The US debt (proper debate) - Page 50

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.

On August 03 2011 09:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/u-s-aaa-rating-faces-moody-s-downgrade-on-debt-economic-slowdown-concern.html

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.

U.S. House approves $649 bln for defense in 2012

* Pentagon primary budget is $18 billion more than 2011

* $119 included for Afghanistan, Iraq wars

* Effort to eliminate Afghanistan combat funding defeated

On August 02 2011 17:53 kwizach wrote:
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.

On August 03 2011 10:16 Shiori wrote:
There's no debate worth having. It's pretty simple: you either raise taxes or cut services. In my books a state with a moral conscience is better than a state which cuts corners, and therefore I think it's better to just raise taxes (something most Americans are okay with). But instead we have the GOP legitimizing anti-social disorder because of their fetish for Randian free markets. I honestly feel bad for Americans (I'm Canadian). To actually believe that welfare is worth cutting because people are "exploiting it" (despite no such statistics existing) is to be in a truly deep delusion.

On August 03 2011 10:22 Rybka wrote:


You are wrong. Democrats have made as many mistakes as the GOP, if not more, and I am NOT okay with paying out of pocket for those mistakes. It's not "either raise taxes or cut services," it's BOTH.

Any bullshit philosophy that honestly believes it can fix this situation by doing one or the other is delusional.

On August 03 2011 10:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:


He isn't thinking black & white. He's insinuating that there should be greater focus on the tax side of the issue. This stance is something that GOP members adamantly stand against, thus his remarks are understandable. What is your argument against that taxes should be the focus? I agree that "services" must also be cut to some extent given the size of the problem, but still... You are even more incorrect by taking a perfect middle ground and saying a simple "both".

Statistics are misquoted, and arithmetic is incorrect within this article; hopefully the WSJ will issue a correction. Set any decent 8th grader to the task and they'll have it completed in the hour. The fundamental error though is discussing income tax dollars as if they are all equal. If you take 20% of the $20,000 income of a person supporting a family of three, clearly the impact is much greater on their lives than taking 20% of the $2,000,000 income of a person supporting a family of three. If we tax the rich person another 1%, what can they no longer do now that they could do before? Compare that to the impact of taking 1%, $200, from each of 1,000 poor families. Failing to consider the marginal value of tax dollars to the taxed is a mistake repeated in every discussion about taxes. The other fundamental oversight is failing to see that the rich are only rich because of a healthy economy in a healthy society; no one has more to gain by investing in the basic welfare of Americans than rich people. Solid infrastructure, good basic health care, good education, social stability; nothing else will beat the return on investment in these areas. If those earning in the top 10% of all incomes really want more money in years to come, then as a group, they should be very happy to pay a little more in taxes today to reap the fruits of their privileged position in a healthy, vibrant society tomorrow.

So now you're not talking about figures Erdman. You're talking about "fairness". You're talking about the fact that you and your liberal cohorts know what a "rich" person can "afford" or should be required to contribute. You're also talking about how much to gain "rich" people have by being forced to contribute to good infrastructure. "Rich" people are quite happy to use the infrastructure of this country. God knows they pay more for it than anyone else despite being the beneficiary of it the least. Or perhaps you think "rich" people drive on our roads and bridges more while using our public schools more? Here's a radical idea. Everybody in this country pays something including those 50% that pay nothing currently?

On August 03 2011 10:57 Rybka wrote:
There it is. Ad hominem "omg that source as a scent of conservative bias" is not an excuse. That's just whining because you don't have an educated answer. You want to make it about bullshit politics, rather than the facts. Repbulican this, GOP that. I immediately stop listening when I hear that shit.

On August 03 2011 10:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
A conservative opinion WSJ article doesn't prove much, sorry buddy.

Here's one random response to it:


And here's a conservative's counter-response:


I mean, that pretty much spells it out. That type of logic is shit-brained. "Herp derp, how abouts ERRYONE contributes n' pays EQUALLY?" is essentially what he's about. That's such a callow approach, though, because everyone is not able to contribute the same. I don't know about 50%, but the lowest of the low cannot contribute much more than zero, like it or not. The upper 10% can contribute plenty. Why should everyone contribute the same hard amount, rather than based upon percentage?

On August 03 2011 11:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about? Social Security? Retirement? You've lost me. After a career in otorhinolaryngology, I don't think I'll be relying on Social Security. Thanks.

On August 03 2011 11:09 Rybka wrote:


LMAO if you're an ORL surgeon how have I "lost" you? We cannot possibly balance the budget until we rectify the false promises of things like social security, medicare, and medicaid. There is not enough money, and these things will exponentially outpace the money that is feasibly taxable from the American people?

Get it?

On August 03 2011 11:22 Mykill wrote:
if people want medicare/medicaid then you need to start pitching in and pay more taxes, america pays a fraction of what most developed countries pay.
There is no way to fund it medicare/aid, so people need to start paying for healthcare themselves. If you cant afford it and society doesnt want to pay taxes then tough.