Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > AAA -> AA+

AAA -> AA+
Thread Tools
Ghoser777
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 08:44 PM
 
MSNBC

Okay... so this ultimately means what? Foreign investors are less likely to buy our debt because it's riskier? And oddly enough, I bet we don't get downgraded if the debt ceiling brew-ha-ha was handled (by both sides) slightly more professionally.

Any arm-chair financial comments?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 09:07 PM
 
Silver, bitchez.

[/zerohedge]

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 09:20 PM
 
I think I need to write Obama a letter about selling foreign countries my stool samples.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 09:37 PM
 
I think among all of Obama's other ideas, this one might actually work. Good job finding something that is less crappy. Oh, wait.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 10:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I think among all of Obama's other ideas, this one might actually work. Good job finding something that is less crappy. Oh, wait.

-t

Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a good thing too.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a good thing too.
Tell me: Why didn't Obama do it before Fall of 2010?

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Silver, bitchez.

[/zerohedge]

-t
Are you going from trolling to spamming?

Zer0hedge!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Tell me: Why didn't Obama do it before Fall of 2010?

-t

I don't know, cause he's a pussy?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't know, cause he's a pussy?
I'm serious. Why ?

Do you think Obama is/was a pussy ?

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't know, cause he's a pussy?
Obama is like the nerdy kid who gets pushed around in the playground by the Republican bullies.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Tell me: Why didn't Obama do it before Fall of 2010?

-t
Well, if he did it now, it would guarantee a Republican in the White House in '12. Bessy might be a closet 'publican.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2011, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I'm serious. Why ?

Do you think Obama is/was a pussy ?

-t

I think what Obama is trying to do is figure out the best way to come up with compromises that get legislation passed that, while not ideal, move the country in the right direction. I think he sees the alternative to this, passing legislation that is ideal to him, as impractical or impossible, and that something is better than nothing. This holds true with both the debt ceiling compromise as well as health care. I think he thinks that politicians can be shamed into doing what is practical, compromising a little, and being grown ups.

I don't know if this is a good strategy or not, but it is certainly evident that there are a sizable population of Republicans that will oppose anything Obama because they want to destroy his presidency. There is a sizable population of Democrats that want to push their agenda and disagree with Obama's tactics. It is certainly amusing that there are still those who go on about Obama being this far left crazy ass out there politician changing everything and making America look like something else while many of you simultaneously accuse him of being Bush jr/lite changing very little (hint: he can't be both). I think the latter has been more accurate, for the most part.

I keep on bringing up the Bush tax cuts because I'm wondering how many of you will acknowledge what is evident, and that is that there doesn't seem to be a great argument for them to be continued. Ebuddy brought up the idea that they provide economic stimulus, but has not yet provided evidence (or, to be fair, attempted to) that they have provided effective stimulus where the Obama stimulus plan didn't. You brought up the idea that we should not be focusing on the rich as a "solution" to our debt problems, and I pointed out that this is not a solution, but a little something that can help.

What I'm trying to see is how many of you will continue to oppose them because of rigid political dogma that is counter to anything practical, whether perhaps I have not considered something and you will actually come up with a solid reason for them to be continued, or whether some of you will actually acknowledge that yeah, we can't afford them, and that they haven't really helped create jobs or do what they were supposed to.

What I expect though is shuck and jive, deflection by talking about the Obama stimulus or anything else, downplaying this, some sort of analysis of me, distractions, deflections, or any other stock PWL technique.

If you want to make besson3c look like an ass, surprise him with something that renders his prediction false
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think he thinks that politicians can be shamed into doing what is practical, compromising a little, and being grown ups.
By various accounts I've read about since he's been in office, it seems as if he's just as irrational, stubborn and "childish" as the other side has been.

I keep on bringing up the Bush tax cuts because I'm wondering how many of you will acknowledge what is evident, and that is that there doesn't seem to be a great argument for them to be continued. Ebuddy brought up the idea that they provide economic stimulus, but has not yet provided evidence (or, to be fair, attempted to) that they have provided effective stimulus where the Obama stimulus plan didn't. You brought up the idea that we should not be focusing on the rich as a "solution" to our debt problems, and I pointed out that this is not a solution, but a little something that can help.
You haven't given any moral arguments to support the idea that the government should be allowed or encouraged to spend however many trillions it can rationalize as "necessary", and simply take more of peoples' money to cover their irresponsibility. I have also seen no evidence that simply cutting what is necessary to eliminate the deficit will harm anyone or the economy. Only speculation, rationalization or ideological ramblings.

What I'm trying to see is how many of you will continue to oppose them because of rigid political dogma that is counter to anything practical, whether perhaps I have not considered something and you will actually come up with a solid reason for them to be continued, or whether some of you will actually acknowledge that yeah, we can't afford them, and that they haven't really helped create jobs or do what they were supposed to.
On what basis do you assert that mere practicality is the standard by which we should evaluate these things? If one were to propose raising taxes on all people, poor and middle-class included, would that be a pure practical matter or would there be a moral aspect in your opinion?

At what point do you question the practicality of removing (by force) more of the money people earn and taking that money out of the economy, in order to cover the debts of the machinations of those who create nothing? Do you have any evidence that removing money from the economy and having that money distributed by bureaucrats is more economically viable than leaving it in the hands of the individuals who earned it?

What I expect though is shuck and jive, deflection by talking about the Obama stimulus or anything else, downplaying this, some sort of analysis of me, distractions, deflections, or any other stock PWL technique.
You are asking for a purely practical argument exclusive of all others, which I won't give you. There is a moral argument to be made. Politicians have no right to take whatever they feel they need from us and spend it however they like, in whatever amount they can rationalize. The money they finance the government with is money that belongs to us. They have a responsibility to limit their spending to that which is constitutional, and in amounts that are responsible.

Many of those who favor repealing the Bush tax cuts speak as if there is a magic number, higher than what we have now, that constitutes the proper amount of money the government has a right to claim and that the Bush tax cuts somehow violated that. I find this disgusting. It is also morally wrong to select ANY group, and target them to bear a greater share of the tax burden than others.

I won't repeat what many here, in economics, and the press have said, giving their reasons why increasing taxes during times of economic hardship is a bad idea, which you seem to deny without evidence of your own. I will say that from a practical standpoint, there is no evidence that government control of education and education spending is better than private education. There is no practical reason for the FCC to control the airwaves or the energy department to control energy production. There is no practical reason for the government to do with social security, medicare, medicaid etc. what private charity can do better, and on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis. There are a great many things that the government does without any practical justification. These things cost us trillions and those trillions are taken by force, out of the hands of the rightful owners and out of the economy.

You act as if you are standing on the solid rock of your own arguments being pelted with pea-shooters, but I have yet to see a solid argument from you at all. Only hollow, vague notions of practicality. Also, you evade or are ignorant of the fact that your pragmatic approach is a political philosophy based upon epistomological subjectivism, which is every bit as "politically dogmatic" as anything any of us have said.

If you want to make besson3c look like an ass…
Certainly not MY motivation.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 02:21 AM
 
FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession

So in a bad economy, raising taxes is harmful.

Now all of a sudden, -in what clearly must be a stellar economy- raising taxes is the greatest thing ever.

No wonder Dims pride themselves on being poor. When it comes to money, the left is completely braindead.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 02:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession

So in a bad economy, raising taxes is harmful.

Now all of a sudden, -in what clearly must be a stellar economy- raising taxes is the greatest thing ever.

No wonder Dims pride themselves on being poor. When it comes to money, the left is completely braindead.
Are we still in a recession? Has Pres. Obama raised income taxes?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
By various accounts I've read about since he's been in office, it seems as if he's just as irrational, stubborn and "childish" as the other side has been.
I don't expect everyone's narrative to be the same.

You haven't given any moral arguments to support the idea that the government should be allowed or encouraged to spend however many trillions it can rationalize as "necessary", and simply take more of peoples' money to cover their irresponsibility. I have also seen no evidence that simply cutting what is necessary to eliminate the deficit will harm anyone or the economy. Only speculation, rationalization or ideological ramblings.
I feel that moral arguments are completely irrelevant when we are trying to have a practical discussion, because with "morals" comes these rigid ideological beliefs that have been getting us all nowhere lately. I want to have a cold hard look at the Bush tax cuts without the moral baggage, if you don't mind.

As far as the rest of this, I think your argument is another straw man. Nobody is saying that the government should be encouraged to spend however many trillions it rationalizes as necessary. If you are coming at this from a moral vantage point since this is what led off your response, perhaps you are being a little emotional here?

On what basis do you assert that mere practicality is the standard by which we should evaluate these things? If one were to propose raising taxes on all people, poor and middle-class included, would that be a pure practical matter or would there be a moral aspect in your opinion?
I think that bringing morality into most politics is just an utter waste of time and energy. Politicians are not employed to be the moral police of anything, they are there to function as smart and competent experts studying the economy (yeah, I know, how naive of me , how it is regulated, the services it provides, etc. and implement stuff without letting their moral beliefs cloud their judgement, the same way we expect the supreme court to come up with fair and objective laws without letting their moral beliefs cloud stuff.

Why would any of us want our leaders to be the moral police of anything when they themselves are among the least moral in all of society?

At what point do you question the practicality of removing (by force) more of the money people earn and taking that money out of the economy, in order to cover the debts of the machinations of those who create nothing? Do you have any evidence that removing money from the economy and having that money distributed by bureaucrats is more economically viable than leaving it in the hands of the individuals who earned it?
I think this would fall into the distraction category.

Why do we have tax at all, if it makes no practical sense to spread wealth around? I know having said those two words I'm probably setting off 29038209384 knees and some are getting ready to click on quote to go into some tirade about socialism and blah blah blah (and yes, this might be a straw man statement), but this what non flat-tax is about. If you feel that we should have a flat tax, this is a whole other thing, but in the context of our current taxation system, yes, bureaucrats take more money from the wealthy, let's just set this straight, and yes, it is practical to do so within this system because this is in accordance to its design.

You are asking for a purely practical argument exclusive of all others, which I won't give you. There is a moral argument to be made. Politicians have no right to take whatever they feel they need from us and spend it however they like, in whatever amount they can rationalize. The money they finance the government with is money that belongs to us. They have a responsibility to limit their spending to that which is constitutional, and in amounts that are responsible.
And these sorts of moral arguments are exactly why we can't agree on anything, and why government has been so frustrating lately. Nothing is ever going to change if we allow ourselves to be bogged down by these debilitating pie-in-the-sky arguments about morality. I say pie-in-the-sky because many of them would require completely changing the systems we have in place, and we can't completely change anything because, lo and behold, morality is in the way again!

This is also frustrating though, because many of us want radical changes in various areas, including myself, but radical changes are impractical in this political climate. Energies are probably best spent working within the confines of the system we have when there is a possible actionable outcome, whereas the radical change avenue probably has the outcome of nothing.

It seems like radical change of any sort is pretty much impossible the way things are, and I don't know what the solution to change that would be.

I won't repeat what many here, in economics, and the press have said, giving their reasons why increasing taxes during times of economic hardship is a bad idea, which you seem to deny without evidence of your own.
Evidence of my own? A) history has proven that society can support the tax rates pre Bush without significant ill effects - the 90s were prosperous times, and B) putting back the tax brackets the way they were will help address our debt problem if you agree with "A".

What evidence exists that the tax cuts have been creating jobs, or that the rich were under some sort of duress prior to the Bush tax cuts, or that trickle down economics works, or anything else? Forget morality, just look at the numbers.

I will say that from a practical standpoint, there is no evidence that government control of education and education spending is better than private education.
It depends on whether the accessibility of education, the obvious benefit of public education, is deemed as valid criteria to you, right?

There is no practical reason for the FCC to control the airwaves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War...s_(radio_drama)

or the energy department to control energy production.
the alternative? The effects of the alternative?

There is no practical reason for the government to do with social security, medicare, medicaid etc. what private charity can do better, and on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis.
Do you really think private charity is in any place now to put a significant dent in the costs of running health care? No offense, but this is the definition of impractical.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 04:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I feel that moral arguments are completely irrelevant when we are trying to have a practical discussion, because with "morals" comes these rigid ideological beliefs that have been getting us all nowhere lately.
Like what? All I have seen lately has been completely amoral.

As far as the rest of this, I think your argument is another straw man. Nobody is saying that the government should be encouraged to spend however many trillions it rationalizes as necessary.
No, not explicitly. It is the defacto effect of approaching these matters from a pure pragmatic point of view, with no discussion or concern for whether what Washington is doing is right or wrong. It's no different than the bill proposing that internet providers gather and hold information about customers so that the government may at any time get that information without a warrant or court order. Would it help catch child molesters? Maybe maybe not, but there is a principle of rights that have to be addressed.

If you are coming at this from a moral vantage point since this is what led off your response, perhaps you are being a little emotional here?
Oh, I don't deny I may get emotional about issues like these, it's one of the reasons why I bother to respond to someone who is not receptive to my arguments. My opinions however, are not based upon my emotions.

I think that bringing morality into most politics is just an utter waste of time and energy. Politicians are not employed to be the moral police of anything, they are there to function as smart and competent experts studying the economy (yeah, I know, how naive of me , how it is regulated, the services it provides, etc. and implement stuff without letting their moral beliefs cloud their judgement, the same way we expect the supreme court to come up with fair and objective laws without letting their moral beliefs cloud stuff.
Without any discussion of what is moral, you are giving sanction, by default, for the government to do whatever they think that can justify or at least convince others of, in order to address these issues. Morality, not practicality, are the basis of rights and this is exactly the kind of thing our system of government, based upon rights, is supposed to address. The government does not, and should not just have the right to do whatever they want in order to attempt to solve the problems that they deem need to be solved.

Why would any of us want our leaders to be the moral police of anything when they themselves are among the least moral in all of society?
Not the moral police, that's not what I said or meant. Nothing I said implied that they should be policing morality. They shouldn't be passing legislation and budgets in an immoral manner. That is, without regard for the rights of those whom they are supposedly work for.

Why do we have tax at all, if it makes no practical sense to spread wealth around?
Taxes in general are a holdover from century upon century of authoritarian systems of government who either owned everything, or thought they had a right to take anything they want. They are merely the uninspired status-quo of financing the government. Taking what they want by force and declaring it their right to take, or our duty to give, is how it has always been done.

The redistribution of wealth you describe has never been shown to be practical. Ever. It is mainly done, whether expressed explicitly or not, for idealistic reasons. Namely, altruism and/or egalitarianism. Statists like to pick winners and losers.

And these sorts of moral arguments are exactly why we can't agree on anything, and why government has been so frustrating lately. Nothing is ever going to change if we allow ourselves to be bogged down by these debilitating pie-in-the-sky arguments about morality. I say pie-in-the-sky because many of them would require completely changing the systems we have in place, and we can't completely change anything because, lo and behold, morality is in the way again!
Yeah, that darn right vs. wrong thing does get in the way. If only we could have a country where the government operates without regard for what is right and wrong! Are you suggesting that you would like a government that ONLY operates from the perspective of practicality without regard for any moral issues at all?

This is also frustrating though, because many of us want radical changes in various areas, including myself, but radical changes are impractical in this political climate. Energies are probably best spent working within the confines of the system we have when there is a possible actionable outcome, whereas the radical change avenue probably has the outcome of nothing.

It seems like radical change of any sort is pretty much impossible the way things are, and I don't know what the solution to change that would be.
Radical change doesn't start with government. It ends there.

The government we have and how it operates is a reflection of the underlying philosophy of the culture. Events like the creation of this country or Nazi Germany don't happen in a vacuum and the don't happen in spite of the how the country sees things. They happen because of it.

In the USA we don't give a crap about things like philosophy. We are a miss-mash of contradictions that is prone to have the country be run by brainless peanut farmers, progressive religious nuts, and naive, idealistic young senators.

Evidence of my own? A) history has proven that society can support the tax rates pre Bush without significant ill effects - the 90s were prosperous times, and B) putting back the tax brackets the way they were will help address our debt problem if you agree with "A".
You are dropping context, like the dot com bubble inflated with the help of idiotic Fed policies and manipulations of the housing market during the '90s. (just to name a couple) Both of which harmed the economy later. The manipulation of the credit market by the Fed and government policy help to inflate the economy and can help counter the increases in taxes temporarily, too bad that this is helps create boom-and-bust cycles and crashes the economy. Not to mention the inflation that harms everyone.

There is also no way to prove whether the tax increases slowed overall growth or not, there are laws of cause and effect however, as well as historical evidence of the effects of the cuts that do take place. It is pretty silly and simplistic to mention that Clinton (or Reagan for that matter) raised taxes and had growth, and use that as proof that the argument is invalid.

What evidence exists that the tax cuts have been creating jobs, or that the rich were under some sort of duress prior to the Bush tax cuts, or that trickle down economics works, or anything else? Forget morality, just look at the numbers.
Maybe you should read some books on economics. I recommend Thomas Sowell or Von Mises. Economics is a science, but unfortunately it is a science that deals with an extremely large amount of variables including human behavior, and deals with an issue that is highly politicize-able.

It depends on whether the accessibility of education, the obvious benefit of public education, is deemed as valid criteria to you, right?
This wasn't a problem before the socialization of education. Under the nearly free capitalism of early America, literacy skyrocketed and anyone who wanted an education got one. Whether by paying for it with the jobs they now had, or by the many, many, many who volunteered their time to teach.

Um…huh?

the alternative? The effects of the alternative?
The alternative is the same as the others. Free markets, property rights and the rule of law to protect people from the real crooks.

Do you really think private charity is in any place now to put a significant dent in the costs of running health care? No offense, but this is the definition of impractical.
You leave out the fact that one of the reasons health care is so expensive is because of the government programs and policies that drive the prices up.

Charities were sufficient at the time medicare was created. Of course, the governments infiltration into the industry destroyed charities, so now there certainly aren't as many options as there were. Of course this quote from the Medicare signing is quite telling:
Originally Posted by LBJ
Not one of these, our citizens, should ever be abandoned to the indignity of charity. Charity is indignity when you have to have it. But we don't want these people to have anything to do with charity and we don't want them to have any idea of hopeless despair.
As if the voluntary system is less dignified than the coercive one!
( Last edited by smacintush; Aug 6, 2011 at 06:34 AM. Reason: additions and clarifications)
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
No wonder Dims pride themselves on being poor. When it comes to money, the left is completely braindead.
There's a saying over here about our lefties (Labour): Empty heads vote them in, empty pockets vote them out.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 10:20 AM
 
^^^ Tis true. But I don't think the heads of the avg. Republican is that much less empty.
The majority of both party's followers are believing a lie, and not willing to face reality.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I keep on bringing up the Bush tax cuts because I'm wondering how many of you will acknowledge what is evident, and that is that there doesn't seem to be a great argument for them to be continued. Ebuddy brought up the idea that they provide economic stimulus, but has not yet provided evidence (or, to be fair, attempted to) that they have provided effective stimulus where the Obama stimulus plan didn't. You brought up the idea that we should not be focusing on the rich as a "solution" to our debt problems, and I pointed out that this is not a solution, but a little something that can help.
The left and right will never agree on what effect taxes have on the economy.

The leftist simpletons think it has none. The rightist simpletons believe it's the greatest stimulus ever. Both is probably wrong.

I'm NOT against abolishing the Bush tax cuts, but IF they get abolished, they need to result in TRUE spending cuts, and not any of this backloaded nonsense.

I'd say, abolish the Bush tax cuts, and reduce spending in 2012 for double that amount. I could live with that.

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
^^^ Tis true. But I don't think the heads of the avg. Republican is that much less empty.
The majority of both party's followers are believing a lie, and not willing to face reality.

-t
^^^ 'tis true.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I'd say, abolish the Bush tax cuts, and reduce spending in 2012 for double that amount. I could live with that.
-t
I'd say, abolish the Bush tax cuts and take every penny earned from whatever "increase" in revenue is generated and apply that directly to the debt; no new programs, no more Keynesian failures, zilch. If in 2 years you do not see an appreciable increase in revenues from ending Bush's tax cuts, trigger the cuts back into play with aggressive pro-growth cuts in the Corporate tax and capital gains rates and apply that difference in revenue directly to the debt. Do this through your average 10-year outlooks with at least $6 trillion in real cuts (as opposed to projected cuts from surge-level spending on wars that we've not been surging while ending the fruitless new wars Obama decides to start) and I'll feel a little better about the stewardship of my hard-earned dollars.

As it stands now, my daughter is standing at the doorway with both arms full of wares she just bought as Saks Fifth Avenue asking for another $10k to help pay her car off. No sweetie, you're not spending money wisely and you'll get no more from me. It's really quite simple.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 12:32 PM
 
Now we're getting somewhere!

I'm surprised that there are two known Republicans in here that are for abolishing the tax cuts. I thought it was some sort of religion to not increase taxes no matter what.

Maybe that is just the religion of numerous elected Republicans?


So Turtle, why is it that you (I think it was you, it might have been somebody else) were ranting about the Democrats being obstructionists with this whole debt ceiling debate thing when the main obstacle seemed to be the Bush tax cuts? If you are okay with them being abolished, wouldn't it have been better for the Republicans to concede this so that the two parties could spend their time focusing on more spell to cut rather than the game of chicken over the tax cuts/revenues that played out? More revenue = more spending cut opportunities = a greater bite taken out of the debt, right?

*That's* why many label the Republican party as obstructionist, they will not concede ground on fairly reasonable, not to mention productive ideas. Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to put you in the shoes of others briefly...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'd say, abolish the Bush tax cuts and take every penny earned from whatever "increase" in revenue is generated and apply that directly to the debt; no new programs, no more Keynesian failures, zilch. If in 2 years you do not see an appreciable increase in revenues from ending Bush's tax cuts, trigger the cuts back into play with aggressive pro-growth cuts in the Corporate tax and capital gains rates and apply that difference in revenue directly to the debt. Do this through your average 10-year outlooks with at least $6 trillion in real cuts (as opposed to projected cuts from surge-level spending on wars that we've not been surging while ending the fruitless new wars Obama decides to start) and I'll feel a little better about the stewardship of my hard-earned dollars.

As it stands now, my daughter is standing at the doorway with both arms full of wares she just bought as Saks Fifth Avenue asking for another $10k to help pay her car off. No sweetie, you're not spending money wisely and you'll get no more from me. It's really quite simple.

If you are for abolishing the Bush tax cuts, why were you arguing against this in the other thread? Should I ignore the charts you posted which I haven't gone over yet?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 12:37 PM
 
Well China is now done being silent and being pretty critical of the US China scolds U.S. 'addiction to debts' - Business - CBC News

"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," Xinhua said.

It said the rating cut would be followed by more "devastating credit rating cuts" and global financial turbulence if the U.S. fails to learn to "live within its means."
Xinhua also suggested a new global reserve currency might be necessary to replace the dollar, a position China has frequently advocated.

"Mounting debts and ridiculous political wrestling in Washington have damaged America's image abroad," Xinhua said. "To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
The dean of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School for Public Policy said the last-minute agreement by the U.S. Congress to lift the debt limit and avoid default has policymakers in Asia questioning the stability of U.S. global leadership.

"It's definitely undermined U.S. credibility," Mahbubani said late Friday. "Everyone is wondering if you have such a dysfunctional political process, how can you provide global leadership. It's very dangerous for the world."
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 01:01 PM
 
Xinhua said. "To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."
Them's pretty strong words for a country which still takes millions in development aid from both the US and UK. Hypocritical cretins.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
^^^ Tis true. But I don't think the heads of the avg. Republican is that much less empty.
The majority of both party's followers are believing a lie, and not willing to face reality.

-t

This is my feeling as well. There's too much koolaid being drunk.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Well China is now done being silent and being pretty critical of the US China scolds U.S. 'addiction to debts' - Business - CBC News
The West (not just the US) seems like the person mired in debt, but borrowing more to get the latest bigs screen tv, larger truck, RV, etc ... appearing wealthy only because they've bought everything on loan.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 02:06 PM
 
Its the banking system, they love it. Its how they make all the money. Service Fees, more fees, interest.... The banking system is one massive scam.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 02:28 PM
 
Nitpicking point: No president can, on his own, "repeal" anything in federal statutes. It has to be done by having both houses pass a bill that undoes what some previous act did. President Obama has never had enough clout to push anything even slightly controversial through both houses (maybe even not through either house), and the Bush tax cuts are hardly "slightly" controversial in a partisan political sense.

The Bush tax cuts didn't get repealed because the Republicans in both houses wouldn't stand for it. Their concept is that if it "adds to the tax burden" for anyone it will slow down the economy. Somehow I don't see having these cuts in place actually helping the economy in any way, since they've had several years to work and there is no evidence that they are doing anything. There are also some pork barrel tax breaks that NEED to go; corporate jet ownership deductions and yacht sales and depreciation to name a few.

But tax revenue is a major problem for both sides because our tax revenue system is broken. Instead of keeping it at a single task, specifically that of collecting taxes to produce revenue for the Treasury, it's a mishmash of revenue, incentives, entitlements, and other special projects that have nothing to do with putting cash in the Treasury's coffers.

What I think the rating downgrade will mean, at least in the short term, is that some interest rates are going to go up. Maybe not rates on consumer debt, but definitely on commercial debt. Large companies will have a much harder time affording capital acquisition for funding improvements and expansions, and that will mean less expansion, less new job creation, and poorer economic performance for the nation as a whole. Way to go guys! By acting like a bunch of 5th grade brats, Congress has managed to do the very thing that BOTH parties said they were trying to avoid by their debt ceiling arguments: bork the economy even more. Lovely, folks, just plain lovely. (Sorry if I just broke anyone's sarcasm meters there, but sometimes that's the best way to say something very bad has happened.)

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Them's pretty strong words for a country which still takes millions in development aid from both the US and UK. Hypocritical cretins.
Why are we giving money to China? They seem to be pretty minted these days? Ridiculous. There is a spending cut no-one will argue with.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Tell me: Why didn't Obama do it before Fall of 2010?
He can't.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Why are we giving money to China? They seem to be pretty minted these days? Ridiculous.
Exactly. I can't work out why we're giving it to Pakistan and India either - they seem to be able to afford nukes?

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
There is a spending cut no-one will argue with.
Well, nobody except Camoron and his little club.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 06:53 PM
 
So the U.S. credit rating got lowered by the same group of people who rated junk as AAA?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Now we're getting somewhere!

I'm surprised that there are two known Republicans in here that are for abolishing the tax cuts. I thought it was some sort of religion to not increase taxes no matter what.
Not so fast.

In the spirit of "compromise", I would agree to abolish them long enough to establish they had no appreciable, negative impact on revenue in order to trigger the aggressive tax cuts I suggested. I'd at least feel better about their stewardship of my money if they abolished the Bush tax cuts with the intent of spending every penny of the alleged increase in revenue on the debt, but you see... no one advocating their abolishment has made any commitment whatsoever to dedicate this increase in revenue to the debt. Why? Because the whole argument is a ruse founded on opposing their caricature of wealth.

Is this already too deep in the weeds for you?

ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
So the U.S. credit rating got lowered by the same group of people who rated junk as AAA?
Pretty much.
ebuddy
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 07:46 PM
 
If there's one good thing that came out of this whole debt limit mess, it's that we're all painfully aware of how big the debt is currently, and how bad it would be down the road if we don't make a commitment to make it smaller. It got folks in Washington coming up with competing debt reduction plans, after all. (Need I remind you that we would have had a $4T plan if the Tea Party wasn't allergic to tax increases?)

Debt Reduction is the safe choice now for a politician to make. When (not if!) the Bush tax cuts expire, I don't see anyone coming up with a credible plan to take that new income and spend it elsewhere: it will go to debt reduction, because that's the easiest choice to justify.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
So the U.S. credit rating got lowered by the same group of people who rated junk as AAA?
Yes.

Moody’s, S&P Caved In to Ratings Pressure From Goldman, UBS Over Mortgages - Bloomberg


2001 Bush tax cuts weren't working.
Bush tried to push for a housing boom in 2003, by demanding freddie mac and fannie mae to make $440 billion in loans to poor minorities.
Housing market started to pick up in 2004.
Financial companies and banks got into the game. Start lending like mad, whether or not the borrowing can afford it.
S&P and Moody caved to pressures from Goldman Sachs, AIG, and the big banks to maintain the AAA rating.
The housing bubble burst and sh*t hit the fan in 2008.

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble - The New York Times
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So Turtle, why is it that you (I think it was you, it might have been somebody else) were ranting about the Democrats being obstructionists with this whole debt ceiling debate thing when the main obstacle seemed to be the Bush tax cuts? If you are okay with them being abolished, wouldn't it have been better for the Republicans to concede this so that the two parties could spend their time focusing on more spell to cut rather than the game of chicken over the tax cuts/revenues that played out? More revenue = more spending cut opportunities = a greater bite taken out of the debt, right?

*That's* why many label the Republican party as obstructionist, they will not concede ground on fairly reasonable, not to mention productive ideas. Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to put you in the shoes of others briefly...
No, you don't understand the dynamics of the game.

The Dems wanted tax increases *INSTEAD* of spending cuts.
The Republicans rightfully resisted.

The problem with offering *any* tax cuts at that point was that the Democrats would have never agreed on true cuts. (Well, it's not like we got true cuts in the end - it's all backloaded crap anyways).

I would still agree to tax cut cuts, as long as they are at least matched 200% with spending cuts. We need to get into BIG cut numbers to have any snowballs chance in hell to get out of this debt mess alive.

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 10:57 PM
 
Just add a 5% VAT to all purchases nation wide, that should clear the debt quickly. Just make it so all collected money from this VAT goes directly to debt not general revenues.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Just add a 5% VAT to all purchases nation wide, that should clear the debt quickly. Just make it so all collected money from this VAT goes directly to debt not general revenues.
Your math does not pan out.

Our debt is close to 100% GDP.

Even if you assessed 5% on EVERY transaction (basically assuming that every $1 of GDP is taxed), you'd still end up needing more than 20 years to pay down the current debt.

Heck, the 5% would not even cover the current spending deficit, with is more than 11% of GDP.

Really, 5% would do nothing. It's THAT bad in the US.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not so fast.

In the spirit of "compromise", I would agree to abolish them long enough to establish they had no appreciable, negative impact on revenue in order to trigger the aggressive tax cuts I suggested. I'd at least feel better about their stewardship of my money if they abolished the Bush tax cuts with the intent of spending every penny of the alleged increase in revenue on the debt, but you see... no one advocating their abolishment has made any commitment whatsoever to dedicate this increase in revenue to the debt. Why? Because the whole argument is a ruse founded on opposing their caricature of wealth.

Is this already too deep in the weeds for you?


I would be favor in using the additional revenue to cut spending further too, that would kind of the be the point of doing it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the whole weeds thing, I'm not a fan of weeds, they are stupid, but I'll take this as an acknowledgement of at least the lack of any concrete evidence of the Bush tax cuts doing any good, and will offer you my kudos in going against the revenue-is-out-of-discussion religion observed by many on the right.

I tip my hat to you.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
No, you don't understand the dynamics of the game.

The Dems wanted tax increases *INSTEAD* of spending cuts.
The Republicans rightfully resisted.

The problem with offering *any* tax cuts at that point was that the Democrats would have never agreed on true cuts. (Well, it's not like we got true cuts in the end - it's all backloaded spell anyways).

I would still agree to tax cut cuts, as long as they are at least matched 200% with spending cuts. We need to get into BIG cut numbers to have any snowballs chance in hell to get out of this debt mess alive.

-t

I honestly don't know what to numbers to believe, maybe by design, but I had not read anything about the Democrats not also being interested in coming up with spending cuts. In fact, I thought I remember reading a proposed package being larger than the Republican package. What is your basis for this claim?

Also, I don't like saying "Republican package".
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I honestly don't know what to numbers to believe, maybe by design, but I had not read anything about the Democrats not also being interested in coming up with spending cuts. In fact, I thought I remember reading a proposed package being larger than the Republican package. What is your basis for this claim?.
The Dem's cuts weren't real. They were cutting things that were not even included in the current Budget, which already runs at $1.7T deficit.

It's like you maxing out your credit card, but then telling your wife your way to fix this is by not doing that future trip to Mars.

-t
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:27 PM
 
[currently checking the housing market in Switzerland]

It's not that bad, I found a beautiful villa off Lake Geneva for €4.8M.

I guess I'll have to learn German and more French. Einer für alle, alle für einen!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The Dem's cuts weren't real. They were cutting things that were not even included in the current Budget, which already runs at $1.7T deficit.

It's like you maxing out your credit card, but then telling your wife your way to fix this is by not doing that future trip to Mars.

-t

<Johnny 5>
Need more input! Inpputtt!!!
</Johnny 5>
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
[currently checking the housing market in Switzerland]

It's not that bad, I found a beautiful villa off Lake Geneva for €4.8M.

I guess I'll have to learn German and more French. Einer für alle, alle für einen!

I don't know if I speak for anybody else as well, but your constant instance on trying to demonstrate or make it known that you are wealthy comes across as really insecure. Here on MacNN we are all anonymous dudes, anybody can say that they make whatever income they choose, and very few probably care anyway.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
<Johnny 5>
Need more input! Inpputtt!!!
</Johnny 5>
Translation: I don't want to believe it.

(I posted a link before)

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Translation: I don't want to believe it.

(I posted a link before)

-t

Translation: I missed your link. There are a lot of links posted here, ya know, and there are multiple threads going on about this stuff.

Was that when somebody else here disputed your claim that including pulling out from war in these figures is unfair?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 12:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't know if I speak for anybody else as well, but your constant instance on trying to demonstrate or make it known that you are wealthy comes across as really insecure. Here on MacNN we are all anonymous dudes, anybody can say that they make whatever income they choose, and very few probably care anyway.
I'm commenting on how much I want out of the USA, not my net worth. I am, along with millions of others, considering bailing on this sinking tub of a country and moving elsewhere. It will, at least to a moderate degree, help me and my family avoid the economic backlash of when the USA finally flushes itself down the shitter. If you don't care, then I kindly invite you to STFU and ignore my posts.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,