You are obviously very passionate about this. However, I would like to rebuke your claims of "biase". Look at any of my previous posts. Trust me there is plenty of blame to go around. The dems should have passed a budget. No doubt about that. But how you can not ignore the tax breaks, prescription drug bill, and the two wars that all added to the deficit.
Further, you mention that the debt ceiling is a ponzie scheme. Could you elaborate?
Finally, even if you agree that the debt should be dealt with. Do you agree that it should only involve cuts to programs that many Americans really on? To education?To infrustructure? All without raising a single penny from the wealthiest of us? Who by the way, many are asking for more taxes (see Bill Gates and Warren Buffet). The top 1% owns 28% of the wealth. Does that seem right to you? Now no one is saying that they shouldn't be wealthy. But so much wealth in the hands of so few is so scary. How can you support such a system? As the debacle with the airline industries show-that reducing taxes does not neccessarily help the consumer. The government stops taxing airlines and the cooperations instead of passing the saving along, pocket it.
Finally, after all this, if you agree to all this do you agree that this should have happened this way? Why not campaign on the debt? Why not let the people decide? Why not take a moderate position? Do you feel its really apropriate for a fridge faction of the GOP to really dictate and control policy for the entire US? Even when the majority of Americans wanted a balanced aproach they still said no. Does that sound right to you?
On August 02 2011 06:15 TheGlassface wrote: See, that's why I hate modern politics. NO ONE WON in this debate. NO ONE.
What happened was a president attempted to get grown men to sit down and act like adults about a serious issue in our country. They were meant to do their job.
Instead, we got got a bunch of idiots pandering to a camera. Even the president.
I have been saying for years, and i would vote for it in an instant, that there be some kind of limit placed on campaign money/media time. Level the entire field so it's not about running around on the airwaves slamming "opponents." Rather, make it so that it's not about looks, how they tweet, how they pulled numbers out of one hat that the other guy isn't using. No, let's make it about
The economy, the wars, the poverty, the infrastructure collapse, the education system... You know...the damn issues.
I can't wait to see this next "choose the lesser of two evils" election coming up. Just like last time...and the time before that...
Have to put some of the blame on the voters too, not very politically savvy/properly informed.
Have to say that there's definitely an interest in politics after the 2008 election, but the problem is that you have a bunch of people eating up bullshit on facebook and twitter.
educate the people and they wont be eating as much bullshit.
Hey look, education is getting cut. A population of unthinking drones, you say...?
I hope that I'm able to save enough money to leave the country in the next few years. America won't be around much longer at this rate.
On August 02 2011 11:02 _Major wrote: By your logic, we wouldn't lose anything if we defaulted. We would still be the biggest economy.
I don't believe I argued that our revenue is the only determinant of our credit rating. Rather, the fact that we have the biggest economy contributes in a significant part to our continued good credit rating.
In fact, given how much we suck with our debt, it's probably the only reason we still have a good credit rating (along with possibly the fact that the ratings agencies are in the US).
On August 02 2011 10:05 kwizach wrote: The deficits you are referring to can still be attributed to Republicans, since the said deficits were the direct consequence of the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stimulus bill was necessary. You are quite simply an idiot if you blame the state of the current state of the US debt on Democrats more than Republicans.
Yes, clearly I am an idiot for blaming spending increases on the people who increased spending.
Using your same logic for spending 1.5 trillion to "stimulate", I will also say the wars were necessary.
On August 02 2011 11:55 cfoy3 wrote: Finally, even if you agree that the debt should be dealt with. Do you agree that it should only involve cuts to programs that many Americans really on? To education?To infrustructure? All without raising a single penny from the wealthiest of us? Who by the way, many are asking for more taxes (see Bill Gates and Warren Buffet). The top 1% owns 28% of the wealth. Does that seem right to you? Now no one is saying that they shouldn't be wealthy. But so much wealth in the hands of so few is so scary. How can you support such a system? As the debacle with the airline industries show-that reducing taxes does not neccessarily help the consumer. The government stops taxing airlines and the cooperations instead of passing the saving along, pocket it.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can have their taxes as high as they want. They mail the IRS their money. Raising taxes for them has nothing to do with themselves, but having other people pay more. They can pay the government as much as they want already.
On August 02 2011 11:55 cfoy3 wrote: Finally, after all this, if you agree to all this do you agree that this should have happened this way? Why not campaign on the debt? Why not let the people decide? Why not take a moderate position? Do you feel its really apropriate for a fridge faction of the GOP to really dictate and control policy for the entire US? Even when the majority of Americans wanted a balanced aproach they still said no. Does that sound right to you?
You are trying to complain that Republicans won't raise taxes, would be like complaining about Democrats supporting abortion. It's part of the party. Democrats had 1 year of being able to pass anything, if they wanted taxes higher, they should have raised them. But they are going to complain when the party that doesn't want to raise taxes, surprisingly doesn't want to raise taxes? Wow, Republicans won't raise taxes, Democrats won't reduce medicare/medicaid. Let's complain that water is too wet.
I doubt people have a problem with the Republicans being "against raising taxes" in general, but being 100% strict about it is just dangerous and stupid.
On August 02 2011 10:05 kwizach wrote: The deficits you are referring to can still be attributed to Republicans, since the said deficits were the direct consequence of the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stimulus bill was necessary. You are quite simply an idiot if you blame the state of the current state of the US debt on Democrats more than Republicans.
Yes, clearly I am an idiot for blaming spending increases on the people who increased spending.
Using your same logic for spending 1.5 trillion to "stimulate", I will also say the wars were necessary.
On August 02 2011 11:55 cfoy3 wrote: Finally, even if you agree that the debt should be dealt with. Do you agree that it should only involve cuts to programs that many Americans really on? To education?To infrustructure? All without raising a single penny from the wealthiest of us? Who by the way, many are asking for more taxes (see Bill Gates and Warren Buffet). The top 1% owns 28% of the wealth. Does that seem right to you? Now no one is saying that they shouldn't be wealthy. But so much wealth in the hands of so few is so scary. How can you support such a system? As the debacle with the airline industries show-that reducing taxes does not neccessarily help the consumer. The government stops taxing airlines and the cooperations instead of passing the saving along, pocket it.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can have their taxes as high as they want. They mail the IRS their money. Raising taxes for them has nothing to do with themselves, but having other people pay more. They can pay the government as much as they want already.
On August 02 2011 11:55 cfoy3 wrote: Finally, after all this, if you agree to all this do you agree that this should have happened this way? Why not campaign on the debt? Why not let the people decide? Why not take a moderate position? Do you feel its really apropriate for a fridge faction of the GOP to really dictate and control policy for the entire US? Even when the majority of Americans wanted a balanced aproach they still said no. Does that sound right to you?
You are trying to complain that Republicans won't raise taxes, would be like complaining about Democrats supporting abortion. It's part of the party. Democrats had 1 year of being able to pass anything, if they wanted taxes higher, they should have raised them. But they are going to complain when the party that doesn't want to raise taxes, surprisingly doesn't want to raise taxes? Wow, Republicans won't raise taxes, Democrats won't reduce medicare/medicaid. Let's complain that water is too wet.
No, you're an idiot for ignoring evidence that Republicans were the ones who turned surpluses into deficits, crippled government revenues through the Bush tax cuts and increased spending through the two wars (notably). The recession had to be addressed, whether you like it or not. It is sound economic policy to spend during a recession - in fact, the stimulus should probably have been even bigger. The point is that spending would not have been a problem had the Republicans not already crippled the finances of the US beforehand. You are also an idiot for comparing not wanting to raise taxes for the top 2% to not wanting to cut Medicare and Medicaid. These two programs make a huge difference in people's lives, the taxes don't and are not sound policy because of their impact on government revenue.
That second graph is pretty misleading as it measures deficits instead of net expenditures, revenue dropped significantly in '09 and '10 as a result of the recession.
On August 01 2011 09:00 cfoy3 wrote: @ Senorcuidado
I do not think they will be rewarded with it long term. The democrats and Obama will push this issue hard next election. They also probably lost the senior vote. Ultimately they only get rewarded if you decide to cast your vote for them next election.
I wish I still believed that. It might backfire on them in the presidential race, maybe, although the economy will more likely decide the victor. Congress, however, wil still be insane. Too many districts are too safe, with the primary voters mattering more than the general electorate. What scares them is not the challenge of a moderate (they can label them socialists) but rather the challenge of a radical outflanking them and stealing their base. I don't think most of them believe the garbage they spew out, but they have to spew it because that's what their core constituency wants to hear. The voters and the media are at least as guilty as the politicians, if they were rational they would have kicked out the crazies a long time ago.
The democrats probably won't punish them effectively because historically they really suck at it. They can't really pretend to be the anti-war party anymore, at least Obama can't. They won't say Republicans held unemployed people hostage in order to secure the extension of tax cuts for the rich in 2010, and brought the country within a day of collapsing TWICE in 2011 in order to cut programs that help the people hardest hit by the recession. They won't say sweeping cuts means sweeping job losses which means a worse economy. They won't remind us of the two years we lost while every single bill in the Senate was filibustered to death with a 41-59 minority. They might accuse the Republicans of sabotaging the economy so they could take the White House, but while that's probably true it won't play well with moderates. Look at 2010, crazy paid off big in the midterm elections. 41 Senators spent two years with the sole purpose of stopping the government from functioning, then pointed at the governing party and said "look, they're not getting anything done!" The only thing crazier than that is the fact that so many voters fell for it. It sounds like I'm bashing Republicans, but like I said I'm mad at everyone involved. I know so many reasonable conservatives that agree with most of what I just said. Who are they supposed to vote for? Who am I supposed to vote for? Ham sandwich 2012.
Listening to the radio on the way to work I heard Rush Limbaugh repeatedly insist that the compromise was all a big trick orchestrated by Obama to score the biggest tax increase in the history of America. Like it or not THAT is the guy voters listen to and come November he will tell them what they think. I don't have high hopes.
One thing about Mitt Romney: Rush Limbaugh hates his guts so he can't be all that bad.
I promise you that no real conservative would agree with anything that you wrote in your post. A RINO? Maybe. But that's about it.
Well that's the problem, moderate conservatives aren't "real" conservatives these days. I had some exaggeration and we disagree on some finer points of economic theory and social policy, but the republicans i know are as sick of these games as I am. They sure don't like the Tea Party although they agree, as I do, with the premise of fiscal responsibility. They don't like the wars we are in, and they don't sympathize with millionaires that think they need tax breaks. They also don't appreciate the constant threat of global ruin that has become so casual in Washington. We also criticize liberals on many of the same points. These people aren't idealogues, they're realist who want to see things get better and the government do its job. If that doesn't make them "real" I don't know what does.
I just read this article (in german) and found it pretty interesting/decent... I translated it via Google and tried to make it a little more readable .
Humans are stupid
Has the great depression been forgotten?
The inter-war period was something like the dark ages of the economy. The ill-fated peace treaty of Versailles, the insoluble debt of individual states, the fruitless conferences to solving the debt problems that caused the choking reintroduction of the gold standard, protectionism, savings delusion and deliberate devaluation of the currency - all of which ultimately led to the collapse of the world economy and created the conditions for the carnage of the Second World War.
"Never again will we repeat this error", the economists and politicians vowed after the war, and they indeed held their word. Instead of the revenge soaked treaty of Versailles after WW1 the victorious created after WW2 a foundation for international financial order. The Marshall Plan helped a swift rebuilding of Europe and thus created the prerequisites for building a peaceful and prosperous EU. Independent central banks and a sensible demand policy ensured savety, the business cycle could not be entirely avoided but neither unemployment nor inflation fell ever so out of control that a repeat of the debacle of the thirties had to be feared.
Too simple Logic
Now the world economy is back on track into the abyss. The lessons of the thirties are forgotten. The U.S. has, after a week-long political farce, passed a compromise to counter their debt that could have come directly from the Depression era. This compromise "will weaken an already failing economy even further," complains the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. "The long-term deficit is likely to worsen, and most importantly. He shows that naked extortion has become politically possible, and will thus lead America on the way to a banana republic"
The logic behind the compromise is simple: saving and low taxes. In this way, a capable housewife or a responsible family man could renovate his private finances, but this is not possible with an US sized economy in more than exceptional cases. Small countries with large export share might could do it, but in large states this recipe has never had success and never will have. The reason is obvious: The state needs to fill the demand gap, which occurs when households consume no more and companies do not invest anymore. This means that the tax revenue declines while the social costs and total debt increases. Persident Hoover, which led the USA into the great depression, could not execute this plan "better".
As the example of Britain shows this is as true today as it was in the thirties. The austerity of the conservative-liberal government is a disaster, the island is located in a Stagflation (no growth with high inflation). Thus, the recent testimony of the IMF concludes that the industrial activities in Britain have come to a standstill. The British gross domestic product (GDP) is still four percent below pre-crisis levels, with no prospects for improvement to be seen at the moment.
Everything indicates that the U.S. economy is heading in exactly the same way. The industrial activities have been declining in July, unemployment is rising, as is inflation. The Federal Reserve may cut interest rates more, and the state is forced to save, rather than stimulate the economy. Herbert Hoover, the president of the United States has led to depression, that would have put is not getting better.
The important bridge to nowhere
Here, the U.S. had the opportunity to make it better this time. The country needs to renew its crumbling infrastructure if it wants to remain competitive. The United States invests only half as much in roads, bridges, railways, and airports as Europe. 2.4 percent of GDP instead of 5 percent. According to a ranking of WEF are the United States ranks 23rd in terms of infrastructure quality. By 2020 it herefore will most probably lose another 900,000 jobs.
The need for investment in infrastructure is obvious. Still nothing happens. The standard argument against it is, that no one wants to build bridges to nowhere. This is true, but a bridge that will cost one billion U.S. dollars creates 18,000 desperately needed jobs - even a bridge to nowhere.
The deal is kicking the can down the street, delaying all the important decisions. Not surprising, considering this wasn't really the time to address them, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed.
On August 02 2011 22:27 bonifaceviii wrote: The deal is kicking the can down the street, delaying all the important decisions. Not surprising, considering this wasn't really the time to address them, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed.
What i find scary is how difficult it was to decide to not really decide anything... Imagine how impossible it is to change something significant to actually solve this :/
On August 02 2011 17:56 ZeaL. wrote: That second graph is pretty misleading as it measures deficits instead of net expenditures, revenue dropped significantly in '09 and '10 as a result of the recession.
If you just take the blue bars then you can see how much the spend in Iraq is. It's pretty hard to tell but I'd guesstimate a trillion over 10 years (2011 spend isn't included in there) That means the Iraq war is responsible for about 7% of the defecit. Thats pretty significant in my eyes.
Also, certain federal spending shouldn't scale with the GDP so I fail to see the relevance of the first graph. What is important is the real figures. Your defense budget shouldn't scale with your income, for example. As an absurd example, if 2011 saw sudden massive economic turnaround then defense spending as a % of GDP would drop dramatically. People would then use point at that graph and scream "See, look how little we spend on defense!"
Give me some figures and a story you want telling and I'll make a graph that supports it. Theres lies, damn lies and statistics. Add powerpoint to the mix and people can bullshit each other until the end of time.
On August 02 2011 10:05 kwizach wrote: The deficits you are referring to can still be attributed to Republicans, since the said deficits were the direct consequence of the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stimulus bill was necessary. You are quite simply an idiot if you blame the state of the current state of the US debt on Democrats more than Republicans.
This (minus the idiot part I guess)
On August 02 2011 06:15 TheGlassface wrote: See, that's why I hate modern politics. NO ONE WON in this debate. NO ONE.
Sadly, I have to agree here. This is what happens when everyone follows their own agendas for political gain instead of pulling together.
On August 01 2011 09:00 cfoy3 wrote: @ Senorcuidado
I do not think they will be rewarded with it long term. The democrats and Obama will push this issue hard next election. They also probably lost the senior vote. Ultimately they only get rewarded if you decide to cast your vote for them next election.
I wish I still believed that. It might backfire on them in the presidential race, maybe, although the economy will more likely decide the victor. Congress, however, wil still be insane. Too many districts are too safe, with the primary voters mattering more than the general electorate. What scares them is not the challenge of a moderate (they can label them socialists) but rather the challenge of a radical outflanking them and stealing their base. I don't think most of them believe the garbage they spew out, but they have to spew it because that's what their core constituency wants to hear. The voters and the media are at least as guilty as the politicians, if they were rational they would have kicked out the crazies a long time ago.
The democrats probably won't punish them effectively because historically they really suck at it. They can't really pretend to be the anti-war party anymore, at least Obama can't. They won't say Republicans held unemployed people hostage in order to secure the extension of tax cuts for the rich in 2010, and brought the country within a day of collapsing TWICE in 2011 in order to cut programs that help the people hardest hit by the recession. They won't say sweeping cuts means sweeping job losses which means a worse economy. They won't remind us of the two years we lost while every single bill in the Senate was filibustered to death with a 41-59 minority. They might accuse the Republicans of sabotaging the economy so they could take the White House, but while that's probably true it won't play well with moderates. Look at 2010, crazy paid off big in the midterm elections. 41 Senators spent two years with the sole purpose of stopping the government from functioning, then pointed at the governing party and said "look, they're not getting anything done!" The only thing crazier than that is the fact that so many voters fell for it. It sounds like I'm bashing Republicans, but like I said I'm mad at everyone involved. I know so many reasonable conservatives that agree with most of what I just said. Who are they supposed to vote for? Who am I supposed to vote for? Ham sandwich 2012.
Listening to the radio on the way to work I heard Rush Limbaugh repeatedly insist that the compromise was all a big trick orchestrated by Obama to score the biggest tax increase in the history of America. Like it or not THAT is the guy voters listen to and come November he will tell them what they think. I don't have high hopes.
One thing about Mitt Romney: Rush Limbaugh hates his guts so he can't be all that bad.
I promise you that no real conservative would agree with anything that you wrote in your post. A RINO? Maybe. But that's about it.
Well that's the problem, moderate conservatives aren't "real" conservatives these days. I had some exaggeration and we disagree on some finer points of economic theory and social policy, but the republicans i know are as sick of these games as I am. They sure don't like the Tea Party although they agree, as I do, with the premise of fiscal responsibility. They don't like the wars we are in, and they don't sympathize with millionaires that think they need tax breaks. They also don't appreciate the constant threat of global ruin that has become so casual in Washington. We also criticize liberals on many of the same points. These people aren't idealogues, they're realist who want to see things get better and the government do its job. If that doesn't make them "real" I don't know what does.
"Moderate" conservatives are part of the problem. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is nothing more than a brand of moderate conservatism, and look what it got us: more unnecessary social spending and more debt during an economic boom time. We're supposed to be running surpluses during boom times.
Here's the real problem with moderation: "moderation" means compromise with democrats and liberals, who simply refuse to roll back fiscal spending to sustainable levels. When you have $1.4+ trillion annual budget deficits, you have a spending problem. As I said earlier in this thread, you can't raise taxes to cover that amount without wrecking the economy when the total US GDP is "only" $14-15 trillion. Yes, taxes will be raised at some point, but any tax increase will necessarily be dwarfed by needed spending cuts. These cuts will necessarily include cuts to the social programs that democrats hold dear, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Democrats and liberals simply won't put those cuts on the table, and they demonize anyone who does (see Paul Ryan). Why should conservatives "compromise" with such lunacy? Democrats and liberals are so far off of the reservation right now that they just need to be written off as a lost cause.
I am just happy that the country is finally having the debate that it needs to have concerning fiscal sanity.
On August 02 2011 06:15 TheGlassface wrote: See, that's why I hate modern politics. NO ONE WON in this debate. NO ONE.
I agree with this. The only group that may have won the tea party, but even then, they only are winners in that they flexed their muscle and forced a debate on this issue. They didn't really get what they want in the end.
Everyone else is a loser. Obama, Boehner, Reid, McConnell, Pelosi --- all of the establishment leaders in Washington took a beating. Liberal democrats were particularly big losers, who basically are getting nothing at the end of the day and were more or less rendered irrelevant during the debate.
The biggest losers were the American people. The debt deal sucks and doesn't fix the problems that need to be addressed. However, we vote these politicans into office, so we're not exactly blameless.
You missed my point entirely. That aside, as for voting the people in...time after time again, we get someone in office who switches immediately or just flat out ignores what they were said they were going to do. We even had D's swapping to R's at one point. Things like this create an apathy towards voting for everyone because there is no way to stem the tide of corruption and lies on an effective and timely manner.
On August 02 2011 06:15 TheGlassface wrote: See, that's why I hate modern politics. NO ONE WON in this debate. NO ONE.
I agree with this. The only group that may have won the tea party, but even then, they only are winners in that they flexed their muscle and forced a debate on this issue. They didn't really get what they want in the end.
Everyone else is a loser. Obama, Boehner, Reid, McConnell, Pelosi --- all of the establishment leaders in Washington took a beating. Liberal democrats were particularly big losers, who basically are getting nothing at the end of the day and were more or less rendered irrelevant during the debate.
The biggest losers were the American people. The debt deal sucks and doesn't fix the problems that need to be addressed. However, we vote these politicans into office, so we're not exactly blameless.
You missed my point entirely. That aside, as for voting the people in...time after time again, we get someone in office who switches immediately or just flat out ignores what they were said they were going to do. We even had D's swapping to R's at one point. Things like this create an apathy towards voting for everyone because there is no way to stem the tide of corruption and lies on an effective and timely manner.
I feel that this happens because politicians are more beholden to their parties and special interests (the people really paying their bills and ensuring they even have a chance at winning an election) than they are to the people they represent.
I would like to see it become mandatory for Federal representatives to return to their constituencies on the same day every week and speak in town hall meetings about the current issues going on. If these were more regular and not tied to fundraising efforts, the people could hold politicians more accountable than they currently can. Right now, they are getting off the hook because everyone seems content to let the 'media' educate us about what's really going on in Washington.
It also seems like it would be a great shared forum for state and federal government officials. No one has time to go to all of the meetings at every level - even if they wanted to. This would allow the average person to connect with both their state and federal reps in one shot, and for both of those guys to converse with their constituents outside of party lines.
Man this graph is soo stupid, and disingenuous. It shows spending as a fraction of GDP? So, you wanna show spending that is affected by the cyclical flows of the economy. Wow defense spending percentage decreased from the 90's to 00's, rite and the GDP of the country was growing the entire time while defense spending was constant. Then, hey look defense spending rose in 2001? Guess why, dotcom bust so yea revenue fell. Whats crazier is that defense spending percentage remained the same even though the economy was bubbling massively from 2003-2008 due to sub prime mortgage madness, which means defense spending was rising just as fast as the economy, if not faster. But hey, you know pick and choose a graph that supports your point, whatever.
I am concerned we may have already passed the point where no matter who is president or in control of the congress that we are not going to be able to keep our AAA rating. Which would suck less than a default but that's like saying breaking both your wrists isn't as bad as breaking both your legs so don't worry about it.
EPT
.
