|
On July 24 2011 06:49 cfoy3 wrote:
@ ziggurat
You know I truly believed in Barack Obama. I was behind him one hundred percent. Here was a man that was talking sense. However, for all his speeches, his actions betray him. His health care law, was so violently opposed by Republicans because it was soo partisan. Even now, the Democrats completely reject Cut,Cap and Balance, tabling it so it can't even be amended or debated. The republicans where wrong to draft such an ill conceived legislation. It was sooo partisan. No adjustments for the tax code really? Capping at 18%, why 18? Now I don't think it should be 18% but it should be a number maybe 90%. then they tact on an amendment that would basically stop Congress from being able to impose new taxes and make it impossible for us to respond to crisis, such as a war or economic catastrophe. Their should have been some provision to allow the amendment to be ignored, if there is an x% number of votes in congress or state of emergency. That bill was ultra conservative. But it didnt have to remain that way. The senate could have amended it and made it truly bi-partisan, but they didnt. Including some of the considerations from the gang of 6.NO ONE IS BLAMELESS. The democrats where being just as political and partisan. They all need to go!
Both sides are bad, but Obama has really done a lot to come to the center of the whole matter. Even in the healthcare debate, the starting point was the middle. A great deal of the left wanted a public option, but what was put on the table was a series of reforms that included initial ideas from both parties. The far left wanted to get rid of the insurance companies altogether, but radicals like that should be ignored, and they were.
When we started this debate with the national debt and raising the debt ceiling, it even started out completely on the right of the spectrum. You have these incredibly naive, radical Republicans in the house who rally that the debt ceiling shouldn't even be raised, because the ensuing chaos would somehow set us up in a better way. Like any political debate, these people should just be ignored since they will never be happy. However, some conceded that they would budge on the issue if we wrestled with the deficit, so Republican plans were put out that essentially gutted everything in the federal budget. Obama took the hint and initiated talks between the right and the left, starting the debate, once again, in the middle, where the deficit would be handled by a combination of revenue and reduction in spending. However, unlike the healthcare debate, the political idiots that everybody should ignore are not being ignored. The Republicans are using these morons as the basis for the compromise in the first place, that any raising of the debt ceiling is already a compromise.
Now it's about to come and bite us all in the ass, and not because Obama didn't go to the middle, but because the middle isn't the middle when one side courts their extremists.
|
On July 24 2011 07:03 JouriCarver wrote:i read in a paper today that something like 96% of americas GDP was in debt, if is true and nothing is done about it and americas economy collapase it will send a shockwave crashing countless other countries economies  bad times
lol yeah If we go down it'll be Armageddon all over China will go next and the average american will huddle back into not trusting a central government and will go into survivorist mode and as a whole america will become so isolationism the middle east will go up in flames. Africa will get worse but even thats hard to imagine.
I think China will probably bail us out. a lot of people would bail us out if it came to that.
|
On July 24 2011 07:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +
1. give power to every US citizen via vote
2. give a nation of high school level citizens try to make decisions that even PhDs openly admit are complicated, but with huge repercussions if done wrong.
3. ???
4. profit!
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Wow, didn't know Winston Churchill was a flaming red commy. Why don't we attack them after we're done with the terrorists in Iraq. Hahahaha!
|
On July 24 2011 07:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 06:49 cfoy3 wrote:
@ ziggurat
You know I truly believed in Barack Obama. I was behind him one hundred percent. Here was a man that was talking sense. However, for all his speeches, his actions betray him. His health care law, was so violently opposed by Republicans because it was soo partisan. Even now, the Democrats completely reject Cut,Cap and Balance, tabling it so it can't even be amended or debated. The republicans where wrong to draft such an ill conceived legislation. It was sooo partisan. No adjustments for the tax code really? Capping at 18%, why 18? Now I don't think it should be 18% but it should be a number maybe 90%. then they tact on an amendment that would basically stop Congress from being able to impose new taxes and make it impossible for us to respond to crisis, such as a war or economic catastrophe. Their should have been some provision to allow the amendment to be ignored, if there is an x% number of votes in congress or state of emergency. That bill was ultra conservative. But it didnt have to remain that way. The senate could have amended it and made it truly bi-partisan, but they didnt. Including some of the considerations from the gang of 6.NO ONE IS BLAMELESS. The democrats where being just as political and partisan. They all need to go! Both sides are bad, but Obama has really done a lot to come to the center of the whole matter. Even in the healthcare debate, the starting point was the middle. A great deal of the left wanted a public option, but what was put on the table was a series of reforms that included initial ideas from both parties. The far left wanted to get rid of the insurance companies altogether, but radicals like that should be ignored, and they were. When we started this debate with the national debt and raising the debt ceiling, it even started out completely on the right of the spectrum. You have these incredibly naive, radical Republicans in the house who rally that the debt ceiling shouldn't even be raised, because the ensuing chaos would somehow set us up in a better way. Like any political debate, these people should just be ignored since they will never be happy. However, some conceded that they would budge on the issue if we wrestled with the deficit, so Republican plans were put out that essentially gutted everything in the federal budget. Obama took the hint and initiated talks between the right and the left, starting the debate, once again, in the middle, where the deficit would be handled by a combination of revenue and reduction in spending. However, unlike the healthcare debate, the political idiots that everybody should ignore are not being ignored. The Republicans are using these morons as the basis for the compromise in the first place, that any raising of the debt ceiling is already a compromise. Now it's about to come and bite us all in the ass, and not because Obama didn't go to the middle, but because the middle isn't the middle when one side courts their extremists.
To be fair the Tea party is the reason why most of those republicans have a job and they're just as worried as the next guy of loseing theirs.
|
<insert stupid rant here>
|
On July 24 2011 07:08 Nqsty wrote:
a lot of people here just don't understand how money works, what it is and what it represents.
the problem isn't repaying debt, at all, the Fed could print enough money in a blink, trust me Greece wishes it was in the US's situation now, they can't print and that's much more of a problem.
The US has two options, depreciating the dollar and pushing inflation to record highs by repaying debt through monetary expansion, loosing power as world currency, and causing insane turmoil in the US economy and the global trading balance, oooooooooor, they can cut expenses, pull up taxes, and repay the debt with revenue and everything's cool.
I honestly personally find the defence budget ridiculous, and would start there, even though none of us here have extensive knowledge of where the money goes, I'm certain they could cut down expenses without loosing global power.
Um, actually it's a balanced approach between all of that. We naturally inflate our currency to make debt a good thing. When there's inflation, it's always smarter to spend your money into something that will last and be worth more when you finally dispose of it. More inflation is actually good, until you get in danger of hyper inflation, where prices and programs literally cannot keep up with rising costs. At that point, the problem becomes people not being sure how much something is worth today in relation to yesterday, or in relation to every day life and their income.
|
On July 24 2011 06:53 LoneWolf-Alpha- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 04:25 jmack wrote:It's pretty clear at this point large INTERNATIONAL banks / financial sectors are guilty of fraudulent banking, or at least swindling millions of people out of TRILLIONS and disregarding any respect for their customers interests. Deregulation is retarded. Retarded. Do you know what the word greed means? What did people think would happen if they allowed the greedy to run free? Tax the rich; hard. There should be large government SPENDING not CUTS ( cuts is moronic ). And before anyone claims I don't know what is it I'm talking about let me paint you a picture: You are currently allowing the government to tell you that if the rich get tax CUTS they will create jobs; what jobs? What jobs and where are they? Deregulation and wealthy tax cuts have been around for a decade and now that the bubble has burst it's clear the attempt was a complete failure. With that in mind, you're allowing your ELECTED officials to present more ideas following the same broken logic. No corporation can create jobs if there's no demand for their product ( regardless of how much the company pays it's CEO's ) IF THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THE PRODUCTS HAVE NO MONEY. A serious move towards a socialist ( don't be ignorant and overreact to the word; go do some research and tell me it isn't a more ideal system we should be striving to move toward ) nation is a great way to actually recover the economy. This is not just information I am posting on TL forums; it is being screamed at you by those stuck behind the main stream cable media. No matter what your beliefs, no matter what they are; I have a hard time believing ANYONE supports the notion that millions should go hungry/poor while working 60hrs a week for minimum wage while CEO's of THE BANKS collect half billion dollar bonuses for doing nothing. The banks and their CEO's are the modern day version of medieval lords of land, seemingly immune to the law and collecting absurd wages based on the misuse and exploitation of their slaves. Yes we're slaves; we're slaves living on the illusion that we're free and that one day we can be the "wealthy". I look forward to your views, discussing them and reflecting on my own. + Show Spoiler +Yes I am angry and disgusted. The more I learn about our system the sweeter the word "revolution" sounds. hm.... all this sounds like terrorist talk to me... Any discussion here needs to keep in mind that 70% of students drop out before senior year in high school, and 70% of seniors go to college, which means roughly 50% of the US gets any college education. Most students in college don't major in a rigorous science, and definitely, will not take even an introductory economics or statistics class. So paint the picture: MOST people in the US don't understand statistics or economics. A full HALF of the people in the US didn't perform well enough on the SAT (which, quite frankly, is a very easy test) to get into college. What do you need on the SAT to get into ANY state college? And now you expect these people who can't figure out questions like "sparrow:bird::salmon  ? " to make complicated decisions in macroeconomics and finance (lol finance?). We need to keep in mind that the concept of democracy and its hayday was back in the 1700s when the world was simple as hell and a middle school education pretty much put you on the frontier of knowledge, which meant that most people were able to attain that status. Now, to be good enough to make any serious decisions, you need to have a PhD in international monetary theory or macroeconomics or finance, and even PhDs will openly admit that they aren't entirely sure. 1. give power to every US citizen via vote 2. give a nation of high school level citizens try to make decisions that even PhDs openly admit are complicated, but with huge repercussions if done wrong. 3. ??? 4. profit!
Alright, first I don't enjoy the idea of being labeled a terrorist but that's your opinion.
Now look at those numbers you've presented, really look at them. The country cannot even educate its citizens well enough as a whole to be able to contribute to democracy.
But is that the fault of the people? The evidence is right in front of you, there's no priority for education and it has resulted in the plague of morons that you see today. And while schools go bankrupt, or are forced into fraud to remain funded, and teachers make barely enough to survive their expected to save the population. A single BONUS a CEO makes could help to save these institutions or fund research into better ways to educate.
I agree that you cannot give control of anything important to those who are incapable of handling the tasks and that education should in fact be one of the entire planets main priorities. If we are to leave the power in the hands of the few, very intelligent, as you suggest, there is NO possible way it could succeed unless at it's core were socialist ideas; protecting the working class and their right to a REASONABLE piece of the wealth being generated. It cannot be about slashing costs and increasing profits; especially when no one is accountable for mistakes or else we'll continue increasing the absurd wealth disparity.
And what is your plan, you so quickly use 4chan meme's to deflect the idea of democracy being a solution, you slander without warrent and then at the end you present no solutions or ideas.
Are you content as things are? Is the world your ideal place right now?
How do you feel about the idea of capitalist giants running key, unquestionable, places in the "peoples" government because they are just sooooo smart, is it working?
|
On July 24 2011 07:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 06:49 cfoy3 wrote:
@ ziggurat
You know I truly believed in Barack Obama. I was behind him one hundred percent. Here was a man that was talking sense. However, for all his speeches, his actions betray him. His health care law, was so violently opposed by Republicans because it was soo partisan. Even now, the Democrats completely reject Cut,Cap and Balance, tabling it so it can't even be amended or debated. The republicans where wrong to draft such an ill conceived legislation. It was sooo partisan. No adjustments for the tax code really? Capping at 18%, why 18? Now I don't think it should be 18% but it should be a number maybe 90%. then they tact on an amendment that would basically stop Congress from being able to impose new taxes and make it impossible for us to respond to crisis, such as a war or economic catastrophe. Their should have been some provision to allow the amendment to be ignored, if there is an x% number of votes in congress or state of emergency. That bill was ultra conservative. But it didnt have to remain that way. The senate could have amended it and made it truly bi-partisan, but they didnt. Including some of the considerations from the gang of 6.NO ONE IS BLAMELESS. The democrats where being just as political and partisan. They all need to go! Both sides are bad, but Obama has really done a lot to come to the center of the whole matter. Even in the healthcare debate, the starting point was the middle. A great deal of the left wanted a public option, but what was put on the table was a series of reforms that included initial ideas from both parties. The far left wanted to get rid of the insurance companies altogether, but radicals like that should be ignored, and they were. When we started this debate with the national debt and raising the debt ceiling, it even started out completely on the right of the spectrum. You have these incredibly naive, radical Republicans in the house who rally that the debt ceiling shouldn't even be raised, because the ensuing chaos would somehow set us up in a better way. Like any political debate, these people should just be ignored since they will never be happy. However, some conceded that they would budge on the issue if we wrestled with the deficit, so Republican plans were put out that essentially gutted everything in the federal budget. Obama took the hint and initiated talks between the right and the left, starting the debate, once again, in the middle, where the deficit would be handled by a combination of revenue and reduction in spending. However, unlike the healthcare debate, the political idiots that everybody should ignore are not being ignored. The Republicans are using these morons as the basis for the compromise in the first place, that any raising of the debt ceiling is already a compromise. Now it's about to come and bite us all in the ass, and not because Obama didn't go to the middle, but because the middle isn't the middle when one side courts their extremists.
This post contains a lot of truth, many of our current woes are due to an unstable and maladjusted political spectrum, one in which the lines of debate and the identifications of left, right, and center have become terrible conflated with hot-button topics and populist nonsense. If only there were some way to better inform the average voter and create an environment in which healthy political perspectives were nurtured.
|
@aksfjh
You know Obama's speeches do put him as the center. But I ask you this, where is the plan? He has said we have run out of time, but he still has not put a plan to paper. He should have done this a long time ago, and if he couldn't come to a compromise then he should have taken the plan, whatever state its in and presented it to congress. Have them debate it and have it become public. No, what we have is a plan in a room, that should be on the floor of the Senate by now.
p.s. I fully agree that we the people need to become better educated.
|
Being Australian, I don't feel qualified to coment on the political situation. I believe people should STFU about the domestic politics of another country (except where there are violent dictatorships/genocides etc).
But I will say this about the US debt. There are two problems.
1.In the short term, the US needs to drastically cut spending and/or raise taxes. Probably some mixture of both is the best option. My 6 months of economics study at university makes me an expert (lol), and generally spending cuts hurt the economy more than tax hikes. The debt in the US is approaching 100% of GDP, and it will lose the confidence of the credit markets unless it reduces it's deficits soon. This will lead to higher interest rates, which will make the debt harder to pay back.
Unfortunately the US Government's finances were in bad shape before the recession, and the recession made it worse. It is too late to avoid painful spending cuts and tax increases because the time to reduce your defecits is when the economy is doing well, not when it is doing poorly. You need to be Keynesian in both good times and bad for it to work.
2. In the long term, the US needs to drastically change the way it does social security/welfare. As the population ages, the cost of old age pensions will go up, the cost of government healthcare costs will go up, and the number of people paying income taxes will go down (because retired people earn no money and so pay no taxes). Higher costs and lower revenue mean bigger deficits.
In order to keep the deficit at a reasonable level, they will need to reduce entitlements to retirees, and find some way of reducing costs of government healthcare programs. There will probably be some tax increases needed as well. Ironically, the debt crisis will probably be good for the long term budget problem, because there will be the political will to tackle the long term problems as part of solving the short term problems.
|
On July 24 2011 07:23 cfoy3 wrote:
@aksfjh
You know Obama's speeches do put him as the center. But I ask you this, where is the plan? He has said we have run out of time, but he still has not put a plan to paper. He should have done this a long time ago, and if he couldn't come to a compromise then he should have taken the plan, whatever state its in and presented it to congress. Have them debate it and have it become public. No, what we have is a plan in a room, that should be on the floor of the Senate by now.
p.s. I fully agree that we the people need to become better educated.
He's not a congressman, he doesn't have to write up a hardcore plan to enact into a bill. That being said, this is the part where he disappoints me. I support him as a great man and somebody who gives a great deal of consideration to both sides, but he doesn't use enough of his power and prowess to, not only lead the discussion, but to lead the charge as well. Do I think he should come up with a written bill every time he has a great idea? No, but he should bully Congress a LOT more than he does while distancing himself from their ridiculous arguments. He has vested too much into a representative system that historically acts like 20 5-year-olds deciding what game to play next in the pool.
|
On July 24 2011 07:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 07:23 cfoy3 wrote:
@aksfjh
You know Obama's speeches do put him as the center. But I ask you this, where is the plan? He has said we have run out of time, but he still has not put a plan to paper. He should have done this a long time ago, and if he couldn't come to a compromise then he should have taken the plan, whatever state its in and presented it to congress. Have them debate it and have it become public. No, what we have is a plan in a room, that should be on the floor of the Senate by now.
p.s. I fully agree that we the people need to become better educated. He's not a congressman, he doesn't have to write up a hardcore plan to enact into a bill. That being said, this is the part where he disappoints me. I support him as a great man and somebody who gives a great deal of consideration to both sides, but he doesn't use enough of his power and prowess to, not only lead the discussion, but to lead the charge as well. Do I think he should come up with a written bill every time he has a great idea? No, but he should bully Congress a LOT more than he does while distancing himself from their ridiculous arguments. He has vested too much into a representative system that historically acts like 20 5-year-olds deciding what game to play next in the pool.
While it may be somewhat selfishly motivated, I think that a great deal of restraint on Obama's part in regards to heralding the charge when it comes to correcting the political situation comes down to political maneuvering, both good and bad. I've heard rumors that Obama's camp is planning some big changes for the second term, and that for the time being getting re-elected is their main goal. While the idea of putting aside convictions in favor of politics doesn't sit well with me, I have hope that Obama's second term will be chock full of the right moves.
|
On July 24 2011 07:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 07:36 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2011 07:23 cfoy3 wrote:
@aksfjh
You know Obama's speeches do put him as the center. But I ask you this, where is the plan? He has said we have run out of time, but he still has not put a plan to paper. He should have done this a long time ago, and if he couldn't come to a compromise then he should have taken the plan, whatever state its in and presented it to congress. Have them debate it and have it become public. No, what we have is a plan in a room, that should be on the floor of the Senate by now.
p.s. I fully agree that we the people need to become better educated. He's not a congressman, he doesn't have to write up a hardcore plan to enact into a bill. That being said, this is the part where he disappoints me. I support him as a great man and somebody who gives a great deal of consideration to both sides, but he doesn't use enough of his power and prowess to, not only lead the discussion, but to lead the charge as well. Do I think he should come up with a written bill every time he has a great idea? No, but he should bully Congress a LOT more than he does while distancing himself from their ridiculous arguments. He has vested too much into a representative system that historically acts like 20 5-year-olds deciding what game to play next in the pool. While it may be somewhat selfishly motivated, I think that a great deal of restraint on Obama's part in regards to heralding the charge when it comes to correcting the political situation comes down to political maneuvering, both good and bad. I've heard rumors that Obama's camp is planning some big changes for the second term, and that for the time being getting re-elected is their main goal. While the idea of putting aside convictions in favor of politics doesn't sit well with me, I have hope that Obama's second term will be chock full of the right moves.
You know what they say about having hope as your strategy.....
|
@aksfjh
He better be writing up a hardcore bill, otherwise hes just wasted alot of time in negotiations. However, it should be done by now, agreement or not, and be before Congress.
|
Further in regards to the Healthcare, he should have dropped the parts focusing on death panels. They where an obvious sticking points. Further, the main issue with the bill is its lack of cost control mechanisms. That is true. He should have adapted the Republicans ideas about controlling the costs and be honest about the need to raise taxes to support it.
|
On July 24 2011 07:33 ControlMonkey wrote:
2. In the long term, the US needs to drastically change the way it does social security/welfare. As the population ages, the cost of old age pensions will go up, the cost of government healthcare costs will go up, and the number of people paying income taxes will go down (because retired people earn no money and so pay no taxes). Higher costs and lower revenue mean bigger deficits.
As more of a "matter of fact" and not so much for arguments sake, retired people still pay taxes on income. Any funds received from retirement programs are considered taxable income. There are special forms of retirement income which only gets taxed once (either when it's received as income then it enters the program, or when it is withdrawn at maturity level as retirement income), and sometimes it's taxed twice, both being entered and withdrawn. Even benefits from SS can be taxed as income if other income is high enough, or you're withdrawing enough.
|
I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, and I'm sure many of you have seen this before but here is a link to the real time U.S. National Debt Clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
It's the only thing I can help with since I do not know much about economics.
|
With a week until default (or credit downgrade in case of a "okay, mom, I'll raise the debt ceiling and worry about it later" piece), and with a lot of the TP contingent using this debate for explicit political gain, especially with House Republicans almost like toddlers in their staunch refusal to cooperate, Barack Obama should just declare the United States officially ungovernable and quit. I mean, Obama's been an awful negotiator, public speaker, and PR person throughout his presidency, with the obstinate, stubborn right-wing walking all over him, but morally he's been shining compared to an almost cult-like GOP leadership that I hope, so hope, has alienated everyone except the extreme right.
On July 24 2011 07:33 ControlMonkey wrote:
1.In the short term, the US needs to drastically cut spending and/or raise taxes. Probably some mixture of both is the best option. My 6 months of economics study at university makes me an expert (lol), and generally spending cuts hurt the economy more than tax hikes.
Well, duh. The problem is that the House Republicans refuses to endorse anything that so much as looks like a tax hike. Even 75-25 plans bandied about have been shot down outright. There's no doubt that everything the GOP has said about tax hikes hurting the economy and the way to create jobs again has been almost fantasized, like citation needed because everything you say flies in the face of economic theory. Even The Economist has called a spade a spade and the GOP fucking retarded.
I mean, it's not like Obama comes into negotiations bearing olive branches of compromise and the GOP tries to take his arm; he comes with his arm out and they're going for his vital organs.
Add to all this what seems like tragic misinformation among the bulk of the population - which leads to the idea that cutting Obamacare, NPR, and Social Security will somehow solve everything, that a proper plan can be achieved by cuts alone - and you have a political situation that, in any other country, would have led to credit downgrades long ago.
The United States is bricked.
|
When discussing US debt, it is important to compare it with historic levels as a percentage of GDP. As a percentage of GDP, the Net Public debt is around 60% of GDP(this is the debt that does not include money the government owes to itself from social security). Gross Debt is around 100%. Gross debt peaked during WW2 at around 120% of GDP, with around 100% net debt. In 1990, net debt was around 55%, and gross debt around 75%.
So basically:
1. We are not at a historic high in debt, though it is growing dramatically. Until the financial crisis of 2008, our debt as a fraction of GDP was fairly constant through the 21st century.
2. We are borrowing a lot more from social security then we used to.
It seems that things were not that dramatically broken before the recession hit, our debt was not increasing that much. Now that the economic recovery is slowly happening, I think it is important that we raise taxes on high income brackets, to levels that more closely match historic levels, but not to the point of choking out growth. There is not much we could feasibly cut.
In the long term, we really need to look reforming at the social security system, as it seems to be a failure on all counts.
|
@PerkyPenguin
Whats stopping you from learning? The average person cannot obviously make these kind of hardcore decisions, but that is what we elect representatives for. However, that does not mean that the average person shouldn't understand the basics behind our systems. Enough to be able to listen between competing ideas and come up with rational opinions.We need to fundamentally look critically at our government, at our representatives, then at ourselves and acknowledge that it was our fault that they got into office to begin with. We need to learn to become restrained in forming our opinion and be willing to listen to conflicting opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
