U.S Government Debt Crisis !!! [Archive] - REVscene Automotive Forum

Hehe

07-14-2011, 06:09 PM

As title states, the U.S is fucked. They have reached there debt ceiling of 14 trillion dollars. You can use any media source world wide and they are all reporting on this.

Extreme cliffs -

- The US has to take out more debt otherwise they will default on loans
- If they default world markets will be in termoil
- Social Security checks will not be sent out
- Lending rates will skyrocket
- China becomes new world empire

August 2nd is the deadline, and the American government is making no progress. Aware your selfs.

inb4 U.S economy crumbles
inb4 'cool story bro'

This is not an educated summary of what's going to happen.

The thing is that US has reached the debt ceiling (meaning US government can go on and borrow to fund its expenses) and there is a big political debate going on in DC (Republican wants BIG expenses cuts, while Democrats wants to raise taxes) and conclusion can't be reached as of today.

What is going to happen?

To be honest, no one knows. It would be the first time ever in modern history that US defaults its debts. Catastrophic? Yes, but what's interesting is how much?

For those thinking this collapse would make China the new world super power should go back and do Econ101 again.

The intensity of such an event would drag the entire world down. Canada for sure won't be safe from it given the dependency on US trades. China's trillion dollars worth of US notes becomes toilet paper overnight (the value would be up to the negotiation with the debtor, in this case, the US) and will sure lose much business from US.

The currency market would be in turmoil as this might trigger a massive selloff for bonds shifting money everywhere.

All I can suggest is that, especially those with funds to invest. Hold on tight, we might witness an once in the lifetime opportunity to become rich.

For those who don't, you might want to pay attention to the news and your work to minimize any impact and if possible, save up some money for the absolute worst situation.

IMHO, US congress will reach some sort of agreement. But given current possible plans, we will see deep reduction in consumption for the short-mid term from US (the biggest economy) regardless how their agreement work out. So, there won't be any good news for the market. Just prepare yourself for the worst and you would be fine.

StylinRed

07-14-2011, 06:13 PM

or they could do what iceland etc did and what the Greek citizenry want to do which is :fuckthatshit:

Carl Johnson

07-14-2011, 06:25 PM

This will get resolved at the last minute like they have always done. Right now it's just political games been played on both sides trying to get the best deal.

Gridlock

07-14-2011, 06:37 PM

It goes even deeper.

The US is completely polarized in politics. Very reminiscent of the late 70's to be honest.

Both sides are wrong, and right for various reasons.

You need to raise taxes AND lower spending. And they need to start with the department of defense.

Unfortunately, no one is willing to do what is right at the expense of getting re-elected, because everyone is so polarized, any compromise looks like failure.

Yes, raising taxes in a lower economy is bad(thats a hint Canadian politicians, expecially BC), and cutting services during a recession is also bad.

But it gets worse. The gov't has run out of gas. Everything they have done to stimulate the economy has failed. Two rounds of qe...failed. Stimulus spending...failed. Bailouts of the banks...well, it kept it from getting worse. Unfortunately they made a bunch of rich guys richer in the process.

So what happens...same as every other deadline crunch negotiating...they sit in a room and pick the people that both parties equally don't care about. What happened with the tax cut extension negotiations? The dems lost, and the republicans walked with 30 million in spending cuts. Yippee.

No one can actually sit there and say what specifically they want to cut. The republicans seem to like to cut spending that affect their social engineering, ie. planned parenthood.

Should be an interesting month.

Vansterdam

07-14-2011, 06:38 PM

WW 3

b0unce. [?]

07-14-2011, 06:56 PM

http://meanwhilein.co.uk/imagezors/meanwhileincanada.jpg

hirevtuner

07-14-2011, 06:57 PM

the US is the only country that can legally print money everyday uncontrollably making the USD$ worthless, eventually the US will have to declare bankruptcy and start over

China is the new superpower for year 2000's then will shift to India in 2100's

Renthal

07-14-2011, 07:06 PM

how would one make money off of this if they were thinking of investing? :D

iEatClams

07-14-2011, 07:13 PM

You need to raise taxes AND lower spending. And they need to start with the department of defense.

Agree.

Yes, raising taxes in a lower economy is bad(thats a hint Canadian politicians, expecially BC), and cutting services during a recession is also bad.

Disagree, I think this kind of thinking is what's wrong with society today.
The US has been decreasing taxes for the longest time and it hasn't done shiet. Since the Reagan tax cuts the the rich has been getting richer and richer and the poor poorer. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening.

The richest 20% own 85% of the wealth. That does not sound right at all.

We've been told numerous times again and again by Corporations and lobbyists that tax cuts are great for corporations and generate jobs. The coffers of these companies get bigger, increase the wealth of the rich. But no new jobs have been created.

We need to INCREASE TAXES on the Rich.
OBAMA and the Dems want to increase taxes, but republicans, funded and lobbied by rich corporations wont have it that way.

For example , recently CISCO saved 7 Billion dollars in taxes due to tax loopholes set up by Republicans. This is a company whose cash reserves continue to INCREASE as US workers languish on the unemployment line. Only some 5 years ago it had less than $10B in cash reserves. Today OVER $40B.

When you have 40B in cash reserves, I think you can afford paying taxes cause they aint fucking creating any new jobs!

iEatClams

07-14-2011, 07:16 PM

^ Again just think of the money that $7 Billion could be used on, stimulus on infrastructure. Pay down debt. Social security. Anything.

I just dont think it's fair that the poor people get screwed while the rich just keeps on getting richer.

StylinRed

07-14-2011, 07:25 PM

cressydrift

07-14-2011, 07:40 PM

This is not an educated summary of what's going to happen.

The thing is that US has reached the debt ceiling (meaning US government can go on and borrow to fund its expenses) and there is a big political debate going on in DC (Republican wants BIG expenses cuts, while Democrats wants to raise taxes) and conclusion can't be reached as of today.

What is going to happen?

To be honest, no one knows. It would be the first time ever in modern history that US defaults its debts. Catastrophic? Yes, but what's interesting is how much?

For those thinking this collapse would make China the new world super power should go back and do Econ101 again.

The intensity of such an event would drag the entire world down. Canada for sure won't be safe from it given the dependency on US trades. China's trillion dollars worth of US notes becomes toilet paper overnight (the value would be up to the negotiation with the debtor, in this case, the US) and will sure lose much business from US.

The currency market would be in turmoil as this might trigger a massive selloff for bonds shifting money everywhere.

All I can suggest is that, especially those with funds to invest. Hold on tight, we might witness an once in the lifetime opportunity to become rich.

For those who don't, you might want to pay attention to the news and your work to minimize any impact and if possible, save up some money for the absolute worst situation.

IMHO, US congress will reach some sort of agreement. But given current possible plans, we will see deep reduction in consumption for the short-mid term from US (the biggest economy) regardless how their agreement work out. So, there won't be any good news for the market. Just prepare yourself for the worst and you would be fine.

I only read this because you quoted me. If I had wrote all that crap down no one would care. I bolded stuff I had already said in my extremely condensed summary of cliffs which were the MAIN POINTS. So I guess your post is an uneducated summary of my post?

Oh and of course no one knows what would happen. Thanks for pointing that out to us.

cressydrift

07-14-2011, 08:00 PM

GabAlmighty

07-14-2011, 08:05 PM

I think some of you guys are missing the point. The US government owes 14 trillion dollars.

14,000,000,000,000

See its like a fat person, at some point they were 200 lbs but now they have really filled out to like 800lbs. It doesn't just happen over night ethier. Now your at 800 lbs and your doctor is telling you if you don't stop now your going to die. You still don't listen and you pack on another 200lbs (2008 1 trillion dollar bailout). Now the doc is saying any minute, you might just keel over and die. You need to cut, BAD.

If they take another loan they are officially the dumbest people ever. They need to go back to basic math. You don't get out of debt with more debt.
Serious changes need to made. END THE FUCKIN WAR, SELL SOME GOLD, SELL SOME LAND, SELL SOME HOT ASS BITCHS. Cut every stupid government program... ETC ETC. Sell and cut, sell and cut. Thats what I would do if I had lots of debt. So what if the markets take a shit, it will feel good when its all done.

This is real life, don't give me formula's.

Your You're. Please, for the love of god.

Secondly, everyone has a perfect solution to the worlds troubles. It all seems very easy in your head (hell, my ideas make perfect sense and i'm just as frustrated as you), that doesn't mean that anything is going to happen.

Chances are, the way the world is working our lives aren't going to change very much over the next few decades (just my gut feelings).

And no, don't cut. I want my F35's bitches.

q0192837465

07-14-2011, 08:41 PM

lol, where can I buy shares of the Federal Reserve Bank?

iEatClams

07-14-2011, 08:50 PM

I think some of you guys are missing the point. The US government owes 14 trillion dollars.

14,000,000,000,000

See its like a fat person, at some point they were 200 lbs but now they have really filled out to like 800lbs. It doesn't just happen over night ethier. Now your at 800 lbs and your doctor is telling you if you don't stop now your going to die. You still don't listen and you pack on another 200lbs (2008 1 trillion dollar bailout). Now the doc is saying any minute, you might just keel over and die. You need to cut, BAD.

If they take another loan they are officially the dumbest people ever. They need to go back to basic math. You don't get out of debt with more debt.
Serious changes need to made. END THE FUCKIN WAR, SELL SOME GOLD, SELL SOME LAND, SELL SOME HOT ASS BITCHS. Cut every stupid government program... ETC ETC. Sell and cut, sell and cut. Thats what I would do if I had lots of debt. So what if the markets take a shit, it will feel good when its all done.

This is real life, don't give me formula's.

14 Trillion is huge, but that can't be eliminated overnight. Almost every company or country has debt. Debt can be good, but too much where you can't make payments is bad. Debt is generally cheaper in terms of financing than equity.

the US GDP is over 15 Trillion a year. We can't cut everything.

Your post is illogical on soo many levels. I think of that scene from Billy Madison.. . .

Carl Johnson

07-14-2011, 09:03 PM

lol, where can I buy shares of the Federal Reserve Bank?

NYSE:JPM
:troll:

zulutango

07-14-2011, 09:05 PM

RiceIntegraRS

07-14-2011, 09:16 PM

I got 3500 in US Dollars, wat do i do with it?

cressydrift

07-14-2011, 09:46 PM

Your You're. Please, for the love of god.

Secondly, everyone has a perfect solution to the worlds troubles. It all seems very easy in your head (hell, my ideas make perfect sense and i'm just as frustrated as you), that doesn't mean that anything is going to happen.

Chances are, the way the world is working our lives aren't going to change very much over the next few decades (just my gut feelings).

And no, don't cut. I want my F35's bitches.

Its not the perfect solution. Its the only solution. They have 2 options, take on more debt, or man up. The problem is 1000x more complex than that, but in the end my nerd to hood explanation works.

Thanks for the grammar reminder.

belka

07-14-2011, 09:47 PM

I got 3500 in US Dollars, wat do i do with it?

Roof mounted 50 cal. 3 of them.

iEatClams

07-14-2011, 09:52 PM

They need 20 billion per month to pay the interest on the debt, they take in 200 billion and even after paying medicare, ss, military pay, vets etc, they have about 53 billion left over, so the story obama is spinning about a crisis unless they let them borrow even more money, is a crock. The main problem is that 50% of the US pays no federal income tax and they have huge entitlement programmes that he has increased since he got into power. Obamacare is unworkable and will cost them trillions that they can't afford under their current setup. He needs to cap borrowing, cut spending and get the 50% who are freeloading, to pay their fair share. He won't do that because it will be political suicide for his support base. Raising taxes in a recession will hurt any recovery...he said so himself back in 2008 when he was running for the job...he also voted against raising the debt ceiling back when he was spending his 140 days as a senator.

On the bright side, car parts from the US are cheaper than ever in Cdn dollars. :woot2:

countries like Germany, and Scandanavian countries like Finland, Norway and sweden, who have literacy rates of 100% have higher income taxes than the US and those countries are much more well off. These countries also have the highest proportional amount spent on education and developing workers.

Raising income taxes for the RICH (not poor) is one of things that MUST be done. Money needs to be raised somewhere.

Lowering taxes and hoping they will use the savings to spur investments / create jobs - the trickle down theory - doesnt work becuase taxes are too low. Back then -- the Regan years taxes were super high and yes they needed to be cut then but now it's been decreasing and decreasing that it's reached too low. Companies paying workers less and shipping jobs overseas is not the key.

the United States has a top marginal income tax rate of 35%. That's dirt low compared to other western countries like Canada, Germany and the scandanavian countries.

unit

07-14-2011, 09:56 PM

debt ceiling means very little.
the US gov has raised it 10 times since bush jr.

its like a credit card if you're terrible with money. you reach the limit, and then ask for a limit increase. right now they're extremely close to it, and you know they're gonna continue to raise it. this issue comes up at least once a year.

QE3 is definitely on its way, in one form or another tho.
they wont call it QE3 because it'll sound pathetic, but they are definitely going to inject some more fake money into the economy.

taylor192

07-14-2011, 10:25 PM

Nothing bad will happen even if they reach an agreement. A few US states have been unable to agree on budgets and thus stopped paying bills. They made the payments they had to, debts, and just didn't pay anyone else, instead issuing IOUs to state employees and companies.

I suspect the US will do the same. They will pay who they have to, and suspend all other payments. Pensioners, medicare, welfare, military will be the first to suffer.

What will happen aside, the US is at an impasse. They spend more on entitlement programs (pensions, welfare, medicare) than they take in taxes. Then add the costs of government, military, ... and they are screwed. I understand wanting to raise taxes, yet the heart of the problem is the entitlement programs take up most off the budget. These need to be cut back even if taxes are raised, as just raising taxes only kicks the can down the road as these programs are set to grow far more that GDP, so taxes cannot keep up.

BoredAtWork

07-15-2011, 01:04 AM

If anyone thinks US wants to or plans to repay the debt, you gotta be nuts. As with all politicians and their active term, Everyone is trying to take a share of it and pass the ticking time bomb to the next person in line. No one EVER has tried to reverse the debt problem, because they simply cant.

Be selfish for a moment and think of a government as a company. Its purpose is to survive and grow. Instead of share holders, you have the votes of citizens. If you pass a election, you pretty much have 4 years of undisputed income at your expense. Everything a government does is for the benefit of itself, not its citizens, but it requires the vote of the citizen to stay afloat.

In short and mid term, I see USD continuing to deflate. Its actually on a spiral cycle since 2009, and its quite easy to predict (every 3-4 months, like clockwork, most recent being around end of May this year). QE1 and QE2's full impact of currency deflation has not been seen yet, as US is still recognized as AAA. This status is coming under threat, and if downgraded, you will start to see mass degrade of USD value. Debtors will exit and are less likely to lend to US unless for higher interest rates. China for example in 2011 has already shifted attention to borrowing to Europeans than US. China is gearing up for US debt default, and are not renewing their loans.

Someone here posted previously that we will see a once in a life time chance to get rich is correct. However unlike 2009, I don't see the potential of a US rebound (If you invested in companies like JP Morgan, BAC, Ford, you would have made a killing). This time, I wont invest into US companies; instead I get into globally recognized and TRANSFERABLE commodities as gold, silver, etc.

Aside from the US, China (artifical GDP growth) and Europe (All countries except Germany are starting to see downgrades and cannot sustain their own loan interests); both are in crisis. Its turning into a wildfire rather then a localized hazard.

bigG

07-15-2011, 02:50 AM

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc45/snesfreak/cs-clayton3.gif

Ferra

07-15-2011, 06:43 AM

This will get resolved at the last minute like they have always done. Right now it's just political games been played on both sides trying to get the best deal.
+1
the republicans are holding out to bargain their demands...

On the other hand, the situation might NOT get resolved if one or both side decide to be an asshole and let everything burn, then blame the other side for the mess.

ugly politics :devil:

Gridlock

07-15-2011, 06:54 AM

Agree.

Disagree, I think this kind of thinking is what's wrong with society today.
The US has been decreasing taxes for the longest time and it hasn't done shiet. Since the Reagan tax cuts the the rich has been getting richer and richer and the poor poorer. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening.

The richest 20% own 85% of the wealth. That does not sound right at all.

We've been told numerous times again and again by Corporations and lobbyists that tax cuts are great for corporations and generate jobs. The coffers of these companies get bigger, increase the wealth of the rich. But no new jobs have been created.

We need to INCREASE TAXES on the Rich.
OBAMA and the Dems want to increase taxes, but republicans, funded and lobbied by rich corporations wont have it that way.

For example , recently CISCO saved 7 Billion dollars in taxes due to tax loopholes set up by Republicans. This is a company whose cash reserves continue to INCREASE as US workers languish on the unemployment line. Only some 5 years ago it had less than $10B in cash reserves. Today OVER $40B.

When you have 40B in cash reserves, I think you can afford paying taxes cause they aint fucking creating any new jobs!

Bringing this home a little.

Do Christy Clark and Stephen Harper know how to spend your money better than you do?

taylor192

07-15-2011, 07:33 AM

Gridlock

07-15-2011, 07:42 AM

That is not true, lookup the Clinton years.

Oh, lookup the Clinton years with love man. It's the last time the US made sense.

I was so hoping for Hillary to get it just for the chance to have a repeat.

The focus on him is the Lewinsky affair, but everything else was good.

He gave Bush a balanced budget after 8 years in office! He deserves credit. He borrowed from social security to do it, but it was balanced.

Jsunu

07-15-2011, 07:44 AM

TheNewGirl

07-15-2011, 07:47 AM

There's two things here... first of all the US Currency IS going to collapse, it's just a matter of when.

This is going to happen. It's been predicted by economists for about 15 years now though everyone laughed at them in the Greenspan years and thought "Oh that will never happen" because they were rolling in the green but the commodities market set the US up to be in an unsustainable position and now they're paying the price for all those good years.

Secondly, the US political system has become a warzone of it's own. The Republicans are holding the Democrats hostage on any efforts to repair the economic situation. Essentially they've resorted to a Starve the Beast tactic, forcing Obama to accept consolations and bills that he would not other wise and threatening not to cooperate if he doesn't (one of these bills even redefines rape). In my opinion THIS IS TERRORISM of the worst kind but ultimately only hastens what is already inevitable.

Oddly the political climate is not unlike the middle east in the late 80s, early 90s where extreme conservatisim is becoming a rebellion of it's own, and ironically people are burning up their rights willingly in revolt against what they view as the elitist liberal evil. This behavior further forces polarization which further adds to the anger which forces more extremism and so on into a nasty cycle. Historically speaking in other cases where in this has happened the conservatives usually win, cause they use God as a weapon. Scary isn't it?

Superpowers don't stay global superpowers forever and when they cease to be so they crash spectacularly. This is financial reality. Invest in China (though I personally think China's created an artificially inflated economy already and is going to crash faster then the US did) and India. Buy some gold or silver.

gdoh

07-15-2011, 07:48 AM

http://www.whoaorno.com/images/346.jpg

Gumby

07-15-2011, 08:20 AM

From China Agrees To Erase Portion Of U.S. Debt If Americans Dress Up In Costumes And Perform Silly Dance For Them | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/china-agrees-to-erase-portion-of-us-debt-if-americ,20913/):

China Agrees To Erase Portion Of U.S. Debt If Americans Dress Up In Costumes And Perform Silly Dance For Them
BEIJING—In what it's describing as a magnanimous gesture toward an economy in decline, the Chinese government announced Monday it would forgive a portion of the staggering U.S. debt if Americans agreed to dress up in costumes and perform silly dances for their amusement.

With his nation holding $1.16 trillion in federal bonds and the U.S. showing no signs of ending its dependence on foreign credit, President Hu Jintao told reporters that allowing Americans to ease their fiscal burden in proportion to the number and quality of colorful dance numbers they perform is a mutually beneficial arrangement for both countries.

"Our great nation has generously agreed to decrease the considerable financial obligations of the United States," said Hu, standing before an enormous rack containing elaborate dance attire such as sequined vests and metallic lamé pants. "All we ask in return is that Americans put on outfits such as these and amuse us with buffoonish little kicks and twirls, preferably while slapping their big fat tummies. The U.S. will receive much needed debt relief, and China will enjoy watching the graceless flailing of decadent capitalists."

Addressing Americans directly, Hu continued: "In the seconds it will take you to object, your nation will slip hundreds of thousands of dollars further into our debt. That will mean 50 more of your countrymen having to put on a George Washington costume with a skirt and prance around with big smiles and heavily rouged cheeks while we pelt them with bits of your worthless currency from the windows of the Chinese embassy."

While Hu offered few specific rules to govern the debt-reduction scheme, he did provide a number of guidelines that he said would affect the amount deducted. Large, ambitious routines—the entire population of Ohio dressed in bright green leotards doing a high-stepping jig with Big Macs stuffed in their mouths, for example—could shave $20 billion from the debt in a matter of minutes. Meanwhile, smaller groups of Americans and even individuals could do their part by dressing up as cancan dancers and performing a kick line in front of the Vietnam Memorial, or by painting the Mandarin character for 'gorilla' on their faces and jumping up and down on their desks at work like "great big immoral apes."

Hu added that the dollar value of all dances could be increased by incorporating chants such as "I have no work ethic," "Look at what our pathetic democracy has done to us," and "I am so fat I must drive an SUV to go purchase a prostitute" into the routine. Conversely, acts may be disqualified entirely if professional dancers are employed or if participants do not seem suitably engaged in their performance.

Hu later confirmed that wearing brightly colored hats with bells on them could only help.

"All dancers will be required to demonstrate an exceptional level of commitment," said Hu, adding that, should a very large American dress up in a form-fitting outfit with his stomach hanging visibly over his waistband, and then pass out from physical exertion while his overweight children dance around him, an extra $12 million would be instantly knocked off the tab. "It will be insufficient to go through the motions. Any dancer who hand jives without proper rehearsal and a big smile is wasting his time."

"That is especially important," Hu added. "We want nice, big smiles from America."

Although any U.S. citizen is eligible to participate in the program, dances performed by members of the armed forces or practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism will be considered more valuable. Persons holding high office in the federal government stand to make the largest financial impact, especially, Hu said, if all 535 members of Congress perform a Yiddish bottle dance during his next state visit.

"I do not savor what I am going to do this evening," said a solemn President Obama, sitting at his Oval Office desk in the tiger-striped scoop neck he will wear for a salsa performance expected to cut the American debt by a whopping $30 billion. "I know that my partner, Speaker Boehner, shares my reluctance, but that we will both do what we must for the financial well-being of our country."

"But let me be clear," added a defiant Obama, the beads on his lacy sleeve jiggling as he emphatically pointed at the camera. "The United States will never dance for any nation on earth more than once. There will be no encore."
:troll:

Ruff Ryd@s

07-15-2011, 08:47 AM

Check out the keiser report on youtube or rt.com
The guy on the show is awesome and informative at the same time...
Most of his episodes have something relating to the us debt crisis, check it out

taylor192

07-15-2011, 08:47 AM

Just start by fucking stop with all the rich people tax breaks/cuts. I know by this point it is a political talking point but trickle down economics DOES NOT FUCKING WORK when the trickle is just reintroduced back into corporations/people's pockets.

Shutup. That is another dumb Main st vs Wall st argument. Main st's pensions are invested in Wall st. If you tax Wall st more, you tax your own pension/RRSP as most of us are not heavily invested outside Canada/US.

Look at entitlement spending in the US, its shot up exponentially to unsustainable levels. Taxes have nothing to do with that, that is Main st greed wanting more and asking others to foot the bill.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 08:53 AM

Secondly, the US political system has become a warzone of it's own. The Republicans are holding the Democrats hostage on any efforts to repair the economic situation. Essentially they've resorted to a Starve the Beast tactic, forcing Obama to accept consolations and bills that he would not other wise and threatening not to cooperate if he doesn't (one of these bills even redefines rape). In my opinion THIS IS TERRORISM of the worst kind but ultimately only hastens what is already inevitable.
Another friggin socialist lefty with her hands in other people's pockets.

Entitlement spending now makes up more than the US collects in taxes, and has been increasing far greater than inflation for decades. The Democrats have made it worse, wasting Trillions on entitlement spending in only a few years. Sure the quick fix is to raise taxes, yet if entitlement spending keeps outpacing inflation the system is unsustainable.

The Democrats are damaging the economic system, not repairing it. You don't see it cause you're a silly lefty who just wants to kick the can down the road without actually fixing the underlying issue.

I agree taxes do need to be raised, yet not without a plan to reign in entitlement spending to at the very least inflationary increases so it doesn't spiral out of control.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 08:55 AM

Oh, lookup the Clinton years with love man. It's the last time the US made sense.

He gave Bush a balanced budget after 8 years in office! He deserves credit. He borrowed from social security to do it, but it was balanced.
Yep, Clinton was fantastic for the US, and I was hoping Obama would follow in his footsteps - yet sadly Obama is the complete opposite of Clinton economically.

Mr.HappySilp

07-15-2011, 08:55 AM

Just start WW3 and end this whole mess. Everyone dies and the world starts at the beginning.

On the other hand for the average worker here, hold on to your money and save, we could very well lose our jobs if this doesn't get resolve.

unit

07-15-2011, 09:06 AM

only this man can save the US:

‪Conviction, Not Compromise! (Ron Paul's First 2012 TV Ad)‬&rlm; - YouTube

JSilver

07-15-2011, 10:06 AM

That was a solid ad.

Ferra

07-15-2011, 11:13 AM

Honyoung

07-15-2011, 11:36 AM

reading this thread makes me realize just how ignorant i am :cry:

m!chael

07-15-2011, 12:02 PM

reading this thread makes me realize just how ignorant i am :cry:

I think you meant to say uninformed. Calling yourself ignorant is kinda harsh lol

TheNewGirl

07-15-2011, 12:08 PM

Another friggin socialist lefty with her hands in other people's pockets.

Entitlement spending now makes up more than the US collects in taxes, and has been increasing far greater than inflation for decades. The Democrats have made it worse, wasting Trillions on entitlement spending in only a few years. Sure the quick fix is to raise taxes, yet if entitlement spending keeps outpacing inflation the system is unsustainable.

The Democrats are damaging the economic system, not repairing it. You don't see it cause you're a silly lefty who just wants to kick the can down the road without actually fixing the underlying issue.

I agree taxes do need to be raised, yet not without a plan to reign in entitlement spending to at the very least inflationary increases so it doesn't spiral out of control.

You missed the part where I pointed out that what the Republicans are doing isn't ultimately changing anything. It's right there at the bottom. I know you wanna step on the socialist.

That said I TOTALLY agree that this is fucked up. It's like me maxing out my credit card and then calling the company and asking them to increase my limit so I can use it to buy bread and milk.

That said, Bush did do it 8 times with out a complaint from anyone. Mostly for military spending and that is what has lead to this mess in the first place. The first thing the US needs to do as damage control is get the hell out of every other country they're currently stationed in. Until their shit is together at home they can't afford to be involved in the governing of other countries.

I like to give people this link: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I direct attention to the right column about half way down. Where it says there are about 83 million families in the US. And it Then right beside it points out that there are about 43 million food stamp recipients in the country.

I also like to point out that US Debt is currently at about 669K per family while the average family savings in the US... $6500.

That's some scary shit. And regardless of who started this particular blazing inferno, it's not going away while half of the team plays 'it's my way or the highway' in trying to fight it. The only way this is going to get fixed is with major restructuring.

But then like I said currency collapse is inevitable.

Mr.HappySilp

07-15-2011, 12:17 PM

^^ lol that won't happen.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 12:59 PM

http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-Obama-firefighter-political-cartoon.jpg

The cartoon would be correct if it showed Obama throwing a huge jug of fuel on the fire, and the jug was labeled Obamacare.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 01:06 PM

You missed the part where I pointed out that what the Republicans are doing isn't ultimately changing anything. It's right there at the bottom. I know you wanna step on the socialist.
I didn't miss it, I stopped reading when you equated politics to terrorism, that was just fucking dumb. The Republicans are elected officials doing what they campaigned on - controlling the spiraling debt by reigning in spending.

That said, Bush did do it 8 times with out a complaint from anyone. Mostly for military spending and that is what has lead to this mess in the first place. The first thing the US needs to do as damage control is get the hell out of every other country they're currently stationed in. Until their shit is together at home they can't afford to be involved in the governing of other countries.
He did it without complaint cause the country was attacked and people were willing to back the spending. Today is a different story and I agree, they should pull out of many places in the world. If I could I'd vote for Ron Paul, that's exactly what he proposes.

That's some scary shit. And regardless of who started this particular blazing inferno, it's not going away while half of the team plays 'it's my way or the highway' in trying to fight it. The only way this is going to get fixed is with major restructuring.
Throwing more fuel on the fire is not the way to put it out. Yes the Republicans dug this hole after Clinton did such a good job of balancing the budget, yet these Obama Dems are wasting just as much if not more $$$. Someone has to say no, and I understand why your socialist lefty non-sense hates that its the Republicans saying no, yet your silly lefties sure aren't saying no and are trying to dig a hole deeper than Bush ever could.

unit

07-15-2011, 01:20 PM

obama never had the intention of cutting spending. he thinks you can spend your way out of debt.
that was what his presidential campaign was all about. it was mccain that wanted to cut spending to reduce the debt in the first place.

if you want real change, stop voting for the same 2 parties that have run this country (usa) for the last 200+ years..
if ron paul had a chance to run as a libertarian and actually win some votes, he would. americans are so brainwashed into thinking its either republican or democratic, and really neither are all that different because neither party really celebrates the true beliefs that their founding fathers built the country on.

tool001

07-15-2011, 01:46 PM

ron paul wants to get rid of the fed bank, u know what happened to the last 2 presidents who wanted to do the same?????

jfk & Ronald R?

too bad most americans are oblivious to power politics or to the fact "who has hands in whoes pockets."

Jermyzy

07-15-2011, 01:52 PM

Florida is doing it's part to cut costs!

Florida jail ends free underwear for inmates to cut costs - Yahoo! News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/florida-jail-ends-free-underwear-inmates-cut-costs-152700935.html)

"ST. PETERSBURG, Fla (Reuters) - A central Florida sheriff has announced a cost-saving measure that hits below the belt: no more free underwear for men booked into jail.

Starting August 1, the Polk County jail will no longer provide five pairs of briefs to male inmates.

Instead, inmates will have the option of buying Fruit of the Loom boxers or briefs from the jail canteen.

Sheriff Grady Judd said the end of free underwear will save an estimated $45,000 a year in operation costs.

Judd in a statement said, "$45,000 is one person's job we're saving. If inmates want to wear underwear in jail, they can buy it, just like hard-working Polk County citizens do."

This isn't the first time the sheriff has invoked creative cost cuts.

He eliminated peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, cornbread, coffee, juice and fresh milk from the jail menu a few years ago, saying if inmates wanted to eat those things they should stop breaking the law.

"We have to provide them with nutritious. That doesn't mean it has to be five-star delicious," Judd said at the time.

Under the new policy, male inmates can pay $2.54 for a pair of briefs or $4.48 for a pair of boxers, the sheriff's office said. Laundry services will still be offered twice a week.

Female inmates will continue to receive five free pairs of underwear for their jail stay for hygiene reasons, sheriff's spokeswoman Carrie Eleazer said on Friday.

"

Psykopathik

07-15-2011, 01:53 PM

pay it back with credit cards. give themselves 30 days to think of a way to BS their way outta it.

mikemhg

07-15-2011, 02:52 PM

The cartoon would be correct if it showed Obama throwing a huge jug of fuel on the fire, and the jug was labeled Obamacare.

What the fuck are you talking about? Stop using Fox News catch phrases. "Obamacare" was a Republican idea of the early 90's, and it is working out great in Massachusetts. In fact that state which also has a "Obamacare" plan, has the best Health Care rating in the country.

Stop using catch phrases and research the topic. Besides, you Conservatives cry for accountability, the Obama plan while flawed, does just that. By forcing all individuals to purchase a policy, and to ween HC expense off the public tax payer.

Obama's plan has nothing to do with the current deficit that has been racked up, that is a bold faced lie.

Sid Vicious

07-15-2011, 03:03 PM

republicans =\= conservative

Jsunu

07-15-2011, 03:25 PM

I am curious how much obama has actually increased in spending vs the republician spending. I want hard numbers, not some bullet point OBAMACARE scare.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 03:34 PM

What the fuck are you talking about? Stop using Fox News catch phrases. "Obamacare" was a Republican idea of the early 90's, and it is working out great in Massachusetts. In fact that state which also has a "Obamacare" plan, has the best Health Care rating in the country.

Stop using catch phrases and research the topic. Besides, you Conservatives cry for accountability, the Obama plan while flawed, does just that. By forcing all individuals to purchase a policy, and to ween HC expense off the public tax payer.

Obama's plan has nothing to do with the current deficit that has been racked up, that is a bold faced lie.
I use catch phrases cause they are funny, I definitely know more about what's going on than you do.

Obama is forcing everyone to buy a policy - then offering a government subsidized policy to buy. This does nothing to address the reason health care is unaffordable, the 20% administrative overhead of the policies. It only creates more policy BS, and mismanages it in government.

Yet that's just one part of why Obama is racking up trillions of debt, so you're partially correct in that its not the only thing racking up the huge deficit. His stupid infrastructure spending, handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems... yet you'd know that - right?

Meowjin

07-15-2011, 03:49 PM

‪Max Keiser on Inside Story - Greek Debt Crisis - (1/2)‬&rlm; - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RKaRjDF7j0&feature=related

learn something taylor.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 03:57 PM

I am curious how much obama has actually increased in spending vs the republician spending. I want hard numbers, not some bullet point OBAMACARE scare.
That aside, the whole point on this is about spending less, and Obamacare does not address that. Even if its only $1 more, that's $1 they do not have to spend.

Read this: Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment; Charts of the Day: Transfer Payments (Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.) vs. Total Government Receipts (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-balanced-budget-amendment.html)

This is the most important stat, that transfers to individuals (ie medicare, welfare, UI, SS, food stamps, ...) has grown to consume the entire budget. That leaves $0 to actually run the country. If you look at the other graphs, its not like government revenue hasn't been increasing, just entitlements have been outpacing revenue, aka taxes.

This cannot continue. Either taxes have to be continually raised, or this spending has to become sustainable. Don't think we don't have the same problem here, healthcare spending increases at 6%/yr and GDP increases half that.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m5BuQztOVIs/ThEoDkwl7SI/AAAAAAAALuQ/r89SIkVet8Q/s400/PCTR%2Bto%2BFederal%2BGovernment%2BReceipts.png

taylor192

07-15-2011, 04:01 PM

learn something taylor.
If you like Max Keiser's ranting you should love mine! :p

I prefer Mish: Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/)

They've both been saying the same thing: Greece should tell the banks to go to hell and not pay their debt. Bad loans shouldn't be repaid.

iEatClams

07-15-2011, 04:11 PM

what id like to know is why no1 is suggesting they cut their military/military research expenditures...

even when they were discussing the budget they wouldn't touch any of the military spending (military pay isn't a part of the expenditures im speaking of)

but yet they're willing to cut essential services/etc for the populace

The U.S. military budget is larger than the budgets of the next 14 countries combined. Americans are far more likely than buyers in other countries to turn to spam-advertised pharmacies to obtain pills to treat serious ailments—a trend that reflects differences in government health care and prescription drug policies. The top 10 percent of the U.S. population holds 69.8 % of the wealth. (In Canada the number is 53.0%.) The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

In this environment the Republicans find that their highest priority is to defend the wealthiest Americans from tax increases and is willing to force the U.S. into default in that defence.

got this thought from another person but yea, Republicans screwed the economy over, not Democrats!

I'm in the middle-higher tax brackets and I agree that taxes need to be increased for the rich.

However there are some cuts that need to be addressed as well.

Edit: What I was trying to say is that America is a messed up country and need to get their priorities straight.

iEatClams

07-15-2011, 04:18 PM

Warren Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money. “How can this be fair?” Buffett asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be right?”

When the top 10% control 70% of the wealth. t
The system is definitely not fair.

Just imagine how the 4 TRILLION dollars of bush tax cuts could be used on.

iEatClams

07-15-2011, 04:23 PM

That said, Bush did do it 8 times with out a complaint from anyone. Mostly for military spending and that is what has lead to this mess in the first place.

I love how Bush gets to raise the debt ceiling limit 7 times (to correct you), but no one complains. But one time from Obama and Republicans cry foul!

Bush's 2001 tax cuts for the wealthy and his corporate buddies were supposed to be "temporary" but that was 10 years ago, and the cuts didn't work.

gdoh

07-15-2011, 05:22 PM

i think you miss the point that obama was supposed to change things and take us out of debt but instead drove them deeper i to debt and now if the us fails it will be a world economic crisis worse than before.... but this could b easily avoided but greed is a powerful thing and no one thinks beyond themselves
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

unit

07-15-2011, 05:34 PM

will068

07-15-2011, 05:49 PM

i hate how democrats say that obama is trying to fix bush's fuckups.
he is clearly not trying at all. if he wanted to "change" america he would completely rewrite the policies and get the lobbyists out of washington! but its kinda hard when you appoint ex-monsanto execs for the head of the USDA, goldman sachs lobbyists for treasury, and ratheon lobbyists for defence secretaries.

democrats and republicans, same shit different pile.

Pretty much. No fucking change was done.

- Bring back the regulations in the investment banking sector ? Nope. How can you when your "dream team" to save the economy that you hire are the same crooks that used to work for JP Morgman, Goldman Sachs, and lobbied for deregulation that led to the financial meltdown and subprime loans that rob the lower class of their homes.

- End guantanamo ? nope
- End the war ? Nope

Difference between him and bush. Bush didn't lie about the shit he was planning to do. It was always like, brace yourselves, I'm gonna fuck up the USA.

Obama is like Borat. I'll promote change to improve our country.. NOT!!!

Gridlock

07-15-2011, 06:05 PM

Pretty much. No fucking change was done.

- Bring back the regulations in the investment banking sector ? Nope. How can you when your "dream team" to save the economy that you hire are the same crooks that used to work for JP Morgman, Goldman Sachs, and lobbied for deregulation that led to the financial meltdown and subprime loans that rob the lower class of their homes.

- End guantanamo ? nope
- End the war ? Nope

Difference between him and bush. Bush didn't lie about the shit he was planning to do. It was always like, brace yourselves, I'm gonna fuck up the USA.

Obama is like Borat. I'll promote change to improve our country.. NOT!!!

This is win. Both what was quoted and the response.

taylor192

07-15-2011, 06:30 PM

Obama is like Borat. I'll promote change to improve our country.. NOT!!!
LOL love it!

Obama ran on "Change we can believe in" and he's just doing more of the same Republican crap.

I understand why everyone hates the hypocritical Republicans too for raising the ceiling, now saying "no" - yet for once they are finally doing something right!

taylor192

07-15-2011, 06:34 PM

The U.S. military budget is larger than the budgets of the next 14 countries combined.
The only good thing I'll say about the US military is they tend to spend $$$ on American stuff. American soldiers and American equipment from American companies. Really its not much different than the various infrastructure spending programs that have been going on to "rebuild America" by giving $$$ to American companies to hire Americans.

got this thought from another person but yea, Republicans screwed the economy over, not Democrats!
The Reps may have screwed it, yet the Dems are making it worse, not better - so they are both in the wrong. At least the Reps are finally doing what they were voted in to do - no more taxes, reign in spending. Don't forget they just had an election and these Reps won on that campaign - so they are doing exactly what Americans want, the Dems are actually going against voter opinion right now.

I'm in the middle-higher tax brackets and I agree that taxes need to be increased for the rich.
I'm in the higher brackets of income in BC and will say that income tax is not the problem. I pay a buttload of taxes on my income, yet very little on my investments.

Most rich people make money off their investments, cause dividends, capital gains, ... all have tax advantaged schemes to pay very little. Then factor in the wealthy's ability to afford the best accountants, and they end up paying a smaller percentage of tax than I do.

A flat tax with no loopholes solves this. The tax law book for both the IRS and CRA are about a foot thick, no wonder the rich can find so many loopholes.

m!chael

07-15-2011, 06:52 PM

finbar

07-15-2011, 07:03 PM

The US has the best government that money can buy.

murd0c

07-15-2011, 08:04 PM

:fullofwin:

US RECESSION

The recession has hit everybody really hard...

My neighbour got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

Wives are having sex with their husbands because they can't afford batteries.

CEO's are now playing miniature golf.

Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.

A stripper was killed when her audience showered her with rolls of pennies while she danced.

I saw a Mormon with only one wife.

If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.

McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer.

Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America.

Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.

My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-possessed her!

A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.

A picture is now only worth 200 words.

When Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.

The Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.

And, finally....

I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call centre in Pakistan, and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.

zulutango

07-15-2011, 08:47 PM

I love how Bush gets to raise the debt ceiling limit 7 times (to correct you), but no one complains. But one time from Obama and Republicans cry foul!

Obama raised the US debit more since he took over than in the entire history of the US leading up to his coronation. Obama voted against it when he was senitor but now he's in charge it's OK?

Bush's 2001 tax cuts for the wealthy and his corporate buddies were supposed to be "temporary" but that was 10 years ago, and the cuts didn't work.

You mean the same ones Obama just extended ?

iEatClams

07-15-2011, 09:57 PM

If you like Max Keiser's ranting you should love mine! :p

I prefer Mish: Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/)

They've both been saying the same thing: Greece should tell the banks to go to hell and not pay their debt. Bad loans shouldn't be repaid.

Yes, I do agree that the health care reforms are unaffordable for the US and expenditures need to be cut. I'm not saying the Dems are the good guys here.

However, the BIGGEST CRIME to SOCIETY is what the Republicans are doing which is why I think they are the worst of the two evils.

The Dems want to raise taxes, and and by that they mean increase/raise the amount of taxes that the RICH and corporations pay. and the Democrats mostly want this done by TAX REFORMS which closes many tax loop holes that the GOP setup.

Republicans do not want this and refuse to do this. Even if obama agreed to every cut possible they still would barely bulge on this issue and wont accept anything that would but a significant dent their huge coffers.

For their campaigning. they mislead the public with, the Dems want to raise your taxes, implying that the poor will get punished with tax increases too.
This is MISLEADING since it's mostly the RICH that gets taxed, not the poor. the uninformed people do not realize that and will not support These Tax reforms.

They will also say, you can't tax your job creators. ! WTF are they talking about when no new jobs are created when company profits are higher than ever.

The Dems want to close tax loopholes and tax-credits/subsidies for the rich, but the Republicans will never let it happen.

If you ask the average poor american if they support tax increases, most will say no. But ask them if they support Tax Reforms to Increase tax only on the ultra rich and eliminate loopholes and most will say yes.

iEatClams

07-15-2011, 09:58 PM

You mean the same ones Obama just extended ?

He wants to get it extended to prevent a credit rating decrease and having it affect the markets.

iEatClams

07-15-2011, 10:08 PM

I'm in the higher brackets of income in BC and will say that income tax is not the problem. I pay a buttload of taxes on my income, yet very little on my investments.

Most rich people make money off their investments, cause dividends, capital gains, ... all have tax advantaged schemes to pay very little. Then factor in the wealthy's ability to afford the best accountants, and they end up paying a smaller percentage of tax than I do.

A flat tax with no loopholes solves this. The tax law book for both the IRS and CRA are about a foot thick, no wonder the rich can find so many loopholes.

If the GOP agreed to tax reforms, I wouldnt have much of a problem with them at all.

Warren Buffet pays a lower rate 19% than his employees 33%.

“How can this be fair?” Buffett asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be right?”

"Warren Buffett". Forbes: 24, 42–3. November 26, 2007.

Gt-R R34

07-15-2011, 11:09 PM

Everyone's got their Cake.
No one wants to give it up. Hence the impossible task of fix.
Bandaids are the only solution left.

Try getting American's to go with Euro style austerity measures. LOL that be epic to see what the reaction would be.

Gridlock

07-15-2011, 11:12 PM

How quickly "change we believe in" becomes "elections we can bank on"

Neither side really seems interested in solving the problems. Both sides need to take the heat and piss off their base a little.

If I was in the negotiating room, I'd break it down real simple.

No one goes to a press conference without everyone. No one talks about these meetings alone in public. We do this together.

EVERYTHING is on the table. You want something treated like a sacred cow? Gonna cost you something to protect it.

Everyone gains some, and everyone loses some.

I think the Dems are being realistic. Shit...no new taxes? Ok..lets close some loopholes to build a little revenue. You can go to your people and say no new taxes, and we can go to ours and say we stuck it to richies a little.

Shit...you wanna talk cuts? OK...we'll go dollar for dollar DoD vs. Social Security.

Done.

darkfroggy

07-15-2011, 11:25 PM

Loopholes are fucking retarded. There is absolutely no reason to have them, except pander to the ultra-rich minority.

Better to have the super-wealthy shoulder some of the burden, than have the average American family saddled with even more debt.

Death2Theft

07-15-2011, 11:46 PM

If they pull out of other countries they wont be pissing off anyone else to need the bullshit "homeland hassle security" program. That would be a few trillion in itself. I think Osama really won here. How many americans is he fucking over by killing .00001% of the population?

ShadowBun

07-15-2011, 11:56 PM

so what are they gonna do now?

zulutango

07-16-2011, 05:56 AM

achiam

07-16-2011, 06:33 AM

The USA is China's #1 buyer of goods. If the USA collapses, everyone stops buying stuff, and China will be screwed as demand for its products crashes. If this happens, the factory owners lay off workers, and the property fueled bubble in China collapses.

This also includes us in Canada -- the States are our biggest trade partners and thus many of us would be out of jobs if the companies we worked for no longer had Americans buying their products.

As an aside, the live US debt clock, with the fiscal components:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (http://usdebtclock.org/)

Culverin

07-16-2011, 07:26 AM

http://i.imgur.com/J5Rku.jpg

iEatClams

07-16-2011, 09:51 AM

The figures I heard were that if obama took every single cent of the money and assets owned by "the rich people" he would not even come close to starting to get rid of the debit he has racked up. I alos heard that if he tanked his obamacare (don't read it just sign it " ) it would make a huge dent in getting the money he needs, but don't expect that to happen.

totally false. This is the Right Wingers trying to mislead the public with.

Yes, the Dems made some bad decisions however the real bad guys are the Rep.

The republicans are easily portrayed as crooks because they are willing to have the poor and old die off in order to save money from the rich.

taylor192

07-16-2011, 10:17 AM

If the GOP agreed to tax reforms, I wouldnt have much of a problem with them at all.
Yes the GOP will never agree to tax reform as a whole, yet I am hopeful Ron and Rand Paul will have greater influence one day and the GOP may change.

Warren Buffet pays a lower rate 19% than his employees 33%.

“How can this be fair?” Buffett asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be right?”

"Warren Buffett". Forbes: 24, 42–3. November 26, 2007.
Yep, its hilarious when one of the richest men in the world remarks he pays less tax than his secretary.

AWDTurboLuvr

07-16-2011, 10:23 AM

So, which plan do you think they will implement? Raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion, induce program cuts but no income tax overhaul? Obama's longer term deal which includes changes to Medicare, social security reform and a likely overhaul of the US income tax structure?

The latter one is better in my eyes, but the Democrats don't like cuts to social programs and the Republicans don't like any income tax increases (hell, they don't like any tax increases of any sort...it's part of their pledge).

zulutango

07-16-2011, 06:57 PM

totally false. This is the Right Wingers trying to mislead the public with.

Yes, the Dems made some bad decisions however the real bad guys are the Rep.

The republicans are easily portrayed as crooks because they are willing to have the poor and old die off in order to save money from the rich.

Sounds like typical communist/socialist propaganda to me. You can't really be serious. It's obamacare that has the death panels that limit access to healthcare and the dems get their money from the same businessmen that the republicans do...plus the dems get the union money too.

In 2009 the IRS collected 2.1 trillion dollars in taxes. This total represents all the personal income tax from ordinary Americans and also includes all the corporate taxes and business taxes as well. If we accept the total of 110 trillion dollars as our unfunded liabilities then I think we can all agree we have a problem. Let's triple the tax rate for everyone which would leave most of us with little more than money to buy food and nothing else which, of course, would destroy the economy and the tax base. If we do this we would only raise 6 trillion dollars.

Some would have us seize the assets of the wealthy and use this money for the common good. In 2009 the IRS estimated the total assets of the richest among us at just over 11 trillion dollars. A lot of money for sure but compared to what we require.....little more that a drop in the bucket

We could also sell all the national assets---everything in the country of any value. The estimate for all the assets of the United States is 73 trillion dollars however we owe 54 trillion against those assets, that would have to be paid, leaving us with a profit of 19 trillion. So let's take a look at where we are. We have tripled everyone's taxes and, in doing so,destroyed the economy. We have seized all the assets of the rich and we have sold every thing of value the citizens of the United States ever owned and we have raised........36 trillion dollars....unfortunately we are a little short... we still need another 74 trillion dollars!!!

Death2Theft

07-16-2011, 09:59 PM

Just kick the can down to the next generation. Young people wont care enough about voting to care! Meanwhile the old fogeys can just hope to be dead before they catch on.

zulutango

07-17-2011, 05:42 AM

That's my plan. :D

Mr.HappySilp

07-17-2011, 12:45 PM

Just kick the can down to the next generation. Young people wont care enough about voting to care! Meanwhile the old fogeys can just hope to be dead before they catch on.

Isn't that's what all world leaders do? Just make sure they do good enough to last their terms and leave all the nasty stuff for the next runner up to deal with?

Graeme S

07-17-2011, 02:29 PM

When I heard about McConnellcare (let's call it what it originally was, while we use catchy nicknames), I never thought that the purpose was to control the budget. The idea was (as I understood it) to introduce affordable healthcare for the masses. For a great number of Americans, they are in that awkward place where they don't qualify for low-income healthcare, nor can they afford privatized health care (generally the kind unsubsidized by employers).

It was my understanding that the introduction of this kind of healthcare was to change several of the things which protect insurance profits and limit peoples' protections:
-The artificial "limiting" of treatments in dollar amounts (many plans say "we cover each individual problem to a maximum of....", so things like cancer that seemed to be going into remission or were removed and returned could be categorized as the same disease, meaning the companies would just stop paying)
-The dropping of people who have cost too much to the insurance companies
-The right of refusal to treat pre-existing conditions

Savings or not, the idea was to increase the quality of life and livability of the US. As an added bonus, if people spend less on healthcare, they have more to spend elsewhere.

haha13

07-17-2011, 07:45 PM

‪Peter Schiff RT America 11 July 2011‬&rlm; - YouTube

zulutango

07-17-2011, 08:34 PM

So they can't afford the debit they have now and can't find a way to pay it off so how does borrowing more money and going even deeper into debit seem to be the way to solve the problem? If it was your money would you think that borrowing even more would help you? Do you know any bank that would think it was? Are we missing something here ?

As I said earlier, they need to pay about 20 billion to avoid default from a 200 billion monthly income. He wants to keep overspending and blame the republicans for the problem and the solution as he plans his next re-election campaign. BTW, thanks for the hot ruskie chick from Russia TV above. Always to see a nice unbiased source like the Russians being used to provide solutions to American financial problems.

StaxBundlez

07-18-2011, 01:38 AM

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

Vale46Rossi

07-18-2011, 01:58 AM

shit just got real.

Gridlock

07-18-2011, 08:39 AM

The only time going deeper into debt works is if you invest it in something to make more money.

So when Obama says he won't cut funding to education and investments in technology, its a good thing.

The problem is, the people making the decisions on the investments. In their round of stim spending, it ended up costing $275,000 per job created. That's a republican line, and I recognize that tracking the amount of jobs saved as a result makes that number more palatable.

Nightwalker

07-18-2011, 08:50 AM

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

World Debt Clocks (http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

Why aren't countries like England, France, Germany, Ireland and Italy already in the apocalypse? They look a lot worse off than the USA.

gdoh

07-18-2011, 09:05 AM

because of the EU if im not mistaking

iEatClams

07-18-2011, 09:18 AM

Sounds like typical communist/socialist propaganda to me. You can't really be serious. It's obamacare that has the death panels that limit access to healthcare and the dems get their money from the same businessmen that the republicans do...plus the dems get the union money too.

and one can say this sounds like propaganda from of the right wing.

The solution is both Expenditure cuts and Tax Reforms. Yet the republicans wont budge on the Reforms. No where did I say to seize all the wealth of the wealthy or triple the tax or to end capitalism.

You're using the same tactics as most of these reuplicans. Can you see why it's easy for the repulicans to be portrayed as crooks?

iEatClams

07-18-2011, 09:22 AM

For those that always hate on lefties or liberals:

Day of a Republican (http://nobeliefs.com/RepublicanDay.htm)

Graeme S

07-18-2011, 09:55 AM

For those that always hate on lefties or liberals:

Day of a Republican (http://nobeliefs.com/RepublicanDay.htm)

I'm no supporter of the right wing, but the way that was written seems like it's designed to do nothing more than inflame the Right with the level of condescension and disrespect shown.

There's no point in stooping to the point where you're just trying to belittle others' opinions. Disagreement is one thing. Calling people idiots is nothing more than a way to ensure that people remain divided and don't want to come together to solve their problems.

Jermyzy

07-18-2011, 09:58 AM

So, if every single country is in debt, who is the money owed to? Central banks?

taylor192

07-18-2011, 09:59 AM

So, if every single country is in debt, who is the money owed to? Central banks?

Your pension, your investments, ... for instance Japanese citizens own much of Japan's debt.

TheNewGirl

07-18-2011, 10:20 AM

World Debt Clocks (http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

Why aren't countries like England, France, Germany, Ireland and Italy already in the apocalypse? They look a lot worse off than the USA.

Italy and Ireland are buckling majorly. Greece along with them.

The Euro is the only thing keeping Europe a float and it's starting to give under the strain of holding up all these countries.

Euro Financial Crisis: No End In Sight - Geopolitical Monitor (http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-euro-under-siege-4417/)

Nightwalker

07-18-2011, 05:07 PM

‪Capitalism‬&rlm; - YouTube

tool001

07-19-2011, 01:18 AM

US has only 2 options, either let the dollar collapse to save the economy or save the dollar and destroy the economy...

thanks to deregulation, thanks to big banks and fed reserve.

taylor192

07-19-2011, 06:36 AM

US has only 2 options, either let the dollar collapse to save the economy or save the dollar and destroy the economy...

thanks to deregulation, thanks to big banks and fed reserve.

They have more options than that. Cuts to entitlement programs, tax reforms, and military strategy change. Just no-one wants to make any of those decisions cause they are hard, or someone's hand is in the cookie jar.

Death2Theft

07-19-2011, 08:05 AM

I'm curious what some of these "entitlement" programs are? Not a fan of the term because i dont feel people should be entitled to anything. Perhaps it's necessary evil?

MR_BIGGS

07-19-2011, 08:31 AM

I'm curious what some of these "entitlement" programs are? Not a fan of the term because i dont feel people should be entitled to anything. Perhaps it's necessary evil?

-Social Security
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-federal employee and military retirement plans
-unemployment compensation
-food stamps
-agricultural price support programs
-earned income tax credit
-free lunch programs for poor children

taylor192

07-19-2011, 09:00 AM

I'm curious what some of these "entitlement" programs are? Not a fan of the term because i dont feel people should be entitled to anything. Perhaps it's necessary evil?
Medicare, welfare, social security, ...

I'm using "entitlement programs" cause my favourite blogger does. He uses it to mean things people feel society should have, thus are "entitled" to.

None of these are necessary evils, or even necessary. As little as 100 years ago we didn't rely on government for these things, we saved for ourselves and relied on family, friends, neighbours, and our community.

More the reason why I think "entitlement" is a good word, cause people don't need these programs if they took more responsibility for themselves, yet feel entitled to them now that society has told them they need it.

Death2Theft

07-19-2011, 09:44 AM

Curious how long they plan on subsidizing corn now that it takes more energy to make than it produces.

Jsunu

07-19-2011, 10:09 AM

Curious how long they plan on subsidizing corn now that it takes more energy to make than it produces.

That's the real concern with a corn based economy. Corn is in EVERYTHING and is less efficient/health damaging as a result. Unfortuniately it is deeply ingrained into the USA economy it will be hard to transfer out of the dependance of corn (like foreign oil :okay:).

mikemhg

07-19-2011, 03:27 PM

I use catch phrases cause they are funny, I definitely know more about what's going on than you do.

Obama is forcing everyone to buy a policy - then offering a government subsidized policy to buy. This does nothing to address the reason health care is unaffordable, the 20% administrative overhead of the policies. It only creates more policy BS, and mismanages it in government.

Yet that's just one part of why Obama is racking up trillions of debt, so you're partially correct in that its not the only thing racking up the huge deficit. His stupid infrastructure spending, handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems... yet you'd know that - right?

Pretty sure you don't. I work for a trust fund that handles major Goverment Pension and Health Care Policy Groups.

You are changing the argument now because you were wrong. This argument isn't about whether or not Obama's plan is the best idea. I have always felt he should have gone further and implemented a Universal Plan, that all citizens are forced to pay into accordingly. A larger pool is always the best solution when balance with those that are not taking from the pool itself (younger, healthier contributors).

Your argument was that Obama's healthcare plan is why the US is in major financial debt. That claim is completely incorrect, that is the only point we were discussing. The point was never about whether the plan was the best solution or not.

Infrastructure spending? What are you talking about exactly, give me specific points, as State Infrastructure spending varies from state to state. That was a stupid point to make anyways, as most economists argree that Government Infrastructure does boost the economy through job growth, which is deadly required in the US, as un-employment numbers are not budging for the better.

"handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems"

I am actually shocked that you used this point to pin on Obama, you right there show you have no idea what you are talking about here.

This also a Republican idea, enacted by GW. It was 2002 when Bush started pushing programs to get minorities, and low-income families to purchase homes, and vehicles they simply could not afford, thus beginning this sub-prime catastrophe we are seeing today.

This deficit issue is complicated, but not one same person can deny where it started. Two un-funded wars, un-funded tax cuts to the wealthy, and a major drug prescription program (also started by GW).

Nightwalker

07-19-2011, 03:33 PM

I'm hoping for the best for them, if things get worse I could be out of a job. Most of the money my company takes in is from American customers.

iEatClams

07-19-2011, 03:59 PM

They have more options than that. Cuts to entitlement programs, tax reforms, and military strategy change. Just no-one wants to make any of those decisions cause they are hard, or someone's hand is in the cookie jar.

Your right, the options are clear, but money always gets in the way of things.

I'm on the side that thinks all 3 is the answer.

Expenditure cuts : reduces expenses
Tax Reforms : raises revenue
reduce military spending: reduces expenses

Edit: Don't like the term entitlement as I feel a country where the top 10% own 70% of the wealth can afford to provide certain basic social programs.

J____

07-20-2011, 01:56 AM

so how's this gonna affect the market in three next 2 years?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

FerrariEnzo

07-20-2011, 02:26 AM

get Bill Gates to pay off the Debt.. haha

then it would be called
United States of Microsoft

Death2Theft

07-20-2011, 04:59 AM

Bill Gates is too busy paying someone to invent a new toilet.

taylor192

07-20-2011, 06:41 AM

get Bill Gates to pay off the Debt.. haha

then it would be called
United States of Microsoft
LOL he has only $40B, while the US is in debt $14T and has unfunded liabilities of ~$100T.

FerrariEnzo

07-20-2011, 06:45 AM

LOL he has only $40B, while the US is in debt $14T and has unfunded liabilities of ~$100T.

He probably has more he's hiding from the IRS.... How you ask.... IRS is using windows aren't they... Lol nuff said....

Haha maybe if China paid it off.... Wow that would be rough... World domination... After buy U.S. its Japan....

taylor192

07-20-2011, 06:57 AM

Pretty sure you don't. I work for a trust fund that handles major Goverment Pension and Health Care Policy Groups.
Hopefully your company doesn't read this, cause you're about to look very silly.

PS I work for a US healthcare company that makes financial and healthcare software... yet lets get to the facts rather than compare that my balls are bigger.

You are changing the argument now because you were wrong.
I admitted to using catch phrases to make a sarcastic point - the only thing that is wrong is you cannot let it go and feel you have some asinine point to make.

Your argument was that Obama's healthcare plan is why the US is in major financial debt.
My sarcastic argument was that his plan is one of many things that has racked up a couple $T in debt. I understand you need to nit-pick to make your asinine point, yet please, get over it.

Do you know the details of ObamaCare? The increases to Mediaid, Medicare, subsidies to family above the poverty line...? Its not the insurance reforms that are costing trillions, its the handouts and subsidies - which you have no experience with at your trust fund job, so you should just really stop talking.

Infrastructure spending? What are you talking about exactly, give me specific points
Gladly, yet you're about to look really silly.

Did you know Obama signed nearly a $T of infrastructure spending in his first year? and where are the jobs that spending was supposed to create? The latest jobs numbers are dismal, and for the past couple years the only industry showing job growth is... wait for it... government. The massive spending has not created the many private sector jobs it was supposed to.

Worse, what's going to happen when the taps get turned off? The economy has not picked up, and the government can nolonger afford to keep spending to prop it up.... more on that next.

That was a stupid point to make anyways, as most economists argree that Government Infrastructure does boost the economy through job growth, which is deadly required in the US, as un-employment numbers are not budging for the better.
Keynesian economists to be exact, cause not all agree this is the best approach. My favourite economist vehemently disagrees with this approach.

This type of economics only works if you can inflate your way out of the problem. Like in the 80s and 90s, following recessions the economy took off. So lets take a look at how the US is doing 5 years after all this mess started.... did all that spending get the economy rolling again? Nope. Now they are deeper in debt with no sign of an upward swing on the horizon. Keynesian economics is not going to work this time.

"handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems"

I am actually shocked that you used this point to pin on Obama, you right there show you have no idea what you are talking about here.
Have you heard of "cash for clunkers"? If not please stop now, cause you don't know shit. It was one of the most popular programs to get people spending money... wait for it... with BIG handouts from the government.

Care to guess who signed this into law? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Bush.

Would you like me to highlight some of the real estate programs Obama signed into law as well? or have I made you look silly enough? Let me know.

This also a Republican idea, enacted by GW. It was 2002 when Bush started pushing programs to get minorities, and low-income families to purchase homes, and vehicles they simply could not afford, thus beginning this sub-prime catastrophe we are seeing today.

This deficit issue is complicated, but not one same person can deny where it started. Two un-funded wars, un-funded tax cuts to the wealthy, and a major drug prescription program (also started by GW).
I don't deny where it started, so you can stop the bipartisan crap. I don't care who started it, I care who continues it and who is finally going to end it. Perhaps you missed that in your asinine nit-picking.

Bush racked up huge debt, and Obama is doing the same. So much for "change we can believe in". At least the Republicans are finally saying "no". Maybe for the wrong reasons, yet it is about time.

Stop, before you hit reply please don't come back with "Bush started it" BS. I'm not your mom, I don't care if your brother broke your toy. Stop crying and fix it.

will068

07-20-2011, 11:42 AM

Meowjin

07-20-2011, 11:48 AM

social programs are good and people just need to be taxed accordingly.

Sorry taylor that you have such a grim look on people that you would deny people basic human lives.

edit: Might as well add that the usa needs serious legal and law reforms, electoral reforms (bring in vote subsidy) and the banning of contributions to politicians.

Politicians are suppose to be a representative of the people and most politicians are millionaires

Graeme S

07-20-2011, 01:53 PM

The use of jargon to express those kinds of programs do very little than to cause more division, or to frame peoples' thoughts in a certain way. Saying that you're using them sarcastically is very similar to the Hipster kids who wear Che Guevara shirts that were bought for $50+ and say that they're wearing them as an ironic statement for who does and doesn't belong; it's just hot air. The difference between a sniper and a sharpshooter? On Fox News, it's whether you're an Enemy Combatant (sniper) or an American Soldier (sharpshooter). Sharpshooter has a "better feel" to it for the average American Fox News viewer.

To me, when I hear the word "entitlement", I think of "something someone feels they should get regardless of what they do or do not do". While getting something for nothing (like through welfare or food stamps) does qualify under that definition, those kinds of things are necessities. They are things people need to live, and survive. "Necessities programs" would be a better way to express it, for me. Things that would qualify as "entitlements" for me would be a lack of inheritance tax for anything under $5,000,000(!), a lower tax rate on dividends and investments than on conventional income, and programs like that. These qualify as entitlements to me because it rewards people only for having more than others do. These people feel they are "entitled" to more because they already have it. Makes no sense to me.

taylor192

07-20-2011, 02:47 PM

social programs are good and people just need to be taxed accordingly.

Sorry taylor that you have such a grim look on people that you would deny people basic human lives.
I'm sorry you've been brain washed by Disney.

Disney changed society for the worse when they retold "The Ant and The Grasshopper" by having the Ant help the Grasshopper out despite the Grasshopper being lazy and not taking care of himself. Now society expects everyone to do the "right" (aka moral) thing and take care of others, even if they are not taking care of themselves.

In the original story the Grasshopper dies.

---

I am not denying anyone basic human rights. Everyone has the same freedom to live, work wherever they want. If they cannot save enough where they are, they are free to move and find a better job or somewhere their dollar goes further. They are not free to stick out their hand and ask me to subsidize their lifestyle cause they appear to have no choice - they have choice, and must suffer the consequences of poor choices - as the Grasshopper originally did.

taylor192

07-20-2011, 02:59 PM

To me, when I hear the word "entitlement", I think of "something someone feels they should get regardless of what they do or do not do". While getting something for nothing (like through welfare or food stamps) does qualify under that definition, those kinds of things are necessities. They are things people need to live, and survive. "Necessities programs" would be a better way to express it, for me.
Fair enough, I accept your explanation even if I disagree with it.

Food stamps are a funny thing. Foods stamp usage in the US has climbed 5% from ~10% to ~15% in the past 3 years. Meanwhile house ownership has fallen from ~70% to ~65%. Coincidence? How did all these Americans lining up to buy homes suddenly become dependent on food stamps? Oh ya, they were a bunch of Grasshoppers not saving for a rainy day, and now they want me, the Ant, to bail them out with subsidies - no thanks.

Low income housing would fall into your "necessities" category too. I used to live across from low income housing in Ottawa. The house across from me had a 50" flat screen TV, while I was still watching a tube TV -and this was when flat screen TVs cost > $3K. Since when did a $3K flat screen TV become a "necessity"? If they can afford that, they don't need my tax dollar subsidizing their housing.

That's what happens when you mix up "necessities" and "entitlements", the system gets abused.

Things that would qualify as "entitlements" for me would be a lack of inheritance tax for anything under $5,000,000(!), a lower tax rate on dividends and investments than on conventional income, and programs like that. These qualify as entitlements to me because it rewards people only for having more than others do. These people feel they are "entitled" to more because they already have it. Makes no sense to me.
I agree tax reforms are necessary. I understand why dividends and capital gains taxes are lower, to encourage reinvestment, yet the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Flat tax, no entitlements. Easy, done, fixed.

TheNewGirl

07-20-2011, 03:06 PM

In the states the Republicans recently started forcing a bill that will restrict tax payer funded abortions, previously given to women who were raped or the victims of incest. Now they've defined rape as only being rape if it involves physical violence, no longer the threat there of, or other forms of cohersion (so if you get drugged and raped.. that's no longer rape you have to have the baby. If you're 13 and he's 30... that's stat rape but you have to have the baby any how).

The basis for this is theoretically a cost saving measure to limit government funded procedures. They cost about $900 a procedure.

Additionally, funding to plan parenthood has been almost entirely extinguished because American politicians would have you feel PP is a big abortion warehouse. When actually they're the largest supplier of free, easily accessed birth control to young people.

Anyone read much Gladwell? He has a wonderful article on the correlation between increase in crime and reduced availablility abortion (and birth control), as well as increased strain on the foster system. This makes sense doesn't it... unwanted kids = neglected kids = increase in foster kids or criminals.

That cut funding to the $900 abortion, down the road becomes $2000/month for a foster child or $3000/month for juvie.

There's several really interesting studies as well on how providing free homes for homeless people decreases the cost and strain on health care and other emergency services. That tracked the mounting costs for emergency treatment for persons with no coverage against the costs if they'd had access to basic living needs and preventative medical care and found that interventions were exponentially cheaper.

This is true in mental health as well with early access and basic funding preventing much larger scale burdens in the future.

A lot of those things you dismissively call "entitlement" actually make economic sense. But you know, it's easy when you're sitting here in Canada where you can go to the doctor when ever you want, where your school is free and safe, where the economy is mostly stable to sneer at people who don't have any of that and go 'suck it up princess that's a waste of money get a better job if you want health care or food'.

It's also a VERY short term and narrow way of looking at the world.

There ARE ways to pay for this stuff with out breaking the bank. We do it here in our own country.

zulutango

07-20-2011, 03:39 PM

One of pPlanned parenthood's biggest sources of income is from the abortions and income has not been extinguished..

Planned Parenthood’s Latest Annual Report:
Abortions at America’s Billion-Dollar Abortion Chain
Nearly Double in Past 10 Years
BY Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.

According to its latest annual report, clinics affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) performed 305,310 abortions in 2007, an all-time record for the nation’s largest abortion provider. While the number of abortions in the U.S. has dropped nearly every year since the 1990 peak of 1.6 million, they have consistently been on the increase at PPFA. In fact, they have nearly doubled in the last 10 years from 165,174 in 1997.

Today, Planned Parenthood is responsible for more than a quarter of all abortions performed annually in the United States. While Planned Parenthood tries to minimize the centrality of abortion to its mission, the 2007–08 report clearly shows that the promotion and performance of abortion remains at the core of Planned Parenthood’s business and mission.

Abortion as Only 3% of PPFA Services?

An increasingly common PPFA response is to say that abortion represents only 3% of all the services they provided in 2007. Technically, one can say this if every packet of pills, every test, every exam a client receives is counted as a separate service. But looked at in a more normal way, trying to see what percentage of Planned Parenthood’s customers receive abortions, we get a figure closer to 10.1%. Even that doesn’t capture the full impact.

Abortion is quite often bundled with a number of those other services (the abortion patient often receives and pays for a number of connected services, such as Rh testing, ultrasound, STD testing, the HPV vaccine, a take-home pack of contraceptives). Thus, abortion and abortion-related services account for a much, much bigger piece of the pie than 3% or even 10%.

Consider PPFA’s $374.7 million clinic income for the fiscal year ending June 2008.

Funding the Abortion Agenda

PPFA took in over $1 billion in revenues from all sources in the fiscal year running July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Over a third, nearly $350 million, came in the form of “Government Grants and Contracts”—your tax dollars and mine.

Private donors were responsible for nearly a quarter with “Contributions and Bequests” totaling $244.9 million. “Health Center Income” was the biggest source of revenue (see above) with “Other” bringing in an additional $68.9 million.Planned Parenthood not only takes in a great deal of money from abortion, it also spends a great deal of money, time, and energy perfecting, promoting, and defending it.

taylor192

07-20-2011, 04:00 PM

blah blah blah ... abortions ... blah blah blah
My GF works for BC's version of Planned Parenthood, so I am very aware of the debate, and of how its funded.

I wouldn't call abortions an entitlement program, yet I wouldn't call them a necessity either. They cost between a couple dollars for the pills or ~$500 for the surgery, not beyond the reach of most people if they really want it done. Its not like most of us don't have a support group if we need it - we'd just rather reach into the nameless government cookie jar than dare ask family/friends for the money.

I've read all of Gladwell's books, and everything is very logical, yet look at how many here are arguing "morals" or "rights" to justify their programs - yet then are going to give me hell over my morals: hard work, take care of yourself, cleanup your own mess. It is logical to give clean needles to junkies, yet my morals will never stand condoning open drug use to that degree.

TheNewGirl

07-20-2011, 04:22 PM

I'm just using that as an example though of one of the ways some of the "cost cutting measures" are actually costing more in the long run.

I look at things from a financial perspective and I think in the state that the US is in they can't afford to be taking the moral high ground on issues that ultimately are going to bankrupt them further. And really that's exactly what's going on right now.

It's about the $$$s. But like I said, a lot of people are using the $ as an excuse to enforce their morality on people to greater ultimate cost.

I think it's INSANE that they have so many American families on food stamps for example, but that's a symptom of a greater problem. Cutting the food stamp budget will just shift that cost to crime or health care because just saying 'your budget is reduced by half' doesn't magically solve the problem.

Even looking at the junkie debate. I am ALL for insite and needle exchange. I don't agree with hard core drug use. But I would rather a small portion of my tax dollars go to clean needles then a larger portion go to caring for junkie HIV drug cocktails. I accept that some of my tax dollars though are going to have to go to dealing with junkies. And that being the case I want it to be firstly efficient, secondly cost effective and if possible, thirdly, doing something to reduce or aid in the problem.

cressydrift

07-20-2011, 07:21 PM

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=400x150&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:|1959|1964|1969|1974|1979|1984|1989|1994|19 99|2004|2010|1:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|16&chd=t:1.95804195804,2.16783216783,2.44755244755,3. 35664335664,5.8041958042,10.979020979,19.930069930 1,32.8671328671,39.5104895105,51.6083916084,100&cht=lc&chtt=Growth+of+United+States+National+Debt|Over+Pa st+50+Years

Great68

07-20-2011, 07:55 PM

It sucks that in society, the financially responsible people have to buck up for the irresponsible, but I'd rather someone get a welfare check to pay for food than my TV which they just broke into my house to steal.

taylor192

07-20-2011, 08:43 PM

Death2Theft

07-20-2011, 09:29 PM

I'd much rather have gov pay for the abortions than risk even one child being raised by a parent milking the system for 18 years.

Gt-R R34

07-20-2011, 10:28 PM

You guys are getting off-topic with the abortions.

Freaknomics for the rest of you.

PhilosophyMajor

07-24-2011, 02:57 PM

am i missing something here? obama is offering 4 trillion in spending cuts and the republicans are basically rejecting any and every offer he's trying to make. how screwed up has american politics gotten that one party is basically unwilling to take a single compromise and is seemingly holding the US and world economy hostage to score political points?

zulutango

07-24-2011, 07:23 PM

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?

The_Grinch

07-24-2011, 10:25 PM

End the Fed free the slaves..

Jermyzy

07-24-2011, 10:30 PM

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

Carl Johnson

07-24-2011, 10:51 PM

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.

Meowjin

07-24-2011, 11:08 PM

I used to think that way, now I just want a higher fence and a gun... :D

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.

BoredAtWork

07-24-2011, 11:15 PM

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.

Death2Theft

07-25-2011, 12:03 AM

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?
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.

taylor192

07-25-2011, 06:53 AM

I used to think that way, now I just want a higher fence and a gun... :D

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

taylor192

07-25-2011, 06:57 AM

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?
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.

Jermyzy

07-25-2011, 09:13 AM

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

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 :)

Gt-R R34

07-25-2011, 11:58 AM

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

LiquidTurbo

07-25-2011, 08:47 PM

A visualization of US debt (credit card bill) stacked in 100 dollar bills (http://www.wtfnoway.com/)

iEatClams

07-25-2011, 10:08 PM

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

iEatClams

07-25-2011, 10:10 PM

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

CorneringArtist

07-25-2011, 10:12 PM

iEatClams

07-25-2011, 10:14 PM

Meowjin

07-25-2011, 10:15 PM

becuase most are millionair's them selves

taylor192

07-26-2011, 08:06 AM

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?

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.

AWDTurboLuvr

07-26-2011, 08:30 AM

Nightwalker

07-26-2011, 08:34 AM

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/uploads/2011/1/18/saupload_to_whom_does_the_us_government_owe_money_ klein_thumb1.jpg

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

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Various%20Items&year=1996_2016&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&col=c&spending0=2611.87_2791.51_2992.44_3178.92_3476.15_ 3561.89_3539.74_3552.82_3719.02_4078.75_4449.66_47 63.65_4876.69_4483.47_4505.36_4518.08_5047.48_5572 .27_6093.81_6542.68_6958.81&spending1=107.56_22.08_-69.05_-125.41_-235.97_-127.89_158.01_377.81_412.90_318.59_248.57_160.96_4 58.55_1412.69_1293.49_1645.12_1101.24_767.54_644.5 5_606.73_648.71&legend=Remaining%20Spending-total_Federal%20Deficit-total&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g_g

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

iEatClams

07-26-2011, 04:21 PM

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.

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.

will068

07-26-2011, 04:55 PM

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.

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.

Tapioca

07-26-2011, 04:57 PM

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?

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.

unit

07-26-2011, 04:58 PM

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.

^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.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:05 AM

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%.
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.

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?
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.

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 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.

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.
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.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:09 AM

TheNewGirl

07-27-2011, 08:09 AM

You know, I know that sales taxes are retroactive and generally frowned on. But it occurs to me that a GST (though I would have it applied to only none essential items) is possibly the best solution to the US government's problem.

It allows an increase in revenue with out increasing income tax.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:32 AM

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.
Awesome reply, let me dig into it a bit.

I agree, I'm upper-middle-class so income tax decreases benefit me. Yet I am getting to an age where my investments surpass my income, and those tax advantaged investments are very useful to me too. I'm not alone in this, as most people older than me "should" have a 6-7 figure retirement savings account ("should", many don't cause they didn't prioritize saving) and be benefiting from the same tax-advantaged investments of the ultra-rich.

Even if the taxes were raised to the Clinton-era magnitudes, taxes in the US are still painstakingly low compared to here.
They aren't that low, especially when you get into cities with a municipal income tax, higher property tax, and then paying out of pocket for medical insurance. I looked into moving to Minnesota and Texas, and after everything considered it wasn't that much lower.

That said, taxes today are lower than decades ago. Here's a graph of US income tax, and then US and Canadian corporate tax. Thus taxes are really low, not just for the ultra rich, for everyone.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/585px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/images/chap3-9b-eng.gif

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.
Lots of companies are sitting on piles of cash cause the economy sucks. Hell I'm sitting on a pile of cash too. Rates need to rise to make investment more attractive, its just too bad we're all so far in debt that rising rates would kill the economy.

I have seen charts showing big business are actually net losers of jobs. Small-medium business creates all the jobs.

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.
Everyone blames the big bad banks for handing out credit like it was candy - what happened to personal responsibility? Did the banks knock on those people's doors and drag them to house showing and make them sign mortgages? no. Did the banks swipe their CCs while they were out shopping? no. Did the banks force them to lease cars they couldn't afford? no.

So I disagree with your analogy. No-one forced fat people to eat french fries, they did so willingly cause they are stupid, and they should pay the price for being stupid. Your analogy is as bad as San Fransisco forcing McDs not to sell Happy Meals cause somehow these kids just happen to make it to McDs and pay for Happy Meals all by themselves...

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:34 AM

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

You know, I know that sales taxes are retroactive and generally frowned on. But it occurs to me that a GST (though I would have it applied to only none essential items) is possibly the best solution to the US government's problem.

It allows an increase in revenue with out increasing income tax.
See the above reply. Those newly elected Republicans at the last mid-term election will never let it happen, cause they were voted in by campaigning for no more taxes.

Ferra

07-27-2011, 08:37 AM

This graph is misleading. Obama had the opportunity to reverse the damage done by Bush, and didn't. So Obama is now responsible for how much those Bush programs cost during his term.

So essentially divide the Bush numbers by 1/2 and add them to the Obama side.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif
:fulloffuck: Either you are trolling or you are retarded...

stopping the bush era tax-cut is exactly what he is trying to do
He has also done a much better job at pulling out from iraq & afghanistan than bush did...

In all fairness, I think the obama stimulus spending should be added back to the bush side since bush was the one who started the shit that made the stimulus spending necessary in the first place.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:42 AM

:fulloffuck: Either you are trolling or you are retarded...

stopping the bush era tax-cut is exactly what he is trying to do
He has also done a much better job at pulling out from iraq & afghanistan than bush did...

In all fairness, I think the obama stimulus spending should be added back to the bush side since bush was the one who started the shit that made the stimulus spending necessary in the first place.
You're very uninformed.

When the Dems had the house he had the chance to kill the Bush tax cuts, yet instead signed to extend them. Strike one.

Obama may have pulled out of Iraq, yet he actually sent more troops to Afghanistan. Strike two.

Stimulus spending is never necessary. It just kicks the can down the road. Obama had the chance to do something different, like Clinton, yet didn't. Strike three, you're out.

Come back when you know a little bit more than what Fox news has on.

Ferra

07-27-2011, 09:02 AM

You're very uninformed.

When the Dems had the house he had the chance to kill the Bush tax cuts, yet instead signed to extend them. Strike one.

Obama may have pulled out of Iraq, yet he actually sent more troops to Afghanistan. Strike two.

Stimulus spending is never necessary. It just kicks the can down the road. Obama had the chance to do something different, like Clinton, yet didn't. Strike three, you're out.

Come back when you know a little bit more than what Fox news has on.
The tax-cut was extend because it contained tax-cut for the average middle income households as well, I am sure he would've stopped the super wealthy tax-cut (where most of the money is) if he could without increasing tax for the average middle income households

Stimulus spending is NEVER necessary?? Let me guess....you also think we can do without any fed, central bank, and monetary policy as well...right?

Sounds like it is you who are watching too much fox news...

TheNewGirl

07-27-2011, 09:54 AM

See the above reply. Those newly elected Republicans at the last mid-term election will never let it happen, cause they were voted in by campaigning for no more taxes.

But regardless of what spending cuts are made they HAVE to increase revenue. The only way to do this is to tax people or businesses.

They can't hold the people hostage on this or it's never going to be resolved.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 10:32 AM

But regardless of what spending cuts are made they HAVE to increase revenue. The only way to do this is to tax people or businesses.

They can't hold the people hostage on this or it's never going to be resolved.
They are NOT holding anyone hostage. The people voted in Republicans on campaign promises of no tax increases. That's the democracy you silly lefties like until you don't get your own way.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 10:43 AM

The tax-cut was extend because it contained tax-cut for the average middle income households as well, I am sure he would've stopped the super wealthy tax-cut (where most of the money is) if he could without increasing tax for the average middle income households
Could've, should've, would've aren't very compelling arguments. The fact stands Obama extended the cuts, so Obama shares in the blame.

Stimulus spending is NEVER necessary?? Let me guess....you also think we can do without any fed, central bank, and monetary policy as well...right?
Do you know what the role of the Fed is? or what Monetary Policy is supposed to govern?

Those institutions/policies are not supposed to to provide a glorified piggy bank to the government. They are supposed to control money supply and inflation. Instead they've been bastardized and abused to let the country spend stupidly.

Stimulus spending should be like a rainy day account. You save during good times so you can spend during bad times. If you don't save enough during good times, you have to cut back during bad times. I say "never" cause most countries are in debt. They have no "rainy day fund" so any stimulus spending just kicks the can down the road and makes the problem worse.

Yet you don't care right? tax the wealthy to pay for your lifestyle, I bet you don't have a penny saved.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 10:58 AM

A lot of people voted for this man, not the idiot President today.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Senator Barack Obama Explaining his 2006 Vote Against Raising the Debt Limit - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca)

Jermyzy

07-27-2011, 12:18 PM

A lot of people voted for this man, not the idiot President today.

Senator Barack Obama Explaining his 2006 Vote Against Raising the Debt Limit - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca)

I love when politicians are strongly opposed to a certain policy, but can turn 180 and fully support the same policy later when it benefits them and "forget" how strongly they opposed it earlier

TheNewGirl

07-27-2011, 12:55 PM

They are NOT holding anyone hostage. The people voted in Republicans on campaign promises of no tax increases. That's the democracy you silly lefties like until you don't get your own way.

People voted Obama on his healthcare promises too.

How come it's only democracy when it's the Righties getting their way?

As a side, god bless The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/emergency-team-of-8thgrade-civics-teachers-dispatc,21023/

taylor192

07-27-2011, 03:25 PM

People voted Obama on his healthcare promises too.

How come it's only democracy when it's the Righties getting their way?

That was 2008, welcome to today. In 2010 the biggest swing of seats in nearly a century occurred, with the Dems losing 60+ seats in the House and 6 in the Senate, handing control of the House back to the Reps.

The people spoke, they want the Obama I quoted above, not the one they got.

will068

07-27-2011, 04:40 PM

So I disagree with your analogy. No-one forced fat people to eat french fries, they did so willingly cause they are stupid, and they should pay the price for being stupid. Your analogy is as bad as San Fransisco forcing McDs not to sell Happy Meals cause somehow these kids just happen to make it to McDs and pay for Happy Meals all by themselves...

Actually, it'll be McD's saying to kids that they can own the Happy meal toy for $1.00. But making them sign a contract that says McD's has the right to charge them extra in the future. Kid asks McDonald's what it means, and the McD's say it's nothing and they should just sign it. A few months later, McD's goes to the kids how's and asks for $500 for the toy. Kid can only give $5 since Kid doesn't have the money. McD gets the repo guys to repossess the toy. Because of the all these deregulation lobbied by McD, the law is at the side of McD and not the Kid. Poor Kid.

That's why I hate these banks. They just bought out the whole system. There should be some law helping out the little guys. Just like how there is an Anti Trust law so companies do not get too powerful in their industry.

Back on topic. I am all for the Clinton era tax rates. The US had a balanced budget at that time and for a couple of years, budget surplus. I remember when CNN did a poll on what to do with the surplus, the majority said pay the debt.

As for corporations, the US still has the environment to make money. Lots of customers, reasonable tax rates, and rule of law applies. Bump up the tax rate by a few percent - there will still be money to be made. Again, check the Clinton years.

iEatClams

07-27-2011, 05:25 PM

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

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.

You're entitled to your own opinion, and I'm not here to lecture you.

I hear you on why you don't think the lazy should not be subsidized and your other arguments etc. I even agree that many spending cuts on certain programs are needed.

However here's my take:

As someone who worked in the investment industry, I understand the goal is to maximize stock price.

My issue is the long term, my kids, and their kids, and I want them to have the best possible chance at having a decent life.

Similar to you, my folks were dirt poor immigrants who came here with nothing. Same story, they worked hard etc etc. I was dirt poor growing up, worked for money since I was 12, never had real money until I graduated from university.

I know this is off-topic, but there are many social factors that come into play. Sometimes people don't save becuase their parents never thought them to save. They don't even know how to study. If you were a bastard child to a teenage mom, the chances of you succeeding are very slim.

When I was younger, I grew up in a poorer neighbourhood and all my friends didn't try in school, I didn't have the proper surrounding that allowed to succeed. My parents weren't educated, they were blue collar, so they didn't give me any clues about the white-collar jobs. Most of my friends were what you would label as "lazy", and "stupid", and at that age, I would consider myself that too.

But what changed was my parents found work in a different province, moved to a bigger city and I grew up in a better neighbourhood and made new friends who had better habits, which affected me. . .no longer became "lazy" and "stupid", went to university, got educated, made good money, invested my money to make more money,etc, etc and now I'm in a higher social class.

However one of my best buddies from before I moved continued to grow up in that shietty neighbourhood, and never got a chance to move up the social class. It's easy to say he has a choice, but social/cultural and other factors sometimes prevent people from doing such things.

if all your friends are fat, theres a higher chance you will be fat.
if no one around you or no one ever taught you to save, chances are you wont save.
if you're father is a Executive/Partner of a company, chances are you will be educated and do something pretty decent.
but if you're parents were janitors . . .well you get the point.

of course there's always the exceptions but those are again the exceptions and not the rule.

Again I'm not taking anything away from personal accountability as ultimately you are responsible for your own actions, but sometimes it's not entirely their fault that they are "lazy", "stupid", "fat" etc.

I believe that if I was born again randomly, I would like to live in a society that allows me to best succeed, so that if I was born to parents of a Billionaire, a Warehouse worker, or an Alcoholic, or someone not in the top 2%, that I have the Best Possible probability to succeed . ..

back on topic. . . . and right now, I believe the Republican Policies of saying no to Tax Reforms and cutting many essential social programs doesn't increase that possibility.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 06:12 PM

Actually, it'll be McD's saying to kids that they can own the Happy meal toy for $1.00. But making them sign a contract that says McD's has the right to charge them extra in the future. Kid asks McDonald's what it means, and the McD's say it's nothing and they should just sign it. A few months later, McD's goes to the kids how's and asks for $500 for the toy. Kid can only give $5 since Kid doesn't have the money. McD gets the repo guys to repossess the toy. Because of the all these deregulation lobbied by McD, the law is at the side of McD and not the Kid. Poor Kid.
LOL a little extreme, yet I get it.

There was certainly predatory lending where the details were not disclosed and people urged to sign. I watched a special on it, how they went into neighbourhoods and essentially rounded people up to go buy houses. Disgusting, yet this was a very slim part of the problem, most of it was just fat hungry stupid people buying overpriced french fries cause everyone else was. They weren't interested in reading the nutritional info, even if someone pointed out the obvious... hell look around this site for how many real estate threads there are where the person can barely afford the mortgage :facepalm:

Meowjin

07-27-2011, 06:54 PM

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9094517.jpg

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:11 PM

...

Now you're just trolling, stop it before you lose whatever credibility you have left.

taylor192

07-27-2011, 08:19 PM

My issue is the long term, my kids, and their kids, and I want them to have the best possible chance at having a decent life.
Good post dude! :thumbsup:

I plan to do the same thing my parents, grandparents, and siblings did: move. Even you admit your life was better when your parents immigrated, then eventually moved. We may be a byproduct of our surroundings, yet we can change our surroundings.

Getting back to the topic, debt, is part of the problem. Those deep in debt have little choice but to stay and stick their hand out asking for help, and all this non-sense of the past decade where debt levels have risen to record highs is not helping matters. Not only is the country racking up debt, people are begging for help with their own debt problems. Lose-lose.

Thus why I am adamant that the solution has to be cuts. More revenue will translate into more spending, and a bigger problem later.

Gt-R R34

07-27-2011, 08:36 PM

I read back the post regarding the Rich VS Poor and the Tax cuts

Buffet said it best:

On July 7, Warren Buffett told Bloomberg: "I think the rich have a responsibility to pay higher tax rates." Then he groused that his wealthy friends are "paying lower tax rates than the people who are serving us the food." Mr. Buffett has been voicing this complaint for years, once observing that his personal tax rate of 17.7% is lower than that of his receptionist (30%).

That should end that arguement, and get back to topic

Btw- I have no doubt that the rich is still probably paying ~50% of the US taxes in terms of actual dollars. Still you live in a democratic country, help should be given/earned but never rescinded - AKA Republicans.

goo3

07-28-2011, 12:16 AM

I love when politicians are strongly opposed to a certain policy, but can turn 180 and fully support the same policy later when it benefits them and "forget" how strongly they opposed it earlier

So why did he say one thing in 2006 and something else in 2011? Is it power / convenience? Objectively speaking, I think it has more to do with this:

Deficit spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending)

Keynesian Effect

Following John Maynard Keynes, many economists recommend deficit spending to moderate or end a recession, especially a severe one. When the economy has high unemployment, an increase in government purchases creates a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. (This is the multiplier effect). This raises the real gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment of labour, and if all else is constant, lowers the unemployment rate. (The connection between demand for GDP and unemployment is called Okun's Law.) Cutting personal taxes and/or raising transfer payments can have similar expansionary effects, though which method has a better stimulative economic effect is a matter of debate.[citation needed]

The increased size of the market, due to government deficits, can further stimulate the economy by raising business profitability and spurring optimism, which encourages private fixed investment in factories, machines, and the like to rise. This accelerator effect stimulates demand further and encourages rising employment. Increase in government payroll has been shown to depress the economy in the long run.[citation needed]
Similarly, running a government surplus or reducing its deficit reduces consumer and business spending and raises unemployment. This can lower the inflation rate. Any use of the government deficit to steer the macro-economy is called fiscal policy.

Some ppl disagree with this approach. That's fine, but keep in mind Canada and many other countries have been doing the same thing. When a recession hits, the money the govt is committed to paying stays the same, but tax revenues drop quickly, throwing balanced budgets out of whack. They are afraid (rightly or wrongly) that cutting back too fast will make the recession worse, and the less bad alternative is to be in a deficit short term and paying it back when times are less harsh.

Now, you can like or Obama or not.. I don't care. But I would base it on more than what political junkies here and on tv tell you. Sadly, I find it's all just of a game of: how much can we lie to you to get you to change your opinion.

Culverin

07-28-2011, 04:21 AM

Jeeze, how did this ever become such a serious topic?

http://i.imgur.com/86y3Y.jpg

mr_chin

07-28-2011, 06:06 AM

i'm no eco101 expert, but what happens when they reach the ceiling and the ceiling is not raised?

Most importantly, how will that affect our stock market?

hk20000

07-28-2011, 07:00 AM

When they reach the ceiling and the ceiling is not raised, essentially the Federal Bank has to order a stop of printing them papers.

Now no papers people are not getting paid. Public services, military, welfare checks, health care blah blah blah have to be cut/stopped.

Then a lot of people will be pwn3d coz that's how they have come to rely upon... Either the people that run this country stop getting paid so much or they stop spending so much there won't be money in the Federal bank to pay the expenses.

It's like having to run a marathon while coughing up blood right now.

taylor192

07-28-2011, 07:31 AM

Some ppl disagree with this approach. That's fine, but keep in mind Canada and many other countries have been doing the same thing. When a recession hits, the money the govt is committed to paying stays the same, but tax revenues drop quickly, throwing balanced budgets out of whack. They are afraid (rightly or wrongly) that cutting back too fast will make the recession worse, and the less bad alternative is to be in a deficit short term and paying it back when times are less harsh.
Keep in mind every time Keynesian Economics has been used we've been able to inflate our way out of the debt it created.

Almost 5 years after the housing bubble first popped in the US and there's no sign of inflating our way out of this mess. In fact the US keeps dropping even after all the Keynesian spending. Even in Canada with our stronger economy and Keynesian stimulus spending we're not back to pre-recession unemployment levels, nor is the TSX.

Its not going to work this time, a different approach is needed.

gdoh

07-28-2011, 07:37 AM

i hope that they do not come to a deal before the deadline

HonestTea

07-28-2011, 07:38 AM

^ Why?

gdoh

07-28-2011, 07:41 AM

why should they keep pumping out money which they dont have and will never pay back just so that the rich can get richer and poor will become poorer while wiping out the middle class. all of these decisions right now each time they get thrown out its just more opportunity for the ridiculous wealthy to get more money in the markets. im just tired of it all really, i think its time for a big change

taylor192

07-28-2011, 07:53 AM

Jermyzy

07-28-2011, 08:20 AM

Plus if it crashes the markets, those of us positioned in cash will have a field day buying cheap again like in 2008.

That's what I was I thinking too. I managed to buy a bunch of bank stocks super cheap during the last crash

gdoh

07-28-2011, 11:45 AM

lol did i hear this right? they want to raise the debt by 900b and have tax cuts/spending/whatever of 900b over 10 years lol who comes up with these garbage plans

taylor192

07-28-2011, 12:28 PM

lol did i hear this right? they want to raise the debt by 900b and have tax cuts/spending/whatever of 900b over 10 years lol who comes up with these garbage plans

Reps who want to see something pass. I don't think the majority of the Reps will vote for this... yet there is the threat that those Reps who do vote for this, if it fails, may vote with the next Dem proposal which may have even fewer cuts.

Regardless this was absolutely expected, a deal will be reached, and it will be shitty.

Graeme S

07-28-2011, 01:06 PM

Interestingly enough, if we assume that nothing happens in the US and nothing gets settled, it is most likely that the stock market will experience a sharp spike downwards. Those who have invested in the US and have counted on either dividends or stock values will end up right along shit creek. those who are already marginal (employed, paying bills, not facing any major financial crises) will be negatively impacted much less than someone a position like your own, Taylor.

This kind of posturing and arguing is a lot like cutting off one's nose to snub the face: They are just fucking themselves over even more. A CNN commentator said something that I think is really true as well. "Not paying for the things you've already purchased and have been using is not at all fiscal responsibility. If you want to claim to be fiscally responsible, you need to pay your bills while working on your budgeting issues."

All of that having been said, I am kind of amused at the level of vitriol on both sides of the argument here on RS for something that we are essentially on the sidelines of it. I'd almost think we were in Scotland watching a Football (Soccer) match. Seems like people are almost ready to come to blows.

taylor192

07-28-2011, 01:35 PM

This kind of posturing and arguing is a lot like cutting off one's nose to snub the face: They are just fucking themselves over even more. A CNN commentator said something that I think is really true as well. "Not paying for the things you've already purchased and have been using is not at all fiscal responsibility. If you want to claim to be fiscally responsible, you need to pay your bills while working on your budgeting issues."
All these metaphors are so very simplistic and inaccurate.

The US has not purchased anything, they have promised their citizens certain things which they can nolonger pay for. Thus a much better metaphor would be "contracts" not "purchases". All those contracts come with a clause that they can be changed at any time - and that time is now.

Culverin

07-29-2011, 07:46 AM

Fan-freakin-tastic.

Apple's now got more cash than the US Government.
BBC News - Apple holding more cash than USA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470)

taylor192

07-29-2011, 07:47 AM

Fan-freakin-tastic.

Apple's now got more cash than the US Government.
BBC News - Apple holding more cash than USA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470)

A bum in the DTES with a nickle has more cash than the US government.

TheNewGirl

07-29-2011, 08:01 AM

All of that having been said, I am kind of amused at the level of vitriol on both sides of the argument here on RS for something that we are essentially on the sidelines of it. I'd almost think we were in Scotland watching a Football (Soccer) match. Seems like people are almost ready to come to blows.

I think you're underestimating how integrated our economy is with the Americans. If they bottom out this WILL have a rather large impact on our own economy and day to day lives, especially here in Vancouver.

Frankly, as someone who deals with small business I need the American dollar to be stronger, both so US clients will come up to us but also for the thousands upon thousands of dollars we're losing here in our local businesses to cross boarder shopping at the moment. Further more, if we lose the tourist dollars (which are flagging already) from Americans coming up here that has a massive impact on the service sector, which is one of the largest employers in this province. These things create trickle down that eventually effect all areas of business in our province.

gdoh

07-29-2011, 08:09 AM

yeap if the US fails it will be a lot worse than 08

Graeme S

07-29-2011, 08:29 AM

I wouldn't say I'm underestimating it, but I hold no illusions on the amount of influence that us Canucks have on the Americans. The number of people who are holding arguments over the potential downfalls of the American economy while sitting here comfortably protected in our socialist environment with decent taxes and a decently strong banking system.

We're not perfect, but right now in the world it seems nobody is.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

taylor192

07-29-2011, 10:23 AM

There will be no default, yet there may be many Americans receiving IUOs.

Try this tool to see how you would spend the $172B/mn revenue on the $306B of programs the US runs. You'll notice debt repayment is only $29B and can easily be paid, its everything else that would suffer. There's easily $50B that could not be paid and most people would not notice the service cuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-debt-limit-you-choose-who-gets-paid/?hpid=z2

blkgsr

07-29-2011, 10:26 AM

Fan-freakin-tastic.

Apple's now got more cash than the US Government.
BBC News - Apple holding more cash than USA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470)

apple should buy the US!!

strykn

07-29-2011, 03:40 PM

House passes GOP bill to raise debt ceiling - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-passes-bill-to-boost-debt-ceiling-2011-07-29?dist=afterbell)

Graeme S

07-29-2011, 03:44 PM

House passes GOP bill to raise debt ceiling - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-passes-bill-to-boost-debt-ceiling-2011-07-29?dist=afterbell)
It's the double-jump debt limit bill; this'll fail in the senate easily. And if it doesn't, Obama's gonna veto it.

tool001

07-29-2011, 06:03 PM

gdoh

07-29-2011, 07:14 PM

thats politics for you

taylor192

07-29-2011, 09:04 PM

Senate voted it down, fucking us gov are like high school girls. So much fucking drama. They know they will have to negotiate & meet in the middle somewhere, why not just get it done! Idiots
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
I keep wondering how real the threat of a rating downgrade is, cause they want proof the debt can be cut, while the Dems keep negotiating for more debt with little plan to reduce it.

It would be really interesting if Obama signs something then they get downgraded cause it effectively did nothing to reduce the debt. Even what was just shot down only planned to reduce the debt by what was being added over 10 years, leaving them in just as bad a place 10 years from now.

The Dems want $2,4T more, and I hate to say this, I think the Reps should give it to them and then demand their $4T in cuts, which would be better than this $900B and $900B back loaded shit.

Culverin

07-29-2011, 11:13 PM

What about corporate sponsorship? We already do it to stadiums, train stations and sometimes even streets.

Wouldn't this help to alleviate the debt just a bit?
http://i.imgur.com/AUy9w.jpg

StylinRed

07-31-2011, 04:44 PM

they struck a deal ;)

hirevtuner

07-31-2011, 08:24 PM

what does that mean?

raise the debt ceiling and have another crisis in 6 months (back in their old ways) or they found a new solution?

hillmar

07-31-2011, 08:32 PM

what does that mean?

raise the debt ceiling and have another crisis in 6 months (back in their old ways) or they found a new solution?
All I know is it's going to be set for over a year, and there are going to be some big gradual cuts listening to what the president said.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Gt-R R34

07-31-2011, 10:47 PM

BTW - you know this is passing.

And what did I say :)

Lawmakers to vote on last-minute debt deal - Yahoo! News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-close-deal-avoid-default-004006145.html)

Picked up some stocks last couple of weeks, time for a good run today and sell!

taylor192

08-01-2011, 12:07 PM

All I know is it's going to be set for over a year, and there are going to be some big gradual cuts listening to what the president said.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

I doubt that. All cuts are backloaded, which means whoever wins the 2012 election has to worry about making them, which I think Obama knows he won't win.

Death2Theft

08-02-2011, 12:25 AM

Just curious if anyone knows at what point of wealth is it better to be in the states than to be in canada? I'm referring to warren buffet saying he pays less % taxes than his secretary.

Culverin

08-02-2011, 01:27 AM

America needs to learn a thing or 2 from blizzard.

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9172865.jpg

g604

08-02-2011, 02:25 PM

This is my take in this. With all the money the US spent on war with Iraq they could of used those funds to mine asteroids for precious metals

hypercube

08-02-2011, 03:51 PM

America needs to learn a thing or 2 from blizzard.

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9172865.jpg

could u elaborate on that meme? what illegal goods is it talking about in diablo 3?

Graeme S

08-02-2011, 05:29 PM

@death2theft: none. If you are a Canadian citizen you pay Canadian income tax. Generally speaking you get credits from taxes paid in the country you reside (so if you get a green card in the states, you reside and work there, pay taxes there and then file taxes here owing the balance to Canada) unless you declare yourself a nonresident, which would mean you have to divest yourself of all real estate and some other investment platforms, in which case you pay no tax.

@hyeprcube: this refers to the fact that blizzard has clued into the fact that people used to ebay epic weapons armor accessories and sets, and that it is really impracticable to fully ban the activity; they ae therefore setting up an in-game auction house for people to sell stuff either with in-game gold or a separate auction house with real-world money. I believe Culverin is implying that you can't stop people from doing things like drugs, so you might as well legalize them and at least make money by taxing them.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

cressydrift

08-02-2011, 06:45 PM

It sucks that America needs to be economically healthy for the world economy to be healthy. I am sure the economy will come back, because people can't hold off big purchases or saving forever, but the American Congress needs to control spending. When tax revenue finally goes up they have a balanced budget. The problem is the common American doesn't give a shit about a balanced budget, and with the re-election coming up I feel that the same problem is going to keep rearing its ugly head.

I knew they would take out more debt, but I think most people involved in Business, Economy, Banking etc realize that this is worse than taking the hit and the markets are reflecting that right now.

AlphaKappa

08-02-2011, 09:49 PM

They have reached there debt ceiling of 14 trillion dollars.

their*

http://www.google.ca/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://cafeipiti.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/troll-dad.jpg&sa=X&ei=W-E4Tuf_NeLliAKsm_DNDg&ved=0CAUQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFuxgP1FaKpNpF5stjwS_HJN1ntew

taylor192

08-03-2011, 08:45 AM

This is my take in this. With all the money the US spent on war with Iraq they could of used those funds to mine asteroids for precious metals
They could have built enough renewable energy sources to power the entire country and built high speed electric rail throughout the country and put/expanded subways in every major city with money left over.

That would make America great, instead of waging war and destroying America's reputation.

gdoh

08-03-2011, 08:56 AM

America needs to learn a thing or 2 from blizzard.

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9172865.jpg

this should be done for marijuana they would save billions and free up much needed space in the prisons

zulutango

08-03-2011, 10:50 AM

[QUOTE=taylor192;7533043]They could have built enough renewable energy sources to power the entire country

Have you priced the cost of the 'renewable energy sources'? Many time more expensive than conventional, very inefficent and not constant in supply...eg wind/solar. In places where they did what you suggested they have experienced huge cost in creases and unreilable source supplies.

Siemens to use green energy hoax to ripoff taxpayers (http://www.brookesnews.com/101904siemenssolar.html)

Green Energy Reality Looming For CA | CalWatchDog (http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/02/15/green-energy-reality-looming-for-ca/)

Graeme S

08-03-2011, 11:58 AM

They could have built enough renewable energy sources to power the entire country

Have you priced the cost of the 'renewable energy sources'? Many time more expensive than conventional, very inefficent and not constant in supply...eg wind/solar. In places where they did what you suggested they have experienced huge cost in creases and unreilable source supplies.

Siemens to use green energy hoax to ripoff taxpayers (http://www.brookesnews.com/101904siemenssolar.html)

Green Energy Reality Looming For CA | CalWatchDog (http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/02/15/green-energy-reality-looming-for-ca/)
Renewable energy is a bitch right now, and some of the renewables have ridiculous side-effects. Solar panels in the desert are resulting in hotter than usual temps because the black surface absorbs heat (along with light) resulting in greater than usual airflows and the associated weather issues. That part is kind of a bitch.

At the same time, renewables will be necessary. There will come a time (probably in several generations) when there are no more radioactives or petroleum sources that are easily/economically accessible. Hydrogen power is potentially an awesome source of energy for the future...once we can figure out how to economically remove it from everything it's attached to.

I really wish both the greenies and the conservatives would just fucking man up and realize that nuclear power (once engineered with today's technologies and safety plans based on the failures of the past) is a seriously workable alternative that we can use to bridge the gap for the time being. Don't like air pollution? Don't like coal miners dying? Problem solved!

taylor192

08-03-2011, 12:52 PM

Have you priced the cost of the 'renewable energy sources'? Many time more expensive than conventional, very inefficent and not constant in supply...eg wind/solar. In places where they did what you suggested they have experienced huge cost in creases and unreilable source supplies.

Siemens to use green energy hoax to ripoff taxpayers (http://www.brookesnews.com/101904siemenssolar.html)

Green Energy Reality Looming For CA | CalWatchDog (http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/02/15/green-energy-reality-looming-for-ca/)

You need to read about Ontario's renewable energy subsidizing debacle! They have to sell excess supply at below market rates to dump it off the grid while taxpayers are on the hook for its 10x market rate cost.

Yet... that's cause the market price includes capitalizing the cost of the infrastructure. My argument is that all the money spent on the wars could've built the infrastructure, then the market cost would be just to maintain these renewal sources, and much more comparable.

Which would you rather see? a bunch of solar panels, wind turbines, wave generators, and current turbines... or a devastated Iraq and Afghanistan?

zulutango

08-03-2011, 03:42 PM

:DHow about neither? Tell Osama and Algore we don't want either of their lines of BS.

Great68

08-03-2011, 04:06 PM

:DHow about neither? Tell Osama and Algore we don't want either of their lines of BS.

Do you think they care what a bunch of Canadians think?

unit

08-04-2011, 01:13 PM

what a bomb of a day for the markets!
worst day for the dow since the credit crisis 3 years ago

Jermyzy

08-04-2011, 01:15 PM

How much more will it drop do you think? I added some more of dividend paying stocks that I have to my portfolio today.

stylez2k4

08-04-2011, 01:42 PM

Renewable energy is a bitch right now, and some of the renewables have ridiculous side-effects. Solar panels in the desert are resulting in hotter than usual temps because the black surface absorbs heat (along with light) resulting in greater than usual airflows and the associated weather issues. That part is kind of a bitch.

I really don't think solar panels are all that attractive in terms of a long-term solution for renewable energy. The panels itself degrades significantly over time and the materials used to produce the panels aren't cheap either and needs to be mined out.

One proposal I think promise is concentrated solar power towers Solar power tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower)

At the same time, renewables will be necessary. There will come a time (probably in several generations) when there are no more radioactives or petroleum sources that are easily/economically accessible. Hydrogen power is potentially an awesome source of energy for the future...once we can figure out how to economically remove it from everything it's attached to.

Hydrogen isn't a means to produce energy. It is just a way of storing it. Unless you are referring to nuclear fusion power-plants which are 50+ years away.

I really wish both the greenies and the conservatives would just fucking man up and realize that nuclear power (once engineered with today's technologies and safety plans based on the failures of the past) is a seriously workable alternative that we can use to bridge the gap for the time being. Don't like air pollution? Don't like coal miners dying? Problem solved!

The public perception of nuclear power is too far down the gutter for any progress to be made in that field for at least the next 10-15 years.

Graeme S

08-04-2011, 04:07 PM

I really don't think solar panels are all that attractive in terms of a long-term solution for renewable energy. The panels itself degrades significantly over time and the materials used to produce the panels aren't cheap either and needs to be mined out.
I agree solar panels aren't. They're inefficient and expensive and just don't do well. But they're also one of the first things people think of when they think "renewable". Technically speaking, burning trees is just as renewable as anything else--we grow more as we cut them to burn them. I don't think that's quite what the enviromonkeys have in mind.

Hydrogen isn't a means to produce energy. It is just a way of storing it. Unless you are referring to nuclear fusion power-plants which are 50+ years away.
Indeed it isn't. But if you ask the average layman, they'll talk about hydrogen cells and the like, acting as though it were a power source much as gasoline or other combustibles. Hydrogen fusion is a nice dream...but like you said it's a generation away.

The public perception of nuclear power is too far down the gutter for any progress to be made in that field for at least the next 10-15 years.
Sadly, yes.