EPTThe US debt (proper debate) - Page 42
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 30 2011 09:18 0neder wrote: Wealth distribution may not be the best way to gauge a friendly economic outlook. No, but there are lots of different ways to gauge that all paint a negative picture. On July 30 2011 09:18 0neder wrote: Sure, there are a few insanely rich people. Like Bill Gates. Look what he did with all his money. Why did he do that? Because America is the most giving nation on earth, and we don't need to be compelled to do it. And yet, despite this, wealthy but giving Americans such as Bill Gates (Warren Buffet is another prominent example) are in favor of higher taxes. They've even formed orgainzations such as Wealth for the Common Good and Business and Investors Against Tax Haven Abuse. The point isn't about compelling people to give charity. The point is those of us who are wealthy have and continue to disproportionately benefit from government spending/services. How many millionaires would there be today, if not for public education, social programs when they were young and poor or fell on hard times, US military endeavors, government infrastructure/R&D/business-friendly policies, and law enforcement to protect their accumulated weealth? It's not about equality of outcome, it's about continuing to provide equality of opportunity for future generations. You can't do that unless those who did well in the last generation give back to society. In any case, there's also the problem of corporations being able to dodge taxes, which also disproportionately benefit from government spending, yet Republicans won't consider reforming taxes on them either. On July 30 2011 09:18 0neder wrote: It has been proven that conservatives are more giving, monetarily, than liberals, by percentage of income. Actually, the determining causal factor in the study you're referring to was religion, not politics. Religious people give more, and most of it to religious groups (which do give some charity, granted, but you also have megachurches). Secular conservatives actually give the least. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On July 30 2011 10:05 xDaunt wrote: Actually, the tea party is the only group in favor of cutting/limiting social security and medicare. Democrats demonize anyone who considers any such reforms and moderate republicans won't touch these issues with a 10 foot pole. And here's the other misconception about the tea party. It's not limited to right wing republicans. Yes, right wing republicans are the most visible leaders of the tea party, but the movement extends to the much broader base of Americans, including independents and many democrats, who seek to generally reduce the role and size of the federal government. The tea party is the popular backlash arising from the excesses of the Bush and Obama administrations, with Obamacare and the stimulus package being the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back. This is why Obama is presently predicted to lose 2012 in a landslide and why he ultimately will lose in a landslide. Fiscally conservative independents and other like-minded groups have abandoned him. I haven't heard of any credible (read: not FOX) projections that show anybody losing in a "landslide" in 2012. Republicans have the Paul Ryan plan weighing them down considerably, as seniors really don't like them trying to cut Medicare. In my opinion fiscally conservative independents aren't going to run toward the Republicans either, because they're...not fiscally conservative. Yeah they try to pretend, but the numbers don't lie and they don't have a feasible plan because they signed a ridiculous pledge that says "no new taxes" which means no new revenues and no balanced budget. If one had to choose between the parties based on fiscal responsibility, I think they may want to look at a chart: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?scp=2&sq=july 24 policy changes&st=cse\ That doesn't mean Obama has it made in the shade of course. By now he owns this economy and that's how people vote for president. When the economy is good they re-elect, when it's bad they vote him out. No matter what other arguments against the Republicans are out there, a bad economy might be enough to cost him the election by itself. I agree with you that there are many people other than radical Republicans that want to reduce the size of government, and I would also add that a many, maybe most of them are not part of the tea party. But the Republican party is not a "small government" party and they haven't been for a long time. Two party systems kind of suck, and maybe it's time for Libertarians to break off. They could be a legitimate fiscally conservative party and stay out of the social policies and religious affiliations. On July 30 2011 11:04 sunprince wrote: No, but there are lots of different ways to gauge that all paint a negative picture. And yet, despite this, wealthy but giving Americans such as Bill Gates (Warren Buffet is another prominent example) are in favor of higher taxes. They've even formed orgainzations such as Wealth for the Common Good and Business and Investors Against Tax Haven Abuse. The point isn't about compelling people to give charity. The point is those of us who are wealthy have and continue to disproportionately benefit from government spending/services. How many millionaires would there be today, if not for public education, social programs when they were young and poor or fell on hard times, US military endeavors, government infrastructure/R&D/business-friendly policies, and law enforcement to protect their accumulated weealth? It's not about equality of outcome, it's about continuing to provide equality of opportunity for future generations. You can't do that unless those who did well in the last generation give back to society. In any case, there's also the problem of corporations being able to dodge taxes, which also disproportionately benefit from government spending, yet Republicans won't consider reforming taxes on them either. Actually, the determining causal factor in the study you're referring to was religion, not politics. Religious people give more, and most of it to religious groups (which do give some charity, granted, but you also have megachurches). Secular conservatives actually give the least. I think I love you. All very good points. I would also like to add that while giving to churches counts as charity, that money doesn't necessarily go toward helping anybody and often goes toward pushing a political agenda. For example, the Mormon church spent about $280,000 to make sure that prop 8 (in California) passed in 2008. That's not particularly relevant to this thread about the budget so I won't go too far into it  . | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 30 2011 11:12 Senorcuidado wrote: I haven't heard of any credible (read: not FOX) projections that show anybody losing in a "landslide" in 2012. Republicans have the Paul Ryan plan weighing them down considerably, as seniors really don't like them trying to cut Medicare. In my opinion fiscally conservative independents aren't going to run toward the Republicans either, because they're...not fiscally conservative. Yeah they try to pretend, but the numbers don't lie and they don't have a feasible plan because they signed a ridiculous pledge that says "no new taxes" which means no new revenues and no balanced budget. If one had to choose between the parties based on fiscal responsibility, I think they may want to look at a chart: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?scp=2&sq=july 24 policy changes&st=cse\ That doesn't mean Obama has it made in the shade of course. By now he owns this economy and that's how people vote for president. When the economy is good they re-elect, when it's bad they vote him out. No matter what other arguments against the Republicans are out there, a bad economy might be enough to cost him the election by itself. I agree with you that there are many people other than radical Republicans that want to reduce the size of government, and I would also add that a many, maybe most of them are not part of the tea party. But the Republican party is not a "small government" party and they haven't been for a long time. Two party systems kind of suck, and maybe it's time for Libertarians to break off. They could be a legitimate fiscally conservative party and stay out of the social policies and religious affiliations. Here's a decent summary of where polls sit: http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/obama-s-battleground-state-blues-20110726 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 30 2011 10:42 cfoy3 wrote: @xDaunt I do not think you really have a good understanding of people's feelings. The GOP cuts only aproach is poison to the American people. They overwhelmingly support a balanced aproach. Obama is gonna make this whole thing the center peice of his campaign. He is going to demonize all the rep who pushed cut cap and balance-a measure that all the current GOP candidates talk with. It will sink them, especially when the seniors abandon the party. They have completely alienated that base. http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/cnn-poll-americans-like-balanced-budget-amendment/ Summary: 74% support for a balanced budget amendment. 66% support for a "proposal like cut, cap, and balance." In short, it looks like I have a far better understanding of the people's feeling than you. =) | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 30 2011 10:05 xDaunt wrote: Actually, the tea party is the only group in favor of cutting/limiting social security and medicare. Democrats demonize anyone who considers any such reforms and moderate republicans won't touch these issues with a 10 foot pole. 62% of Tea Party members support Social Security and Medicare. I don't disagree that Democrats are strongly supportive of those same entitlement programs, but across the board most American citizens want to protect those programs (at least out of self-interest or in the interests of a beneficiary they know). On July 30 2011 10:05 xDaunt wrote: And here's the other misconception about the tea party. It's not limited to right wing republicans. Yes, right wing republicans are the most visible leaders of the tea party, but the movement extends to the much broader base of Americans, including independents and many democrats, who seek to generally reduce the role and size of the federal government. A majority of Tea Party members are Republican, about a third are independents, and only a negligible fraction are Democrats. It seems the misconceptions about the Tea Party comes from supporters such as yourself. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 30 2011 11:20 xDaunt wrote: http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/cnn-poll-americans-like-balanced-budget-amendment/ Summary: 74% support for a balanced budget amendment. 66% support for a "proposal like cut, cap, and balance." In short, it looks like I have a far better understanding of the people's feeling than you. =) You missed the part of the actual poll where it does find that 64% of Americans support both tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. In other words, what cfoy3 said was completely true. Mostly, it looks like the American people just want a solution, any solution, that helps solve the deficit and raises the debt ceiling. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 30 2011 11:20 sunprince wrote: 62% of Tea Party members support Social Security and Medicare. I don't disagree that Democrats are rapidly supportive of those same entitlement programs, but across the board most American citizens want to protect those programs. A majority of Tea Party members are Republican, about a third are independents, and only a negligible fraction are Democrats. It seems the misconceptions about the Tea Party comes from supporters such as yourself. The least that you could do is cite the polls correctly. The question regarding medicare and social security is "do you think that they worth it?" That's not the right question and that's not the point that I was making. The correct question is "Do you support REFORMING Medicare and social security?" Again, the only politicians actively advocating such reforms are "tea party" politicians. As for tea party composition, here's a different poll, and one that particularly highlights where the tea party came from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx Again, my point is that the tea party is greater than those that actually identify themselves as "tea party" supporters. It encompasses a very broad-based segment of fiscally conservative individuals. These people may not consider themselves "tea party" members, but they're still part of the movement that is voting fiscally liberal democrats and republicans out of office en masse. That's what the "tea party" really is. It began in 2010, and it will continue in 2012. If nothing else, this debt debate has only further inflamed the previously dormant fiscal conservatives. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
I read those articles and they are interesting, but they conflict with other polls taken. I think that if people understood what the exact nature of cut cap and balance was they would not like it.The basic principals of cut, cap and balance ARE good. We should cut government alittle, we should cap it so we have some sort of piggy bank in case of emergency. Also yes you are right most Americans do like a balanced budget amendment, but the GOP amendment, hardly. You need a flexible balanced budget amendment that allows a super majority to vote to ignore it in case of a crisis.Once the campaign season kicks off and Obama's huge war chest comes out he will make sure to paint the GOP as being governed by the tea party and that they fought to protect tax cuts for the rich. Obama has a lot lot of money. That makes a lot of difference. Beside many of these polls are not accounting for the switch away from the GOP that the seniors are going to make. If you listen to AARP they are going bat shit. The ryan plan with cut cap and balance will cause the elderly to turn on the GOP. That is one of their biggest bases. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On July 30 2011 11:17 xDaunt wrote: Here's a decent summary of where polls sit: http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/obama-s-battleground-state-blues-20110726 That article supports my assessment that if Obama loses in 2012, it will be due to the bad economy, not because fiscal conservatives have left him behind. And editorial aside, those numbers do not depict much of a landslide to me. Regardless, here is another poll that shows Obama ahead of all Republican contenders by a very significant margin: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1623 Polls come up with different numbers. Stating absolutes like "This is why Obama is presently predicted to lose 2012 in a landslide and why he ultimately will lose in a landslide" is very very misleading. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 30 2011 11:27 sunprince wrote: You missed the part of the actual poll where it does find that 64% of Americans support both tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. In other words, what cfoy3 said was completely true. Mostly, it looks like the American people just want a solution, any solution, that helps solve the deficit and raises the debt ceiling. Reading my posts before responding will help you quite a bit. Look at what I quoted from cfoy and then look at what I said. It kinda fits. I didn't even address the balanced approach thing, but I will here. Saying that Americans support a "balanced" approach is stupid and useless. Even I acknowledge that taxes have to be raised in some regard. The question is how much. In short, asking whether Americans support a balanced approach is a stupidly loaded question that has been purposefully misinterpreted. How do you think that Americans would respond to a poll that asked "do you support $1 trillion in new taxes over ten years as part of a balanced approach?" "$2 trillion?" That's where the rubber will meet the road. | ||
|
Black-Cobra
2 Posts
On July 24 2011 04:15 Zergneedsfood wrote: Don't really know how other guys are keeping track of it, but in my opinion, the EU debt crisis is a lot worse than our debt crisis here. A lot of people get the false assumption (it's sorta the fault of Republicans who exaggerated) that a default on US debt on August 2nd would cause some type of death bringing financial fall out that we've never experienced before. It's not necessarily like that. If America fails to bring about some type of balanced budget or whatever by August 2nd, it only means that certain payments, like SS checks and payments to soldiers would start to dry up and stop. Now, of course, that's bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as countries in the Eurozone who can't pay back bond investors and have already had their credit ratings (like Italy) downgraded to junk status. Is the debt a serious issue? To me, not really. What's more of an issue is what's causing the debt. Actual debt really doesn't do much since China will continue to buy it for the forseeable future. What is dangerous then is the possibility that America can't garner enough capital to pay back on interest payments or bond holders when the time comes. actually the democrats are the ones using scare tactics.... | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
1. A huge part of the economy in the U.S. is based on military spending. This is socialism with a twist. The American Government spends huge amounts of money, not on anything that might actually be significantly useful to the citizens it's taxing, but on bombing brown people who live far away. Which, to be fair, isn't completely useless to the average U.S. citizen, if you're a soldier or you work for the army in another capacity, or you own or work for a military contracting company you might think it's great. It's just not very efficiant - oh and it also has the messy by product of lots of brown far away dead people and dead american soldiers. 2. The financial bail out: many trillions disappear into a hole in the ground created by rabid financial mismanagement combined with a total failure of any kind of oversight by the american people or the government. (incidentally when you google search "how much did america pay" the listed possible endings to the question are for me, signed out of my account: "for alaska", "for the philippines", for "texas", "for florida". So the internet isn't exactly aflame with questions about more modern purchases - guns and debt. Depressing no?) 3. Wars: two that are official, at least a couple others that aren't. How much money is the CIA still spending in south america? We know for sure that American tax dollars are being used to pay Somali prison guards in a CIA black site in the capital, Mogadishu. Search "Jeremy Scahill CIA Prison Somalia". I've delt with costs, now the income side of the equasion. 4. Corprations in the U.S. pay very little tax compared with other developed countries or the U.S. historically. This may or may not have something to do with the vast amounts of money they spend in Washington. This relationship between the Corporations and the Government in the U.S. began long before bush, long before any of us were born, but it escalated quickly from Reagan onwards. The very rich also pay very little tax -again, compared with other dev countries and U.S. historically. I mentioned being depressed before. Because the most depressing part of the entire poop sandwich is how unbelievable irrelevant American discourse is. Do you want to vote for a more rabidly insane version of this state of affairs or a slightly less rabidly insane version? Almost without fail American T.V. -as well as, it seems, the vast majority of American citizens- manage to look the other way on everything. The wikileaks thing is the best of it. The white house will not discuss leaked documents, it won't deny them though because they are accurate. Quite litterally the political equivilent of putting your fingers in your ears and chating "la la la la la". The press is almost worse with a complete inability to ask politicians questions that are difficult to answer - Again might be something to do with the corporations that own them having a lot invested in Washington. Maybe not... But if you belive that American journalists give the Government an easy time, it kind of makes sense. I just flipped it. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
Most economists have the opinion that the debt ceiling will be a huge catastrophe if not raised. The economist wrote several beautiful articles on the subject. roughly 40% of the government would have to shut down. Now they can prioritize paying interest on debts, SS, etc the fact is many many people would be layed off and interest rates would soar. This would make it that much harder to pay of our debts in the future. It could very well send us into a depression. It would be an extremely serious calamity. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
| ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
On July 30 2011 11:54 Dapper_Cad wrote: The debt ceiling is another misdirection. It's a technical formality which has happened 90 times since world war 2. Nearly twice a year. The Republicans are making a song and dance about it for their own reasons, the Democrats are playing along for theirs. this. the economist covers this `political game` in their new article on debt cricis. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
Yes you are right that when people are asked about the 1 trillion dollars people might change their mind. Most people realize the severity of the problem and know that tax increases will be substantial. But keep in mind its taxes for the wealthy and coporations, not the average person. If its someone elses money people are ok if its taxed. | ||
| ||
