a big one. See if you can find anything of above 5 that works, hope it helps to get a good source to share. Curious to see what this will actually mean for the future.
-
It's inevitable. Fact is, the current status quo of power was simply incapable of coping with the challenges. Then, the **** hit the fan and they showed how they were even *more* incapable of dealing with the challenges. Of course something like this would eventually happen, it's like trying to stop the 2 law of thermodynamics, it's impossible.
Still it's quite regrettable.
-
Doesn't seem like this is over. With stocks plummeting (based almost purely on speculation as I understand it, which really does need to be curtailed) today in Europe, US, and Asia, worries are growing. I just read an article saying that Italy is likely to default soon.
-
Stocks plummeted because of low investor expectations for the future. It doesn't need to be curtailed; the cycle needs to complete itself without interference.
-
To prohibit the vote by the pocketbook is almost a greater sin then to prohibit standard voting. Even in systems without voting rights you can always trigger economic collapse to cause change. Curtail it? Get out.
-
The stock market is built on trust and expectations. The US government did its best not to improve those things.
As long as you got some crazy nihilists leading one of the big parties around, I would not expect this situation to get better.
-
I was talking about the rampant speculation that runs the stock market up and down with little reference to the real world. The price of oil is a good example; it relates less to the actual need of it and more to what people think the need of it is.
Though I don't know that much about the modern stock market; it could probably be related to investors just exploiting loopholes and whatnot. *shrug*
-
it relates less to the actual need of it and more to what people think the need of it is.
I didn't want to comment on anything, but this just made me facepalm while dying in laughter.
Let me ask you a question UT. Do you base your choices on what you think the facts are, or on what the facts actually are?
Trick question, take your time :lol:
-
Bit worried about my savings and if to convert them into more solid 'trade goods', I'm not the one to sit still and watch my life saving evaporate and my faith in the Euro-currency is getting more shaky (ofcourse if everyone thinks that way and acts on it, it actually DOES become troubled, but still). Going to watch it for a while first, usually these things take a dip and crawl back up in a same or similar format. A bit like a flu sweeping through the continent. It's just a shame that many groups have to suffer in the meanwhile where in hindsight alternate measures could have been effective solutions. I do wonder if these events, atleast if several more occur in the next decade(s) will change the world market model if eastern countries somehow will prosper more.
-
The problems persist, UT, because the problems were never fixed. The solution currently in place is not a solution, it is simply there to make people believe the problems were fixed. They have only been delayed. The investors were not fooled.
-
I've moved some of my money into other assets around end of last year, now they're up around 40% (silver among other things). It's a pretty extreme difference from the end of last year. It seems one of the better ways to back up your money. Also would suggest stocking up storable foods, whether you're in Europe or the USA. Doubt it would hurt even if everything ends up alright.
EDIT: Fixed a glaring spelling mistake.
-
it relates less to the actual need of it and more to what people think the need of it is.
I didn't want to comment on anything, but this just made me facepalm while dying in laughter.
Let me ask you a question UT. Do you base your choices on what you think the facts are, or on what the facts actually are?
Trick question, take your time :lol:
What you think the facts are are what the facts are to you.
That's really not the point of what I was saying though; oil demand has dropped since the recession. Yet the price of oil as I recall has almost only climbed. Why is this? This does not follow supply/demand theory.
The problems persist, UT, because the problems were never fixed. The solution currently in place is not a solution, it is simply there to make people believe the problems were fixed. They have only been delayed. The investors were not fooled.
Indeed. It's almost sad how much the latest jobs report is being trumpeted; 117,000 new jobs? Who cares? That's miniscule. But the media seems to be clinging onto it out of desperation, waving it around as if it says "look! look! things aren't that bad!".
Really what seems to have happened is that all the effort went into propping up the stocks, the big companies, etc - the numbers, essentially. So while the numbers went up and thus politicians could say that the economy was improving, the reality is that abstract stock prices seemed to be the only thing that benefited from the government's policies.
I've moved some of my money into other assets around end of last year, now they're up around 40% (silver among other things). It's a pretty extreme different from the end of last year. It seems one of the better ways to back up your money. Also would suggest stocking up storable foods, whether you're in Europe or the USA. Doubt it would hurt even if everything ends up alright.
What's funny is that I think four years ago had you suggested this, many people would have thought you crazy or alarmist for doing so. :\
-
This does not follow supply/demand theory.
So because Reality doesn't conform to one simplistic model of how markets work, Reality is wrong?
What's funny is that I think four years ago had you suggested this, many people would have thought you crazy or alarmist for doing so. :\
Or perhaps just gambling.
-
Oil prices are controlled by speculation. Oil is a commodity--its price is not controlled by supply & demand. Commodity prices are set by commodity traders; foodstuffs is the same way. Higher demand or diminishing supply does factor into the traders' minds but it's not the word of law--it's just the word of theory.
-
The oil prices are set by the OPEC countries (AFAIK). The war in Lybia, an important oil source, causes a lack of supply (AFAIK), but the OPEC countries may just drive up the price in order to earn more money.
-
Reading from different news sources that they are bracing for S&P to downgrade our credit rating. Makes sense really.
-
Oil prices are controlled by speculation. Oil is a commodity--its price is not controlled by supply & demand. Commodity prices are set by commodity traders; foodstuffs is the same way. Higher demand or diminishing supply does factor into the traders' minds but it's not the word of law--it's just the word of theory.
Alright, I didn't have that understanding. Thank you for the clarification. :)
Reading from different news sources that they are bracing for S&P to downgrade our credit rating. Makes sense really.
Well that's going to be fun. And I was just going to apply for a loan soon. :\
-
There's lots of stories from all sides of the spectrum as far as I know, I'll list a few I saw on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QEIenOeY0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html?ref=email_share
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/31/super-congress-debt-ceiling-deficit-deal_n_914272.html
http://gunowners.org/a08012011.htm
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2154-if-the-republic-had-not-died-a-long-time-ago-this-would-indeed-be-the-death-of-the-republic-reprise.html
Many other sources and stories, it's a big one. See if you can find anything of above 5 that works, hope it helps to get a good source to share. Curious to see what this will actually mean for the future.
Why haven't I seen more MJ12 jokes about this?
-
The oil prices are set by the OPEC countries (AFAIK). The war in Lybia, an important oil source, causes a lack of supply (AFAIK), but the OPEC countries may just drive up the price in order to earn more money.
No, OPEC does NOT control the price of oil. OPEC plays a major role in setting the environment and have their own minimum selling prices--which are typically not known. The idea is that if there's no more oil, prices will rise and OPEC will sell again. That's why OPEC does its best to control the supply flowing towards the West. If OPEC wants to sell for $80/barrel and commodity traders want to trade for $60/barrel, then the oil traded will be at $60 and, as its consumed, it becomes scarce. Since oil is a necessity to business operations, commodity traders will Bid increasingly higher until the Ask price is satisfied. The reason OPEC works is that it uses nationalized oil companies. If a non-OPEC supplier (perhaps one in Canada or the Gulf) wants to sell at $60, oil will enter the system and OPEC will temporarily lose sales.
As I said, the laws of supply and demand are the words of theory in a commodities market. OPEC and oil companies DO have a strong position but it's still bidding. Speculators purchase the oil (and they do literally own a barrel of oil) and hold onto it, reselling it when they find it opportune. If you hold onto oil long enough or make your intent clear and allow for logistics to catch up, you'll literally end up with that oil. Nothing illegal about that (though you'll probably pay delivery fees).
Now the interesting thing about oil is that, like many other commodities, there are multiple variations each suited for specific uses. Sweet crude is rarely turned into gasoline because gasoline can be refined from far dirtier crude. That means there's not just a single price-per-barrel but multiple for each variation of both unrefined and refined oil.
The ultimate price man is your gas station; what will Sunoco or Shell or BP or Hess (or anyone else really) sell the gasoline at? They take their own slice and a portion goes towards state taxes (typically into the HWA) and tariffs.
My current view on the new downturn is that the market direly needs to correct itself. Uncertainty is rampant and speculation is causing high volatility. Pending news, I think the best thing you can do on Monday is to Short an oil index and Buy a gold or silver index. Come Wednesday, Cover the oil index and Sell the gold/silver index.
The theoretical chances of a AAA-rated bond being downgraded to AA is typically 6.80%¹. The chances of it being downgraded to D (meaning Default) is negligible; less than a 0.005% chance. Honestly, the USA doesn't have a AAA outlook and really shouldn't have a AAA rating. That's why Moody's/S&P/Fitch want to downgrade the outlook and the current creditworthiness. It won't raise interest rates on outstanding debit and it won't make future borrowing more expensive. The fact is that the any new bonds, bills, or notes issued will be for whatever interest rate is set. What will happen, assuming the new debt has the same interest rate as the recent debt, is that corporations with AAA credit ratings will be more likely to issue bonds with a lower coupon.
1: Fabozzi, Frank J., and Mark Jonathan Paul. Anson. "2: Risks Associated with Investing in Bonds." Fixed Income Analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007. 30-31. Print.
-
According to S&P (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8), the long-term debt now carries a AA+ rating. It retains a negative outlook. I'm curious as to how Moody's and Fitch will rate the public debt (if they'll change it from Aaa & AAA, respectively). As of 3 days ago, Moody's confirmed the Aaa rating and had a negative outlook. Fitch also confirmed a AAA rating and agrees with Moody's and S&P's outlooks, though seemingly for different reasons.
If I had to speculate, I'd say that the AUD and CHF are the only major currencies that will stay stable. The EUR is in the same situation as the USD, and the JPY is also in danger. The CNY will depend on the effects of reduced exportation and, I think, is rather unpredictable in the long term.
-
Ah. The oil price piece was very education, Bob.
I remember the credit rating bureau's getting a lot of flak in the EU because they were all based in the US, and appeared to be biased towards it. Could there be any truth in that? What are all those ratings based on anyway?
-
Well, S&P just lowered the USA AAA status to AA+.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jERhPMzqSaE (couldn't find a better source/link right now, but the news in this case, is the news)
Reminds me of a certain Fed Reserve guy's words:
http://dailybail.com/home/geithner-no-risk-us-will-lose-aaa-credit-rating-ever.html
Ah well.
-
Ah. The oil price piece was very education, Bob.
I remember the credit rating bureau's getting a lot of flak in the EU because they were all based in the US, and appeared to be biased towards it. Could there be any truth in that? What are all those ratings based on anyway?
There are European credit bureaus. The reason they're biased towards the USA is that, good or bad, right or wrong, weak or strong, the USA has had the largest economy in the world for decades now. The bias was more in setting the USA as AAA status--which wasn't really a problem prior. The problem is now getting ridiculous. Under Bush, it wasn't a problem because the government, while it had significant debt, it wasn't overburdening. Under Obama now, with a debt equaling about 100% of the GDP, it's overwhelming. If you read the actual S&P report, it basically says three things.
1) Raise revenue higher or cut spending. This recent debt plan is bull****. Don't just cap spending--actually cut it and start paying down this debt.
2) Both branches of the legislature and the administration need to decide on SOMETHING to actually do.
3) I don't care whose plan does it, but get it done!!
Uncertainty kills spending. The S&P analysis of the situation is that of a third party observer.
The credit bureaus don't use singular criteria to rate debt. Here's some considerations...
-Ability to pay debt
-Short-term (<1 year), medium-term (1-5 years), and long-term plans (5-20 years) plans on operations
-Industry trends. How does XYZ look to fare in >5 years? Will their primary product be obsolete or considered a luxury?
-Leadership strength and ability
Anyone who immediately sells their government bonds is an idiot at this junction.
One other thing to note: an important issue when considering foreign investment is the strength of the currency it's issued in. That's one reason that Moody's/S&P/Fitch are somewhat "biased" towards the USA--we have a single currency that has been the benchmark that all other currencies are weighted upon.
-
mother****ing debt.k i b drunks so no more debatesz on iy
-
So...the stock market? Anyone concerned or no?
-
So...the stock market? Anyone concerned or no?
Nope. It's the perfect time to speculate IMO. If only my check came in last week instead of this coming Friday. I'd have made 5% on BAC and will probably see a 5-10% gain on Friday.
-
What would you suggest I invest in? Anything worth putting $500 in?
-
What would you suggest I invest in? Anything worth putting $500 in?
Make it at least $1,000. And Bank of America. Try to buy when they're under $7. I think prices will fall further tomorrow and stabilize on Friday. Performance on Monday will have appreciation. This all just cursory analysis, of course. YMMV. Regardless, short of unforeseen actions, BAC share prices will rise again. Don't expect much in the next month or two. Maybe after the GOP primary, assuming that Moody's and Fitch don't downgrade our sovereign debt.
-
So...the stock market? Anyone concerned or no?
Long term? Stock market is rotten, being propped up by cheap federal reserve money. Speculate only if you know what you're doing.
-
Eh I'll stay out of it, then.
-
I never actually considered getting in there... What are ones motivatinos for doing so?
-
Great time for buying stocks when they hit rock bottom. The natural assumption is that the whole market won't fail, so eventually you'll get some pretty good returns on your investment. For instance, after the automakers got hammered, I bought in for Ford for like $6. By the time I sold it was like $14.
-
Great time for buying stocks when they hit rock bottom. The natural assumption is that the whole market won't fail, so eventually you'll get some pretty good returns on your investment. For instance, after the automakers got hammered, I bought in for Ford for like $6. By the time I sold it was like $14.
BAC's lowest point was about $3.20. If you held onto it for a couple years, it was worth $15 a couple weeks ago. As I've always said; if the system fails, it won't matter anyway.
-
What about this, Bob-san?
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug11/if-market-crashes-8-11.html
-
What about this, Bob-san?
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug11/if-market-crashes-8-11.html
What about it? It does have some impact, at least on the companies that most people work at. Major companies are usually traded on the stock exchange and make up portions of individual retirement plans. Everyone will lose money, but it all depends on how much and where it was invested.
-
Well the gist I got from it was "so what if the stock market crashes, only bazzillionares will loose money". Though I understand the issue with retirement plans.
-
Well the gist I got from it was "so what if the stock market crashes, only bazzillionares will loose money". Though I understand the issue with retirement plans.
That's quite correct. It's also why, after further research, I see no reason that the finance companies or banks should have been bailed out. There's a reason why FDIC insurance exists and normal banks have lines of credit with larger banks and federal banks. I personally want the Federal Reserve to be revised and reformulated but I don't want it destroyed entirely. It's an important aspect of our financial system.
-
Well the gist I got from it was "so what if the stock market crashes, only bazzillionares will loose money". Though I understand the issue with retirement plans.
Most of the insiders in the stock market, those bazzillionaires, already left. Proportionally the losses sustained by your average bazillionaire is considerably less than the average joe. When the Nasdaq crashed in 2001 most people invested had their entire retirement plans and pensions wiped out. When the market crashed in 2008, same story.
-
Well the gist I got from it was "so what if the stock market crashes, only bazzillionares will loose money". Though I understand the issue with retirement plans.
I am clearly a bazzillionare.
-
http://patrioticmillionaires.org/
Discuss.
-
MP, I think the most important stats from your page is this little snippet:
44% of Congress people are millionaires.
The president is also a millionaire. They won't let it slide.
-
http://patrioticmillionaires.org/
Discuss.
I don't believe what I'm seeing.
Perhaps the signers believe this has little chance of actually raising taxes, so they can sign it to look good with no actual risk. How very... political...
-
That's awfully cynical of you, redsniper. Too cynical, I would say.
-
I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for the rich and super-wealthy to decide they have "enough" and throw the rest of their money into space exploration and other stuff improving the world as a whole. I'd love it if they could say "I don't mind giving a little extra to my country to help it out." But that doesn't ever really seem to happen.
If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
-
That's awfully cynical of you, redsniper. Too cynical, I would say.
One does not become super-rich by giving away money. Cynicism has nothing to do with it.
-
I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for the rich and super-wealthy to decide they have "enough" and throw the rest of their money into space exploration and other stuff improving the world as a whole. I'd love it if they could say "I don't mind giving a little extra to my country to help it out." But that doesn't ever really seem to happen.
If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
They had that in Germany a little while ago, and historically it's happened before I believe (I'm sorry, I can't remember where I've seen it, though I have). If you paint everyone with the same brush you could stand to lose a lot of potential friends, and jade folks who really are trying to help. With something like this I think it'd be best to give them the benefit of the doubt - after all, you could always test their resolve by raising the taxes and seeing which one of them go along with it.
-
I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for the rich and super-wealthy to decide they have "enough" and throw the rest of their money into space exploration and other stuff improving the world as a whole. I'd love it if they could say "I don't mind giving a little extra to my country to help it out." But that doesn't ever really seem to happen.
If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
What about the billions Bill Gates is giving away?
-
The two most dangerous trends of these times are to make villains of people simply because they have money, and to make inconsequential those who don't.
-
Hmm. Fitch has decided not to change the US rating and even has given a positive outlook, for reasons beyond my understanding.
-
Nobody wants the USA to fail (outside of certain extremist groups). If it does, the rest of the world is gonna see tough times economically.
-
Hmm. Fitch has decided not to change the US rating and even has given a positive outlook, for reasons beyond my understanding.
I'm not sure about Fitch but the single biggest reason Moody's didn't downgrade was Warren Buffet didn't want to and he is a major shareholder.
Nobody wants the USA to fail (outside of certain extremist groups). If it does, the rest of the world is gonna see tough times economically.
The dollar has some very very serious fundamental problems with it and one of them is total lack of political will in Washington to make the hard choices needed to solve the other fundamental problems.
-
The dollar has some very very serious fundamental problems with it and one of them is total lack of political will in Washington to make the hard choices needed to solve the other fundamental problems.
No argument there. I wonder what will break first? Will the US get its political **** together, or will the rest of the world get strong enough that they don't need us anymore?
-
No argument there. I wonder what will break first? Will the US get its political **** together, or will the rest of the world get strong enough that they don't need us anymore?
I wouldn't hold your breath either way. :doubt:
-
The dollar has some very very serious fundamental problems with it and one of them is total lack of political will in Washington to make the hard choices needed to solve the other fundamental problems.
No argument there. I wonder what will break first? Will the US get its political **** together, or will the rest of the world get strong enough that they don't need us anymore?
It will get its **** together eventually, but the question is when and after how much damage has been done. The dollar losing its currency reserve status has very severe consequences for the world and even more severe consequences for the US.
-
Nobody wants the USA to fail (outside of certain extremist groups). If it does, the rest of the world is gonna see tough times economically.
Well, I actually do, since the USA has been failing and causing economic tough times for years now. If it really fails again it will people incentive to try and rely on a more stable region and currency.
/me 's obvious EU bias is obvious :P.
-
No argument there. I wonder what will break first? Will the US get its political **** together, or will the rest of the world get strong enough that they don't need us anymore?
Apple *cough*
-
Seeing how things are going, how almost no one in D.C and politics even knows how to fix the crisis, just continuing the status quo, I don't think they'll stop until the economy is completely crashed and you'll start to live as a third world nation. It happened to Argentina (sp?), one of the richest nations at one point until a similar event happened. Now it's a horrible place to be unless you're the top 0.01% that caused it in the first place.
Unless you adapt a fiscal responsible stance and stop the wars, bring the troops home and lower taxes, stop wayward spending and printing of money, encourage industries and companies to grow and thrive, you're going into 3rd world status. It's impossible to pay off the debt by raising taxes and cutting services, it just makes the collapse that much worse. Now there's one candidate in the GOP that has a lot of knowledge and plans to actually implement that, Ron Paul, which is one reason you should definitely vote for him. Wish the Democratic side had someone similar to him, but perhaps you can still vote for him (not sure how that works for democratic voters).
Huge companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft will persist and exist, but you'll be dependent on employees stationed in China and India for any assistance. If they'll even take your call.
-
Unless you adapt a fiscal responsible stance and stop the wars, bring the troops home and lower taxes, stop wayward spending and printing of money, encourage industries and companies to grow and thrive, you're going into 3rd world status. It's impossible to pay off the debt by raising taxes and cutting services, it just makes the collapse that much worse.
There are many third world countries with very low taxes on companies, and the companies thrive. I don't get how lowering taxes will fix anything. It'll just mean that the government won't have money for things like education, infrastructure, and social programs. That'll result in a country where all the poorest people are poorly educated and have no support from the government, which sounds an awful lot like a third world country.
My money goes further when it's pooled together with other people's money.
-
Well what happens is, lower taxes means multiple things, such as ensuring the money is actually spent in the economy, buying food, goods, services instead of centrally stored in the treasury where it stays for a long time until it's being used for big projects that only a few big corporations have a use for. You're able to provide most government services with basic taxes, especially when the economy is supported by a strong middle class. Third world countries may have low taxes, but it only benefits the top 1% (or less) because they don't have a middle class, serving only as safe havens for huge corporations.
Your money can go much further when you're able to spend it for your own goals, the more money you saved up the bigger investments you can make. This also results in economic growth, which can lead to more jobs, meaning less people dependant on government. In time, as its a process, you'll find that, combined with the other things I mentioned, come out much stronger than continuing the way things go now.
At this point most (new) taxes are redistribution of wealth, which especially with big bureaucratic government causes most of the redistributed wealth spent off-shore or only to a select few (such as special providers of food and services for the royal families in the middle ages)
That's my view on it at least.
-
Low taxes is great, but to advise lowering taxes with such a budget problem is just insanity by the right wing. It's the belief that someone can take the cake and eat it too. But america is filled with magical thinking, so it's about right.
-
But america is filled with magical thinking, so it's about right.
Like meritocracy. :rolleyes:
edit: I really don't think that not paying taxes and keeping the money for myself achieves more. I hear all sorts of stories about Americans being unable to afford things for themselves, like health care. Could you imagine if everyone was expected to pay for their kids' schooling and the roads outside their house, all by themselves? You would have the 1% who've got great roads and education, and everyone else wouldn't have anything.
-
*Cough* you mean like now?
-
Well what happens is, lower taxes means multiple things, such as ensuring the money is actually spent in the economy, buying food, goods, services instead of centrally stored in the treasury where it stays for a long time until it's being used for big projects that only a few big corporations have a use for. You're able to provide most government services with basic taxes, especially when the economy is supported by a strong middle class. Third world countries may have low taxes, but it only benefits the top 1% (or less) because they don't have a middle class, serving only as safe havens for huge corporations.
Your money can go much further when you're able to spend it for your own goals, the more money you saved up the bigger investments you can make. This also results in economic growth, which can lead to more jobs, meaning less people dependant on government. In time, as its a process, you'll find that, combined with the other things I mentioned, come out much stronger than continuing the way things go now.
At this point most (new) taxes are redistribution of wealth, which especially with big bureaucratic government causes most of the redistributed wealth spent off-shore or only to a select few (such as special providers of food and services for the royal families in the middle ages)
That's my view on it at least.
It's really too bad your view is based on out-dated financial ideology rather than hard economic lessons.
Fact: some of the so-called welfare states with reasonable tax frameworks maintain the highest standards of living in the world, well beyond the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia.
As for the middle class, if you'd care to look at US financial demographics sometime, the middle class doesn't really exist in the traditional sense. Lower-middle classes lump together, while the upper class outpaces them both by leaps and bounds. Of course, the upper class doesn't really pay taxes, so the tax burden for the country is paid by the lower and middle classes (corporations, despite having a higher tax rate in the US than other G8 nations, actually pay very little tax due to the notorious loopholes and deductions in the US tax code).
This neo-con ideology of low taxes is laudable provided governments collect enough to pay for government expenditure programs. The United States does not. Several Canadian provinces do not. The obsession with low taxes does everyone a disservice - instead, if all tax loopholes (read: deductions) were eliminated, tax rates were maintained or lowered slightly for the lower and middle classes, raised for the upper classes, and lowered but reformed (again, deductions and loopholes gone) for corporations, governments would have a much fairer tax system.
Low taxes is not a panacea for the economy. A fair tax system, with governments collecting enough revenue to pay their bills, allow people to get the help they need, and spend to support economic growth when necessary is a good start, though
-
But america is filled with magical thinking, so it's about right.
Like meritocracy. :rolleyes:
What's wrong with it?
-
But america is filled with magical thinking, so it's about right.
Like meritocracy. :rolleyes:
What's wrong with it?
That most people in the US take for granted that their country is "meritocratic" while in reality "meritocracy" in America hardly exists anymore? That the same nations (EU or otherwise) that get sneered at for being socialist are often objectively much more meritocratic than the US every was?
-
If you honestly believe the differences in social meritocracy in the Western world are really that much anywhere, you're not very smart.
-
If you honestly believe the differences in social meritocracy in the Western world are really that much anywhere, you're not very smart.
Exactly. In most Western democracies, the biggest predictor of your income is still your parents' income.
-
If you honestly believe the differences in social meritocracy in the Western world are really that much anywhere, you're not very smart.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean? I think maybe I'm confused by the wording.
-
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean? I think maybe I'm confused by the wording.
There's no great difference in level of meritocracy anywhere in the west.
-
So you don't believe in the social mobility thingy?
-
So you don't believe in the social mobility thingy?
social mobility is a myth perpetuated by the super rich to keep the poor voting against their own interests
-
I meant the reverse: that the social welfare states of europe apparently have better social mobility than the states. NGTM seems to not believe in this, stating that meritocracy is basically the same in western countries.
-
I meant the reverse: that the social welfare states of europe apparently have better social mobility than the states. NGTM seems to not believe in this, stating that meritocracy is basically the same in western countries.
Social mobility, much like meritocracy, exists in bubbles. When there is a void to fill as the result of technological or political upheaval, it becomes possible. In an existing system, it is largely a myth.
-
For the record, the meritocracy in America is doing a rather piss-poor job of putting people who are merited in positions anyway; politicians don't win because they know anything, their skills are at getting votes and accumulating money. Decision making or debate skills are not necessarily a part of the job. :\
-
You just managed to restate the entire last page.
-
So you don't believe in the social mobility thingy?
social mobility is a myth perpetuated by the super rich to keep the poor voting against their own interests
Honestly, I have not encountered such a case in the Netherlands. The only method used here to keep the poor voting against their own interests is the fear of immigrants (An issue often inflated to hide the less... favorable policies of the party).
-
Honestly, I have not encountered such a case in the Netherlands. The only method used here to keep the poor voting against their own interests is the fear of immigrants (An issue often inflated to hide the less... favorable policies of the party).
Guess what "the poor" and first-generation immigrants have in common...
(...they're both poor).
-
You just managed to restate the entire last page.
Like a boss.
Really though? I thought I was adding something, oh well. :)
-
Honestly, I have not encountered such a case in the Netherlands. The only method used here to keep the poor voting against their own interests is the fear of immigrants (An issue often inflated to hide the less... favorable policies of the party).
Guess what "the poor" and first-generation immigrants have in common...
(...they're both poor).
But it causes that particular group of poor people to vote for the parties which are actually good for poor people, whilst it causes the 'middle class' (who never met them) to vote for methods against the poor.
-
Honestly, I have not encountered such a case in the Netherlands. The only method used here to keep the poor voting against their own interests is the fear of immigrants (An issue often inflated to hide the less... favorable policies of the party).
Guess what "the poor" and first-generation immigrants have in common...
(...they're both poor).
But it causes that particular group of poor people to vote for the parties which are actually good for poor people, whilst it causes the 'middle class' (who never met them) to vote for methods against the poor.
I'll confess an ignorance of the intricacies of Dutch politics, but there is a disturbing trend that many poor-and-uneducated voters tend to lean toward the policies of more conservative ideologies, which also tend to be anti-immigration. Thus, you end up with vote-splitting in the low socioeconomic demographics. We see this phenomenon in North America all the time, particularly at the state/province level.
If this is not happening in the Netherlands, and you instead see the low and middle classes tending to vote en bloc for policies that don't clearly benefit anyone but the wealthy, then it's welcome news.
-
Thus, you end up with vote-splitting in the low socioeconomic demographics.
Yeah well, the low socioeconomic demographics tended to vote either for the 'left wing' parties, or for the party which called itself right wing whilst actually being the same as the left wing parties but with a much more agressive anti-immigrant and 'old-men-are-the-future' mentality (If the name Geert Wilders rings any bell, its his party). Unfortunately, the only policy of that party that has stayed the same over the last few years is the anti-islam point, the party is basically doing donuts on everything else, which a lot of people had to find out the hard way <.<. The problem with the dutch politics into explaining this, however, is that every party essentially has things that are good for the poor, and there's an awfull lot of parties.
There's also another interesting trend in Dutch politics: Educated rich people deliberility voting against their own interests. This has caused for a strange balance of power in our current goverment.