You do realize that if the government didn't spend it, it would still be part of GDP since it would be spent by the private sector?
Are you joking? The private sector doesn't have the ability to rack up unlimited amounts of debt which is where the government's spending comes from.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
If there was no deficit spending which has only happened like twice in the history of the United States, in 2011 the federal budget would have been $2.3 trillion and GDP would be about $13.7 trillion. Federal spending would then only be 16.8% of GDP. This is still down from the historical average of 18.1%. That additional 1.3% would equate to $178 billion dollars which is about 16% of our current deficit. So to say that there is not a revenue problem is not true. Unless you think that 16% is insignificant?
- Republicans should go over, raise tax on the middle class and just care about the country's growth. GDP doesn't matter. Also Keynsan economics is an ugly myth. Again, growth of our economy is all that matters. Everythin else will kinda sort itself out.
At the rate the negotiations are going it's looking like John Boehner, FOX News, and the Republican Tea Party are more than willing to go over the Fiscal Cliff because they care more about destroying President Obama than putting the American people first over politics. It's not about Obama or the Democrats, it's about the American people and boosting our Economy. Apparently Boehner is ignoring the American public on the Fiscal Cliff because he doesn't want to lose his job as House Speaker and get chewed up by Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul. If the GOP wants to plunge the U.S. into a 2nd Great Recession then they will take the blame regardless. They did this back in 2007-2008 when the 1st Great Recession started, let's not repeat that again.
The Republicans don't want to agree with anything the Democrats and the President has to offer because it's "not enough" for a long-term deal to them. If the Democrats want to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for Middle-Class Americans like Joe Biden stated in one of his editorials then pass it through Congress, oh that's right we still have a broken Filibuster where anything the Senate tries to pass into law gets filibustered by the House which are 95% dominated by middle-aged White Men. I just don't understand why the GOP is holding the country hostage again to get what they want when it didn't work the last time during the Debt Ceiling Crisis of 2011. Why can't they accept reality for what it is and become more mainstream like most Democrats are?
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
No, the end game is a dollar collapse when the rest of the world is done being jerked around. There is already talk of establishing a new reserve currency, when that happens all those dollars are going to come home to roost and we will see unprecedented price rises.
I hope you're not reffering to what Russia wants as a new reserve currency being a one world currency where it would freak out conspiracy theorists into thinking that the New World Order is nigh. I've overheard on the news that the U.S. is on it's way of reaching the Gold Standard by 2014 or 2015.
You do realize that if the government didn't spend it, it would still be part of GDP since it would be spent by the private sector?
Are you joking? The private sector doesn't have the ability to rack up unlimited amounts of debt which is where the government's spending comes from.
Corporations are private chartered governments, and as such they limit liability and allow people to use collectivization to hide shady practices. Especially in the case of an "owner" versus the more classical idea of an owner is one of risk. Under limited liabilities the "owner" can't have their assets seized, and for larger companies that begin to approach that of more of a caretaker roll the company can go under and have it's credit ruined without putting the caretakers at risk.
Furthermore, on the money issue if we consider equilibrium that corporations are right now running a profits and households and government are running a deficit makes for a weaker economy. Altogether, if there's a weak household with debt and consumerism that drives people having more debt and changing spending habits over the past few decades has been a problem.
Now, this isn't to say that there was some "golden age of consumer credit" as there wasn't even Wanamaker, who only gave credit to wealthy clients, had problems with collections.
I feel the issue is inherent to the consumer credit bubble that was encouraged by business, and has been so in the past. Payment plans for equity isn't necessarily a bad idea such as the classical point with the Singer Sewing machine since that actually created capital and encouraged domestic production rather than domestic consumption.
Thus far, however, your brand of economics looks at specifically the government as the root of all villainy, however it is the corporations and their caretakers that indeed press upon and prey upon those with a lack of financial education and endanger the welfare of their own corporations.
There's also a lot of different shenanigans such as shell companies to hide assets, debt, and ect. that exists. It's more of a human depravity problem, than a "government is stealing our money" problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Your blantly wrong statements:
The House does not filibuster the Senate. Senators filibuster the Senate.
The Senate is 83% male, 17% female.
The House is also nearly 83% male, 17% female. 82% of Represenatives are white.
The House and the Senate were both Democrat control in 2006. The Democrats maintained control until 2010. Thus the "great recession" of 2008 was two years after Democrats obtained control of the Congress.
In 2012 campaign speeches, President Obama had requested $800B in new revenue. Rep Boehner has provided his support to generate this new revenue. Since the election, President Obama has now upped his requirement to $1,600B in new revenue. This increase is being opposed.
The US Constitution requires Congress to control the money. President Obama has demanded that he be granted this control as part of the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations. This move is being opposed by Republicans.
President Obama has introduced massive tax increases already for 2013 via the affordable health care act (aka Obamacare).
At this point, President Obama has put forth no meaningful cuts in spending. Further, the Fed Reserve Chairman today announced that no taxes should go up and no spending being cut in the immedate years as part of the fiscal cliff negotations. In other words, raise taxes in 3 years and make cuts in 3 years when he doesn't have to deal with it.
Even if President Obama obtained $1,600B (all these numbers are over 10 years) in new tax revenue, we still will overspend by $1,000B next year.
The deficit next year is projected at $600B if we go over the "fiscal cliff" and $1,000B if we get a "deal". A recession will occurr. But the recovery will be that unemployment will be 5.7% by end of 2017..
Consider the COB forecast for doing it Obama's way: What Is the Budget and Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2022 If Many Current Policies Are Continued (As in CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario)?
Under the alternative fiscal scenario, deficits over the 2014–2022 period would be much higher than those projected in CBO’s baseline, averaging about 5 percent of GDP rather than 1 percent. Revenues would remain below 19 percent of GDP throughout that period, and outlays would rise to more than 24 percent. Debt held by the public would climb to 90 percent of GDP by 2022—higher than at any time since shortly after World War II.
Real GDP would be higher in the first few years of the projection period than in CBO’s baseline economic forecast, and the unemployment rate would be lower. However, the persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt would hinder national saving and investment, thus reducing GDP and income relative to the levels that would occur with smaller deficits. In the later part of the projection period, the economy would grow more slowly than in CBO’s baseline, and interest rates would be higher. Ultimately, the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective.
Well ColonelCoo thanks for correcting me on that last post I made, although I wasn't trying to be rude about what I said earlier it's just that I'm fed up with the usual "Kick the can down the road" politics between both parties in Congress. As for what I posted earlier in response to Undisputed yeah I did go off the deep-end a bit (again yeah I know it's a terrible habit that I need to break out of).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
We might as well go off the cliff. It will be the only thing that would get us closer to where we need to be. Any compromise will leave taxes too low IMO. It will also leave military spending too high.
As per going into a double dip of the recession oh well. It happens. As long as we push through it and learn from our mistakes we will come back out on top.I understand how tough times are as I have struggled myself, but imo we are just delaying the inevitable by trying to stimulate the economy by various means.
Basic economics state there will be good times and bad times. We are going through a transitional period as far as how we make our money. As long as we come on top with the next big thing we will be fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Little fun fact as to why the Democrats don't seem to be budging at all.
If we go over the fiscal cliff what will happen?
1) Taxes go up on everyone including the rich.
-how does that help democrats and hurt Republicans?
-Democrats can put forth bill after bill after bill to lower taxes on middle and lower class familes and can laugh as the republicans knock it down and drive nails into their coffen for the next congressional election. So then they get the majority or the republicans cave and they get the tax cuts they want on the middle class with the tax increases on the upper class.
2) Many of the major cuts happen to Military spending
-How does this help democrats?
-They want to have military spending cuts. The majority of the automatic cuts are in the defense budget without harming many of the major social programs.
Why won't democrats take republican deals? Because even though the republicans have showcased a "compromise" in reality it swings so far right that it missed Rush limbagh's d*ck by cetemeters.
So actually going off the fiscal cliff works out much better for the democrats than accepting the current deal proposed by Republicans. At least from their perspective. they also get the added bonus that some odd 80% of Americans will blame Republicans for the crisis rather than Democrats. So not only do they get a better deal than what republicans are showcasing but they also get a good foothold in the American vote for the next few elections.
Little fun fact as to why the Democrats don't seem to be budging at all.
If we go over the fiscal cliff what will happen?
1) Taxes go up on everyone including the rich.
-how does that help democrats and hurt Republicans?
-Democrats can put forth bill after bill after bill to lower taxes on middle and lower class familes and can laugh as the republicans knock it down and drive nails into their coffen for the next congressional election. So then they get the majority or the republicans cave and they get the tax cuts they want on the middle class with the tax increases on the upper class.
2) Many of the major cuts happen to Military spending
-How does this help democrats?
-They want to have military spending cuts. The majority of the automatic cuts are in the defense budget without harming many of the major social programs.
Why won't democrats take republican deals? Because even though the republicans have showcased a "compromise" in reality it swings so far right that it missed Rush limbagh's d*ck by cetemeters.
So actually going off the fiscal cliff works out much better for the democrats than accepting the current deal proposed by Republicans. At least from their perspective. they also get the added bonus that some odd 80% of Americans will blame Republicans for the crisis rather than Democrats. So not only do they get a better deal than what republicans are showcasing but they also get a good foothold in the American vote for the next few elections.
See this is sort of how I see things panning out as well, When you have all the aces, if your opponent want's you to "yeild" you need to swing closer to THEIR perspective then your own otherwise they will play the trump and win. Why don't governments compromise, its like they all need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share/get along.
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
it calls for 1 trillion dollars in new revenue and 1 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years.
once again the president has called for a veto showing that he is not interested in any type of compromise.
he is a child stamping his feet going give me what i want, and if you don't i am just going to whine and cry about it.
the president also called for the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval not that it would even make it through the house or the senate.
obama is in fact the worst president and i would even rank carter above him.
Democrats can put forth bill after bill after bill to lower taxes on middle and lower class familes and can laugh as the republicans knock it down and drive nails into their coffen for the next congressional election.
The only reason that they would knock down the bill is that it has billions of dollars of new spending just like obama's current bill.
it contains 60b dollars of new spending.
i thought we were trying to lower the debt not increase it?
They want to have military spending cuts. The majority of the automatic cuts are in the defense budget without harming many of the major social programs.
Yet social programs are the things that are causing most of the issue. sure you can trim the military budget but that isn't the cause of mos of the debt.
between SS, medicare, medicaid we spend over 1 trillion dollars. it is more than 50% of the tax revenue's that the US brings in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Even if Obama did go along with "Plan B", it wouldn't actually solve the fundamental problems that ail our government. The deficits would still be enormous, the spending would still be out of control, and our long-term solvency would continue to be undermined. If a deal is passed before the deadline, it will almost guaranteed to be something that kicks the can down the road, which is lunacy when you think about it. The whole reason why we have this "fiscal cliff" is because we kicked the can down the road in the first place!
In all honesty, I am getting sick of hearing about this "fiscal cliff". It baffles me how nobody on the news is talking about how the Federal Reserve is printing $85 billion a month, keeping interest rates artificially low, and monetizing a ridiculous amount of debt with four rounds of QE. That is what is making our economy sick and unable to recover. The REAL fiscal cliff is going to come when we have a dollar collapse and a sovereign debt crisis that cannot be answered by kicking the can down the road.
", it wouldn't actually solve the fundamental problems that ail our government.
It wasn't suppose to but it is a plan that makes a 2 trillion dollar change in government over 10 years. that means as long as spending doesn't increase and they follow the plan in 10 years we will have a 500b dollar surplus.
the next step is a balanced budget amendment.
The next is a reformation on the tax code.
Next is a reformation on social programs
you can't do it all at one time you have to do it in pieces.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Democrats can put forth bill after bill after bill to lower taxes on middle and lower class familes and can laugh as the republicans knock it down and drive nails into their coffen for the next congressional election.
The only reason that they would knock down the bill is that it has billions of dollars of new spending just like obama's current bill.
it contains 60b dollars of new spending.
i thought we were trying to lower the debt not increase it?
Doesn't really matter honestly. All the public will see is that the republicans are the only thigns standing in the way of thier tax cuts. In a way they are absolutly right. Its a brilliant political move on the democrats part. Also the **** storm will reflect badly on Obama himself but his political career is over. He won't run for office ever again and has a pension for the rest of his life. If he has to take some heat for the good of the party I am assuming he will.
I don't necessarily agree with it. I will openly say I do not agree with this course of action but its exactly whats happening. I am rather pissed at congress in general. Both parties.
They want to have military spending cuts. The majority of the automatic cuts are in the defense budget without harming many of the major social programs.
Yet social programs are the things that are causing most of the issue. sure you can trim the military budget but that isn't the cause of mos of the debt.
between SS, medicare, medicaid we spend over 1 trillion dollars. it is more than 50% of the tax revenue's that the US brings in.
I'd like a citation for that please. I just want the exact numbers. Not that you are wrong but I'd like to look at them.
though an alternative view would be that the real problem isn't the social programs themselves but the fact that we NEED these social programs. Perhapse we can take a look into that issue rather than simply gut the programs.
It wasn't suppose to but it is a plan that makes a 2 trillion dollar change in government over 10 years. that means as long as spending doesn't increase and they follow the plan in 10 years we will have a 500b dollar surplus.
The problem is the assumption that the next 10 years are going to be static, and that nothing is going to change. For example, what if interest rates go up? The Federal Reserve has been keeping interest rates artificially low for a long time and there will come a time when they are forced to go up. That will cause our government to pay a significant chunk of the national debt just on the interest alone, making Plan B impossible to balance a budget in 10 years. There are other things to think about that can easily change in 10 years and drastically affect Plan B, such as:
What if unemployment increases (or more people leave the labor force)?
What if inflation starts to get out of control due to the Fed printing money into oblivion?
What if our economy continues to stagnate and is reflected with a miniscule increase in GDP?
This is the problem with balancing a budget in a multi-year span. There are just too many variables that can change over the course of several years and make Plan B nothing more than a fantasy. If the budget is to be balanced, then then budget needs to be balanced immediately. After all, when Gary Johnson ran for president he proposed a budget that would be balanced immediately when he ran for president, cutting about $1.4 trillion in federal spending. Compare that to any of the budgets that Democrats and Republicans have proposed and the difference is night and day.
the next step is a balanced budget amendment.
The next is a reformation on the tax code.
Next is a reformation on social programs
you can't do it all at one time you have to do it in pieces.
Sure you can. The problem is that Democrats and Republicans don't have the balls to do everything at once. That's what happens when the two parties are more or less carbon copies of each other.
First, if you're going to capitalize Democrats then capitalize Republicans. It's an old trick that Whites used against blacks to demean Blacks.
I don't think I need to resort to not capitalizing a word to demean republicans, there is plenty of fodder to already do that.
Second, do you think that calling for a Stimulus Package (I.e. more spending) is a spending cut?
If I cut spending by $100 billion in one area but increase it by $50 billion in another, yes, that is a spending cut.
Third, why did Obama propose letting the tax rates expire back in 2011? But now he wants only taxes on the highest earners to go up, not just let the tax code revert to Clinton era rates?
Because that is what the American people want.
Fourth, when you have an annual deficit of $1,300 Billion dollars and are asking for $80 B more in spending while only taking in $120 Billion in taxes, are you solving the problem?
Seems to me that we would be reducing the deficit by $40 billion. Also, if republicans want to claim that tax cuts are revenue neutral because they increase GDP growth, then Democrats should be allowed to claim that infrastructure spending is revenue neutral since it also increases GDP.
Fifth, taxes are going up already on those making $250,00 via paying more in Medicare tax. Nearly 1% of thier income more as a matter of fact.
No, 1% of their income made over $250,000 after deductions, so it is actually less than 1%.
Sixth, Obamacare will levy excise taxes on medical devices. (+2.3%)
So?
Seventh, Obamacare will levy new taxes on the sale of homes. (+3.8%)
Eigth, Obamacare will levy new taxes on capital gains. (+3.8%)
Good.
At what point will you realize that more taxes are already coming in 2013. That these alone are harmful to the economy. Now you may want to tax high income earners ($250,000?) more to pay for more federal spending to help the poor, but the only thing you're going to get is more poor people.
I have yet to see a rich person taxed into poverty.
Taxing the rich is a lie. The RICH don't EARN INCOME. The Successful earn income. Obama likes to call them Millionaires, but earning $250,000 doesn't make you a Milliionaire.
No, but owning over a million dollars in assets does which is quite easy to achieve on $250k a year.
Ninth, Obama is seeking to raise capital gainst to 20%. (from 15%).
Good, I bet he will want to keep his 0% capital gains tax on investments in small business though.
You keep saying that taxes are bad, yet we are paying some of the lowest taxes in the past 60 years, why isn't the economy booming?
he is a child stamping his feet going give me what i want, and if you don't i am just going to whine and cry about it.
The House just failed to pass Boner's plan B last night. They didn't even have a vote. But yeah, it's Obama that's stamping his feet right? The Tea Party is making it very clear that they have taken control of the Republican party. They have no interest what so ever in compromise or sensible brain function. There have been HUNDREDs of filibusters since 2008. This has been the most useless Congress in the history of the US and it’s because of the House.
I mean….ffs, they even shot down a UN treaty that would have forced members of the UN to adopt the same disabilities act that protects disabled people in the US. Holy craziness batman. Mitch McConnell filibusted his OWN BILL. Seriously, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Yet social programs are the things that are causing most of the issue.
I'm sorry you don't value the welfare of the elderly, disabled vets, children, and the handicapped. Because when you cut social welfare these are the people that suffer the most. We need to find ways to make these programs more efficient. But under no circumstance should that measure to increase efficiency undermine the menial quality of life we currently afford our elderly. People need to stop living in this fantasy land where they think most of our public welfare is used to support lazy black people. Social Security was created to put a stop to elderly homelessness.
between SS, medicare, medicaid we spend over 1 trillion dollars. it is more than 50% of the tax revenue's that the US brings in.
What does SS have to do with anything? It's not part of the budget. We pay for it with the payroll tax. It's a paid benefit. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Medicare helps old people afford medicine they need to, you know, stay alive. It's also not free, and is also a paid benefit.
Medicaid is used mostly for children and disabled people.
Do you understand who you are attacking when you say "cut paid benefits and entitlements".
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I'd like a citation for that please. I just want the exact numbers. Not that you are wrong but I'd like to look at them.
For 2012.
SS: 819b dollars
Medicare and medicaid was about: 787b dollars
Military spending including overseas operations: 683 b dollars.
Those are the 3 largest expenditures of the US government.
These are projected but the close as i can come since congress hasn't passed an actual budget in over 4 years.
---------------------------------------------------------
Mitch McConnell filibusted his OWN BILL.
Yep and harry reid has filibustered his own bills before as well and there is a reason for that. If you know the senate rules then you would know that if you filibuster your own bill (IE it doesn't have enough votes to pass) then later on you can bring that bill back to the floor if you want to.
This is a congressional technique that is used often by both sides. Although it requires knowing these little inside rules of the senate.
I'm sorry you don't value the welfare of the elderly, disabled vets, children, and the handicapped.
Where did i say that? direct quote please.
Because when you cut social welfare these are the people that suffer the most. We need to find ways to make these programs more efficient.
Who said anything about cutting? these programs need reformed so that they operate more efficiently and doesn't cost the federal government the billions that it is costing.
People need to stop living in this fantasy land where they think most of our public welfare is used to support lazy black people.
Please leave the racist card at home. it is about as useless as calling someone a nazi.
it does more damage to you than helps.
Social Security was created to put a stop to elderly homelessness.
umm no it wasn't SS was designed to try and get older workers out of the work force so that younger people could get jobs.
it was part of the screw you deal that FDR passed.
great for people that were the first to pull from it crappy for people that come later.
What does SS have to do with anything? It's not part of the budget. We pay for it with the payroll tax. It's a paid benefit. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Then you need to take another look at the budget.
SS is considered a manditory expenditure by the federal government.
while pay roll taxes go into it SS has been running deficits IE it isn't bringing in as much as it is paying out and the federal government is having to make up the difference.
SS is on the budget list and counts as an expense and is counted as part of the deficit.
since it is money owed.
that is balanced against tax reciepts IE money that comes in.
Do you understand who you are attacking when you say "cut paid benefits and entitlements".
Do you not understand that these programs are sucking the life out of the government and the economy? Do you not understand that these programs need to be reformed so that people like me and my children have some kind of a future?
if you have kids do you not realize that they owe the federal government 30k dollars already to pay for this crap?
these programs are fiscally irresponsible they are costing us a fortune and unless something is done about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yep and harry reid has filibustered his own bills before as well and there is a reason for that. If you know the senate rules then you would know that if you filibuster your own bill (IE it doesn't have enough votes to pass) then later on you can bring that bill back to the floor if you want to.
This is a congressional technique that is used often by both sides. Although it requires knowing these little inside rules of the senate.
Except McConnel filibustered his own bill because it DID have enough votes to pass. He was bluffing and the Democrats called him out on it.
There hasn't been a credible plan issued by Republicans in the last 8 years to solve the deficit. There are some that could work, but they wouldn't be able to go to the floor in the house, much less pass there. Right now, the demands that the house GOP are making aren't able to cover the gaps of what they want any resulting deal to close. So they ask for 100 billion in cuts, then want 500 billion in savings, but aren't willing to field a plan to come up with those 400 billion in reductions.
So right now they're throwing down the gauntlet arguing over pennies and demanding the Democratic house and Senate to come up with a plan they would find acceptable, but aren't able to do so on their own. They should negotiate over Obama's plan and then put the result to an up or down vote if they can't come up with an alternative that can even see a floor vote in the House.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You do realize that if the government didn't spend it, it would still be part of GDP since it would be spent by the private sector?
Are you joking? The private sector doesn't have the ability to rack up unlimited amounts of debt which is where the government's spending comes from.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2011_0.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/current-tax-receipts
- Republicans should go over, raise tax on the middle class and just care about the country's growth. GDP doesn't matter. Also Keynsan economics is an ugly myth. Again, growth of our economy is all that matters. Everythin else will kinda sort itself out.
The Republicans don't want to agree with anything the Democrats and the President has to offer because it's "not enough" for a long-term deal to them. If the Democrats want to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for Middle-Class Americans like Joe Biden stated in one of his editorials then pass it through Congress, oh that's right we still have a broken Filibuster where anything the Senate tries to pass into law gets filibustered by the House which are 95% dominated by middle-aged White Men. I just don't understand why the GOP is holding the country hostage again to get what they want when it didn't work the last time during the Debt Ceiling Crisis of 2011. Why can't they accept reality for what it is and become more mainstream like most Democrats are?
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Corporations are private chartered governments, and as such they limit liability and allow people to use collectivization to hide shady practices. Especially in the case of an "owner" versus the more classical idea of an owner is one of risk. Under limited liabilities the "owner" can't have their assets seized, and for larger companies that begin to approach that of more of a caretaker roll the company can go under and have it's credit ruined without putting the caretakers at risk.
Furthermore, on the money issue if we consider equilibrium that corporations are right now running a profits and households and government are running a deficit makes for a weaker economy. Altogether, if there's a weak household with debt and consumerism that drives people having more debt and changing spending habits over the past few decades has been a problem.
Now, this isn't to say that there was some "golden age of consumer credit" as there wasn't even Wanamaker, who only gave credit to wealthy clients, had problems with collections.
I feel the issue is inherent to the consumer credit bubble that was encouraged by business, and has been so in the past. Payment plans for equity isn't necessarily a bad idea such as the classical point with the Singer Sewing machine since that actually created capital and encouraged domestic production rather than domestic consumption.
Thus far, however, your brand of economics looks at specifically the government as the root of all villainy, however it is the corporations and their caretakers that indeed press upon and prey upon those with a lack of financial education and endanger the welfare of their own corporations.
There's also a lot of different shenanigans such as shell companies to hide assets, debt, and ect. that exists. It's more of a human depravity problem, than a "government is stealing our money" problem.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well ColonelCoo thanks for correcting me on that last post I made, although I wasn't trying to be rude about what I said earlier it's just that I'm fed up with the usual "Kick the can down the road" politics between both parties in Congress. As for what I posted earlier in response to Undisputed yeah I did go off the deep-end a bit (again yeah I know it's a terrible habit that I need to break out of).
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I was thinking debt, my bad. But that doesn't take away from the point.
As per going into a double dip of the recession oh well. It happens. As long as we push through it and learn from our mistakes we will come back out on top.I understand how tough times are as I have struggled myself, but imo we are just delaying the inevitable by trying to stimulate the economy by various means.
Basic economics state there will be good times and bad times. We are going through a transitional period as far as how we make our money. As long as we come on top with the next big thing we will be fine.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
If we go over the fiscal cliff what will happen?
1) Taxes go up on everyone including the rich.
-how does that help democrats and hurt Republicans?
-Democrats can put forth bill after bill after bill to lower taxes on middle and lower class familes and can laugh as the republicans knock it down and drive nails into their coffen for the next congressional election. So then they get the majority or the republicans cave and they get the tax cuts they want on the middle class with the tax increases on the upper class.
2) Many of the major cuts happen to Military spending
-How does this help democrats?
-They want to have military spending cuts. The majority of the automatic cuts are in the defense budget without harming many of the major social programs.
Why won't democrats take republican deals? Because even though the republicans have showcased a "compromise" in reality it swings so far right that it missed Rush limbagh's d*ck by cetemeters.
So actually going off the fiscal cliff works out much better for the democrats than accepting the current deal proposed by Republicans. At least from their perspective. they also get the added bonus that some odd 80% of Americans will blame Republicans for the crisis rather than Democrats. So not only do they get a better deal than what republicans are showcasing but they also get a good foothold in the American vote for the next few elections.
See this is sort of how I see things panning out as well, When you have all the aces, if your opponent want's you to "yeild" you need to swing closer to THEIR perspective then your own otherwise they will play the trump and win. Why don't governments compromise, its like they all need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share/get along.
it calls for 1 trillion dollars in new revenue and 1 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years.
once again the president has called for a veto showing that he is not interested in any type of compromise.
he is a child stamping his feet going give me what i want, and if you don't i am just going to whine and cry about it.
the president also called for the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval not that it would even make it through the house or the senate.
obama is in fact the worst president and i would even rank carter above him.
The only reason that they would knock down the bill is that it has billions of dollars of new spending just like obama's current bill.
it contains 60b dollars of new spending.
i thought we were trying to lower the debt not increase it?
Yet social programs are the things that are causing most of the issue. sure you can trim the military budget but that isn't the cause of mos of the debt.
between SS, medicare, medicaid we spend over 1 trillion dollars. it is more than 50% of the tax revenue's that the US brings in.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In all honesty, I am getting sick of hearing about this "fiscal cliff". It baffles me how nobody on the news is talking about how the Federal Reserve is printing $85 billion a month, keeping interest rates artificially low, and monetizing a ridiculous amount of debt with four rounds of QE. That is what is making our economy sick and unable to recover. The REAL fiscal cliff is going to come when we have a dollar collapse and a sovereign debt crisis that cannot be answered by kicking the can down the road.
It wasn't suppose to but it is a plan that makes a 2 trillion dollar change in government over 10 years. that means as long as spending doesn't increase and they follow the plan in 10 years we will have a 500b dollar surplus.
the next step is a balanced budget amendment.
The next is a reformation on the tax code.
Next is a reformation on social programs
you can't do it all at one time you have to do it in pieces.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Doesn't really matter honestly. All the public will see is that the republicans are the only thigns standing in the way of thier tax cuts. In a way they are absolutly right. Its a brilliant political move on the democrats part. Also the **** storm will reflect badly on Obama himself but his political career is over. He won't run for office ever again and has a pension for the rest of his life. If he has to take some heat for the good of the party I am assuming he will.
I don't necessarily agree with it. I will openly say I do not agree with this course of action but its exactly whats happening. I am rather pissed at congress in general. Both parties.
I'd like a citation for that please. I just want the exact numbers. Not that you are wrong but I'd like to look at them.
though an alternative view would be that the real problem isn't the social programs themselves but the fact that we NEED these social programs. Perhapse we can take a look into that issue rather than simply gut the programs.
The problem is the assumption that the next 10 years are going to be static, and that nothing is going to change. For example, what if interest rates go up? The Federal Reserve has been keeping interest rates artificially low for a long time and there will come a time when they are forced to go up. That will cause our government to pay a significant chunk of the national debt just on the interest alone, making Plan B impossible to balance a budget in 10 years. There are other things to think about that can easily change in 10 years and drastically affect Plan B, such as:
What if unemployment increases (or more people leave the labor force)?
What if inflation starts to get out of control due to the Fed printing money into oblivion?
What if our economy continues to stagnate and is reflected with a miniscule increase in GDP?
This is the problem with balancing a budget in a multi-year span. There are just too many variables that can change over the course of several years and make Plan B nothing more than a fantasy. If the budget is to be balanced, then then budget needs to be balanced immediately. After all, when Gary Johnson ran for president he proposed a budget that would be balanced immediately when he ran for president, cutting about $1.4 trillion in federal spending. Compare that to any of the budgets that Democrats and Republicans have proposed and the difference is night and day.
Sure you can. The problem is that Democrats and Republicans don't have the balls to do everything at once. That's what happens when the two parties are more or less carbon copies of each other.
I don't think I need to resort to not capitalizing a word to demean republicans, there is plenty of fodder to already do that.
If I cut spending by $100 billion in one area but increase it by $50 billion in another, yes, that is a spending cut.
Because that is what the American people want.
Seems to me that we would be reducing the deficit by $40 billion. Also, if republicans want to claim that tax cuts are revenue neutral because they increase GDP growth, then Democrats should be allowed to claim that infrastructure spending is revenue neutral since it also increases GDP.
No, 1% of their income made over $250,000 after deductions, so it is actually less than 1%.
So?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
Good.
I have yet to see a rich person taxed into poverty.
No, but owning over a million dollars in assets does which is quite easy to achieve on $250k a year.
Good, I bet he will want to keep his 0% capital gains tax on investments in small business though.
You keep saying that taxes are bad, yet we are paying some of the lowest taxes in the past 60 years, why isn't the economy booming?
The House just failed to pass Boner's plan B last night. They didn't even have a vote. But yeah, it's Obama that's stamping his feet right? The Tea Party is making it very clear that they have taken control of the Republican party. They have no interest what so ever in compromise or sensible brain function. There have been HUNDREDs of filibusters since 2008. This has been the most useless Congress in the history of the US and it’s because of the House.
I mean….ffs, they even shot down a UN treaty that would have forced members of the UN to adopt the same disabilities act that protects disabled people in the US. Holy craziness batman. Mitch McConnell filibusted his OWN BILL. Seriously, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I'm sorry you don't value the welfare of the elderly, disabled vets, children, and the handicapped. Because when you cut social welfare these are the people that suffer the most. We need to find ways to make these programs more efficient. But under no circumstance should that measure to increase efficiency undermine the menial quality of life we currently afford our elderly. People need to stop living in this fantasy land where they think most of our public welfare is used to support lazy black people. Social Security was created to put a stop to elderly homelessness.
What does SS have to do with anything? It's not part of the budget. We pay for it with the payroll tax. It's a paid benefit. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Medicare helps old people afford medicine they need to, you know, stay alive. It's also not free, and is also a paid benefit.
Medicaid is used mostly for children and disabled people.
Do you understand who you are attacking when you say "cut paid benefits and entitlements".
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
You don't grow an economy by printing money and keeping interest rates at 0%.
For 2012.
SS: 819b dollars
Medicare and medicaid was about: 787b dollars
Military spending including overseas operations: 683 b dollars.
Those are the 3 largest expenditures of the US government.
These are projected but the close as i can come since congress hasn't passed an actual budget in over 4 years.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep and harry reid has filibustered his own bills before as well and there is a reason for that. If you know the senate rules then you would know that if you filibuster your own bill (IE it doesn't have enough votes to pass) then later on you can bring that bill back to the floor if you want to.
This is a congressional technique that is used often by both sides. Although it requires knowing these little inside rules of the senate.
Where did i say that? direct quote please.
Who said anything about cutting? these programs need reformed so that they operate more efficiently and doesn't cost the federal government the billions that it is costing.
Please leave the racist card at home. it is about as useless as calling someone a nazi.
it does more damage to you than helps.
umm no it wasn't SS was designed to try and get older workers out of the work force so that younger people could get jobs.
it was part of the screw you deal that FDR passed.
great for people that were the first to pull from it crappy for people that come later.
Then you need to take another look at the budget.
SS is considered a manditory expenditure by the federal government.
while pay roll taxes go into it SS has been running deficits IE it isn't bringing in as much as it is paying out and the federal government is having to make up the difference.
SS is on the budget list and counts as an expense and is counted as part of the deficit.
since it is money owed.
that is balanced against tax reciepts IE money that comes in.
Do you not understand that these programs are sucking the life out of the government and the economy? Do you not understand that these programs need to be reformed so that people like me and my children have some kind of a future?
if you have kids do you not realize that they owe the federal government 30k dollars already to pay for this crap?
these programs are fiscally irresponsible they are costing us a fortune and unless something is done about it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Except McConnel filibustered his own bill because it DID have enough votes to pass. He was bluffing and the Democrats called him out on it.
So right now they're throwing down the gauntlet arguing over pennies and demanding the Democratic house and Senate to come up with a plan they would find acceptable, but aren't able to do so on their own. They should negotiate over Obama's plan and then put the result to an up or down vote if they can't come up with an alternative that can even see a floor vote in the House.