If obama is actually offrering the 4 trillion you mention, how come none of this offer has actually made it to paper to be examined? The last time he said to just shut up and sign without reading it he rammed obamacare thru and we know how well that worked. The reason the Republicans are "rejecting any and every offer" is that he will not give details of how he actually will come up with the $$...and he continues to refuse to cut the spending back that continues to bankrupt them. BTW obama promised that obamacare ( don't read it, just sign it") would save over a trillion dollars but now even he is admitting that is not going to happen. Based on his track record, can you imagine why the US population don't believe him any more?

End the Fed free the slaves..

Going to be a fun day for the stock market tomorrow...

If you let your emotions cloud your judgement you self-destruct. Investing is no different.

yes cause they are coming for your shit in a country and city with a super low crime rate.

wow all cons think the same.

Just for fun,

If the Fed does raise the debt ceiling, and not default on the all debt, How do you think the market will react? Seems like there are both sides of the coin here.

The market will keep it's continual grind upwards making for a bigger fall when it does come later on down the line.
I mean think about it the indexes are at or better than what it was before the housing crisis. Yet with the amount of debt they are in.... should they really be at current levels or higher?

Perhaps you missed the smile, or you just have no sense of humor.

What details have been released indicate the cuts are back loaded, which means they will start small then the next government will have to figure out how to implement the big cuts. Obama knows he's a one term wonder.

Doesn't really affect me, I'm doing the lazy couch potato investing strategy. I invest mostly in stocks that pay dividends, so I just sit on them long-term :)

They will raise the ceiling. No matter how much BS we see righht now. In the end it will get raised. They will sign something in the "24" hour.
Posted via RS Mobile

got this from another person:

Balancing the US budget with no tax increases and no closure of loop holes will require a massive shift in the outlook for all social programs over the same 10 year period of time during which most Baby Boomers will retire. Taking that direction in the world's largest economy during that window of time is a social experiment beyond compare. Internationally, they could pull back on many, many fronts as well.

If Obama capitulates this week why would it be any different next spring? The US could be on a track for years to come that would set a new standard in non-support for social programs with only the wealthiest being OK. That's a much bigger fight than just the debt ceiling and it's the narrative underlying it all that makes it so important

companies get rich, poor get poorer:
I like this post as well.


More than just fixing the debt crisis, I think Republicans have no intention of fixing the ECONOMY. What is really killing the economy is the
effect of decades of rabidly "pro-business" legislation which made
outsourcing and off-shoring the only viable way to run a business
(ESPECIALLY a manufacturing business) and converted us to a service
economy. A manufacturing economy creates wealth, a service economy
recycles it... so we have been bleeding wealth to third world countries
for decades and using debt to sustain our lifestyle.

Look at the relationship between the US and China; China understands the situation very well. They make everything they can for us, exporting whatever we want on the cheap... but never really open their economy to buying things back from us. They are experiencing immense growth, but it is all internal. They are growing their middle class by leaps and bounds while extracting all the wealth they can from America. By the time America finally collapses under the weight of its' own debt, China will be developed and be to the 21st century economy what America was to the 20th.

On the other hand, by
searching to lower costs, American companies cannibalized their own consumer
base. Reversing this trend and revitalizing the economy requires revitalizing the middle class,
which requires employing the middle class and paying them well enough
that they can pay off their debt AND start consuming again. This requires having the things consumed by us to be MADE by us, which requires strongly "anti-competitive" economic policy which will cut into corporations' short-term profits. God, Allah, Yaweh, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Alien Overlords... Whoever you believe in, may they help us, because we're gonna need it

My question is, is why are the Republicans flatly rejecting ANY tax increases to the wealthy or big companies? I know that a lot of people disagree with giving handouts to the lower-income brackets, but why is the GOP so hell-bent on increasing the gap between the rich and the poor?

cause they're assholes :)

becuase most are millionair's them selves

If you were rich would you want to give away vast sums of your money to people who do not work hard?

Besides, most rich people don't sit on piles of cash, they have it invested earning more money. Those investments allow other companies to do business and keep the economy going. Taxing them only takes money away from those investments and puts in in the hands of the government which is very inefficient at redistributing it, wasting a lot.

Well, most of them have signed "The Taxpayer Protection Pledge" to never introduce any new taxes. See "Americans for Tax Reform" for more info.

I thought I'd just tuck these in here, from threads debating this on other forums. Too tired right now to chatter on the subject.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploa...ein_thumb1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-11-10f2.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...aph2-popup.gif

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/..._g_g_g_g_g_g_g

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...993_-_2008.png

The Democrats want tax reforms on the wealthiest 2% and corporations. 98% of the population including many millionaires will not be paying more tax.

Many multi-millionaires/billionaires become rich off the back of the poor and the middle class. Some are born from a rich family and spend their money to lobby and hire lawyers to prevent any new Tax Laws from reducing their wealth.

They say that taxing them more will prevent them from creating jobs.
Companies have a natural tendancy to try and reduce costs. They will find the cheapest labour/materials wherever possible. The Main reason companies hire is the increase in demand for their product/service, which requires them to expand/hire. Today, when companies are making record profits, most invest that cash overseas, not create new jobs. Unemployment is at 10%.

If you are in the middle class would you want to keep allowing the wealthy to get Richer and Richer off of your hard work while the income gap between you and them keep increasing?

the better question really is, How would you feel if you're a senior, that worked for 35+ years to find that your social security will be reduced or taken away so some Billionaire can buy another yatch? What if this was your mother/father that this happened to? You cant go back into the workforce. With food prices and the cost of living increasing, you're standard of living decreases while that Billionaire is using the money saved from low taxes to buy another Mansion. How is this system fair?

Most will agree when you're poor and from a low-income family, it's much harder to move up the social class than someone whose born from a richer family.

Of course not, but I'm not of the ultra rich. I belong in the middle class. Thus, it benefits me more when I get favoured by the tax laws than the ultra rich.

I'd rather be ultra rich getting taxed more than belong in the middle class and getting taxed less.

Even if the taxes were raised to the Clinton-era magnitudes, taxes in the US are still painstakingly low compared to here.

If there is such thing as a Laffer Curve, I wonder if there's a theory out there that shows that reaching a certain point of wealth for a corporation does not correlate to the same rate of expansion of jobs after this point. Perfect example is Apple and their $50 billion in Cash. Could be a great thesis for an Econ Post Grad student.

Taylor, I understand your paradigm though. Just like saying on why we should have Universal Health Care when there are obese,lazy fucks out there not even helping themselves. Well, in this last Financial Meltdown we had, it was the ultra rich in the Finance related Industry Groups that caused the problem. That's like me saying: "I'm the one that shoved french fries 24/7 to these obese people complaining for medical assistance. Fuck 'em, I still don't want universal health care - I'm fucking healthy." This is where the Government has to step in to protect the interest of the majority.

It's often argued that seniors shouldn't have been relying on a government program in the first place. It could also be argued that seniors, or boomers entering retirement age, are sitting on the largest pile of equity ever seen in the history of western civilization. They shouldn't have to rely on government programs to sustain them; they should sell their homes and move into more modest residences.

^you realize that wealthiest 2% of the american population includes all the millionaires in the united states right? the bottom 98% of americans makes less than 200k/year.

Do you know why companies try to make a profit? Many are publicly owned and have to show a profit to their shareholders.

Who are their shareholders? You and I. That's right, my CPP benefits, my EI benefits, my RSSP, and my TFSA are invested in those companies making a profit. Yours are too.

What happens if those companies don't make a profit? My CPP, EI, and RRSP do not increase at the rate required, and I end up with those poor seniors.

Moral of story: you're going to take the hit one way or another. Either those companies pay more tax and less profit, which means you have to contribute more to CPP, EI, RRSP, ... to make up for the shortfall - or you pay more tax so they can pay less tax.

First, "income" is the wrong word, "wealth" is the correct word.

Their wealth keeps increasing cause their investments make money at tax-advantaged rates. I'm invested in them, so my investments make money too at tax-advantaged rates.

The people complaining are those without investments, those who spend every dollar and don't save anything then stick their hand out asking for someone else to foot their bills. If they were smart they'd jump on the gravy train and have their investments making good money at tax-advantaged rates.

Most wealthy people do not keep their wealth wrapped up in toys and mansions, despite what you may think. Most of it is reinvested. So strike one.

How will I feel after 35 years of saving I'm not much better off than the person who didn't save a dime and lived off the system? That's not fair.

My father had his Nortel pension clawed back when the company went under. So I am very familiar with exactly what you're speaking about. Nortel over-extended themselves, spent themselves into oblivion, and now my dad pays for it. To draw a parallel, that is what our governments are doing, over-extended themselves and one day we will pay for it.

Absolutely, yet its not impossible. "Hard" is an appropriate word, cause when things are "hard" most people just complain and don't do anything. That's why they are poor, and stay poor.

My father is one of 6 kids, didn't finish grade 9, and was born shortly after my grandparents immigrated to Canada with virtually nothing. That's about as low income as it gets. When I was little he took a job with Nortel traveling 9-10 months a year just to provide a better life my my bother and I. That was "hard" yet he did it and we're better off for it. When I was a teenager our family business went bankrupt, and instead of living off the system (self employed, couldn't collect EI) my parents took minimum wage jobs just to get my brother and I off to university, then my father rebuilt his business and my mother went back to school to get a job. I was in grade 11 when my parents went bankrupt, so I busted my balls to turn my average grades into the top mark in every single one of my classes to get a scholarship so I could afford university - then at university busted my balls to keep that scholarship and stay in co-op cause I needed a good job to pay for school.

I know "hard", don't you dare lecture me on how "hard" it is. I've been there and worked through it without depending on the system to bail me out - so fuck everyone who says its hard then doesn't do anything about it - they are just lazy fucks and deserve what little they have.