|
On August 06 2011 11:10 Korlinni wrote:
Capitalism is failing in USA. All I hear is the government trying to make jobs, it's not the governments job to make jobs, it's the companies who are supposed give jobs.
The United States has never had a capitalistic economy, and what we have now is as far from capitalism as we have EVER been in the entire existence of the country. The definition of capitalism is NOT whatever economic system the United States has.
|
It makes me so sad to see how raising taxes on the people who're already making a million + a year seems like the end of the world to some republicans. Even if that isn't allowed, shouldn't closing tax loopholes to gain back a few hundred million a year be reasonable? One prominent example is general electric. From what I've read, they managed to get billions in tax benefits while being one of the most profitable companies in the US, something that makes no sense to me.
I know that the US dollar is gonna dive come monday which means I'm going down to the states when my CAD is good, getting my shopping and all of my back-to-school done and wish obama and the rest of the USA's elected officials good luck in surviving whatever shitstorm may follow.
|
Well, ain't that fucking fantastic. At the rate things are going, I can only see two ways out: the country dying or Obama declaring a state of emergency and taking charge.
|
On August 06 2011 13:47 Acritter wrote:
Well, ain't that fucking fantastic. At the rate things are going, I can only see two ways out: the country dying or Obama declaring a state of emergency and taking charge.
AA+ doesn't quite mean the end of the country. Things are bad, but they aren't nation-ending bad. It's not like China is about to send 1,000,000 troops in to pillage the lands, lol. Life will be less comfortable, people will think more, and perhaps someday the future will be better. Sometimes it takes a slap in the face.
On August 06 2011 13:42 Lmui wrote:
It makes me so sad to see how raising taxes on the people who're already making a million + a year seems like the end of the world to some republicans. Even if that isn't allowed, shouldn't closing tax loopholes to gain back a few hundred million a year be reasonable? One prominent example is general electric. From what I've read, they managed to get billions in tax benefits while being one of the most profitable companies in the US, something that makes no sense to me.
I know that the US dollar is gonna dive come monday which means I'm going down to the states when my CAD is good, getting my shopping and all of my back-to-school done and wish obama and the rest of the USA's elected officials good luck in surviving whatever shitstorm may follow.
Shoring tax loopholes and tax increases have the potential to generate hundreds of billions, not hundreds of millions (friendly FYI). Combined with smart spending cuts, yeah, it makes sense.
About the dollar diving come Monday: I'm not sure what you mean. Inflation has been a problem for a while, but I haven't heard anything about something dramatic happening on Monday. Share? I'm curious.
|
On August 06 2011 13:42 Lmui wrote:
It makes me so sad to see how raising taxes on the people who're already making a million + a year seems like the end of the world to some republicans. Even if that isn't allowed, shouldn't closing tax loopholes to gain back a few hundred million a year be reasonable? One prominent example is general electric. From what I've read, they managed to get billions in tax benefits while being one of the most profitable companies in the US, something that makes no sense to me.
I know that the US dollar is gonna dive come monday which means I'm going down to the states when my CAD is good, getting my shopping and all of my back-to-school done and wish obama and the rest of the USA's elected officials good luck in surviving whatever shitstorm may follow.
So often I see people complain about "tax loopholes" and yet nobody ever specifies exactly what particular part of the tax law they are referring to. Another example. Which "loophole" are you referring to exactly, so we can discuss intelligently ?
|
Ron Paul is starting to look a hell of a lot more appealing.
|
|
|
NAAAAAOOOOOOOO....... This is really disappointing, America is slowly slipping out of its dominance.
|
Does anyone trust what the ratings agencies say after the financial crisis in 2008? Rating all those resold subprime mortgages AAA, when they were in fact total crap?
The US credit rating should have been downgraded years ago.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2011 13:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 13:47 Acritter wrote:
Well, ain't that fucking fantastic. At the rate things are going, I can only see two ways out: the country dying or Obama declaring a state of emergency and taking charge. AA+ doesn't quite mean the end of the country. Things are bad, but they aren't nation-ending bad. It's not like China is about to send 1,000,000 troops in to pillage the lands, lol. Life will be less comfortable, people will think more, and perhaps someday the future will be better. Sometimes it takes a slap in the face. Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 13:42 Lmui wrote:
It makes me so sad to see how raising taxes on the people who're already making a million + a year seems like the end of the world to some republicans. Even if that isn't allowed, shouldn't closing tax loopholes to gain back a few hundred million a year be reasonable? One prominent example is general electric. From what I've read, they managed to get billions in tax benefits while being one of the most profitable companies in the US, something that makes no sense to me.
I know that the US dollar is gonna dive come monday which means I'm going down to the states when my CAD is good, getting my shopping and all of my back-to-school done and wish obama and the rest of the USA's elected officials good luck in surviving whatever shitstorm may follow. Shoring tax loopholes and tax increases have the potential to generate hundreds of billions, not hundreds of millions (friendly FYI). Combined with smart spending cuts, yeah, it makes sense. About the dollar diving come Monday: I'm not sure what you mean. Inflation has been a problem for a while, but I haven't heard anything about something dramatic happening on Monday. Share? I'm curious.
i believe he means when the stock market opens again. forecast is things are gonna be shitty
|
On August 06 2011 13:47 Acritter wrote:
Well, ain't that fucking fantastic. At the rate things are going, I can only see two ways out: the country dying or Obama declaring a state of emergency and taking charge.
Declare a state of emergency and have the president take charge? Algeria is not revolting, and America is not France. It doesn't work that way here.
|
What an interesting chart. You list policy changes, but seeing as Obama comes after Bush, most of Obama's budget is simply Bush's + His trillion plus added on top. Of course he could have cut stuff from what Bush did, but clearly Bush didn't spend enough. That simply lists changes, not actual deficits ran on a year to year basis. Bush made 5 trillion in debt in 8 years, Obama did that in 2.5 years, who is the fiscal conservative??? Neither, but thanks for the very biased and misleading poll, it is what people love on TL, whatever supports their stupid views.
|
On August 06 2011 14:02 ControlMonkey wrote:
Does anyone trust what the ratings agencies say after the financial crisis in 2008? Rating all those resold subprime mortgages AAA, when they were in fact total crap?
The US credit rating should have been downgraded years ago.
Again as I mentioned before, it wasn't those agencies it was another US government agency bundling and rating the subprime loans who did that. The credability of Moody's etc is not bad and it's a hella lote more believeable it's AA+ negative outlook than AAA.
|
I consider myself an economic conservertive. But God I hate Republicans when it comes to econmic policy. They promote this false advertising that we can somehow balance the budget by eliminating "wasteful spending"
What they don't talk about is that the federal governments income was $2,161B last year. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and Interest payments cost over $2,400B by themselves.
So even if we kill all of the following: the department of education, the department of homeland security, the department of veteran affairs, the entire federal court system, the white house, congress, food stamps, farm subsidies, foreign aid, nasa, the epa, the fdc, the fec, and the postal service...
...we'd still be in deficit.
Raising taxes is the logical thing to do. Tax rates in the US are 10% lower than most other developed countries. Just a 5% increase in tax rates across the board would balance the deficit without any cuts whatsoever.
Sure it sucks to raise taxes in a recession, but so does cutting social security/healthcare/defense. Not even tea party politicians are stupid enough to publically support cutting those areas of spending. But they'll certainly continue to whine about the deficit in order to score political points.
|
What's so silly about this situation is that financial markets and credit institutions are not worried about the U.S. having any actual issues paying of their debt/interest rates if they wanted to.
They're just worried they might not want to ^^
|
On August 06 2011 14:04 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 13:47 Acritter wrote:
Well, ain't that fucking fantastic. At the rate things are going, I can only see two ways out: the country dying or Obama declaring a state of emergency and taking charge. Declare a state of emergency and have the president take charge? Algeria is not revolting, and America is not France. It doesn't work that way here.
I agree with you mindcrime. While this obviously isn't an ideal situation, it's a FAR cry from the doom and gloom everyone's harping on about. We're hardly all going to die in a fire if Obama doesn't declare marshal law.
On another note, the markets are SURE to take another beating come monday...I work at an investment bank, it just means lots and lots of really long hours ahead for me 
Edit:
On August 06 2011 14:09 RoboBob wrote:
Sure it sucks to raise taxes in a recession, but so does cutting social security/healthcare/defense. Not even tea party politicians are stupid enough to publically support cutting those areas of spending. But they'll certainly continue to whine about the deficit in order to score political points.
I feel like that's exactly what the tea party wants to do though. I feel like they think they're "taking back washington" by being extremely, EXTREMELY uncompromising on a lot of issues that, frankly, need to be compromised on.
I, personally, am becoming more and more frustrated with how hard line they're all going. The reason we have elected officials is not to bend to the whim and fancy of the public, but to make more educated and informed decisions than the public. That's why we live in a republic and not a direct democracy.
|
So I know this is a serious matter and all, and it's dumb to get obsessed with the details of the terminology, but freaking out over being assigned an "AA+" rating just sounds so silly. It'd be like flipping tables over being demoted from "Super-Duper Fantastically Excellent" to just "Fantastically Excellent"
|
On August 06 2011 14:10 Popss wrote:
What's so silly about this situation is that financial markets and credit institutions are not worried about the U.S. having any actual issues paying of their debt/interest rates if they wanted to.
They're just worried they might not want to ^^
Can you blame them? Regarding money USA doesn't even seem to give a damn about their own economy and well being. Why should they treat companies, constitutions, trade outside the country any different?
|
On August 06 2011 09:49 Klogon wrote:We need to make sure that the politicians who stalled for bullshit political reasons all need to never step a foot in Washington again. The level of political gaming during such a crucial time was just absolutely unacceptable. Gosh, another blow to economy after the turmoil today/yesterday. And it seems S&P has not downgraded it yet and will review its math: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903366504576490550023165380.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadlineEDIT: Nvm, it was indeed downgraded.
It doesn't matter which politicians it is/was. They're all corrupt or will be corrupted. They line their pockets with US dollars. Now, perhaps when they fuckover US citizens they might need to take in Euros or whatever the Chinese currency is. Either way even if there is ONE person looking out for us in Congress there are still 99 to vote against them. Fucking shame really that the best run government can't ever last. The selfless person running the whole show, he who can look objectively at anything and decide which side is more worth it to the people. Not the person who can look to each side for a paycheck. Fuck em all.
|
Also people really need to understand that economic scholars talking about economic policy is pretty much the same as NFL coaches talking about their coaching philosophy.
So even if you've won the Superbowl or a Nobel Price theres still gonna be people who've done the same that'll have fundamental issues with your approach to coaching a team or solving the economy.
Point is you can't say "Oh but economist XX said YY" and take it as some kind of truth set in stone because thats not how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
