US defaults next week what does everyone think?

[Twrecks]

I agree with Benfica in that corporations have taken manufacturing abroad, because it made short-term fiscal sense. Unfortunately the U.S market they are selling to now only consumes and produces very little. A $800B trade deficit to China is absurd, and that was for just last year. Our U.S government is funded by corporations, at least privately through slush money, campaign contributions and simple coercion. Why do you think the top 5% earn 20% of our GDP, and pay taxes on less than 40% of what they earn? Ironically the voting Joe pays taxes on over 90% of what they earn, that shows the true value of our vote! It would take a revolution to change the current status-quo, that's why gun control ranks so high on political agendas.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I care because I agree with your views.

why thank you Al.
that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

it almost brings a tear to my eye

Why do you think the top 5% earn 20% of our GDP, and pay taxes on less than 40% of what they earn? Ironically the voting Joe pays taxes on over 90% of what they earn, that shows the true value of our vote! It would take a revolution to change the current status-quo, that's why gun control ranks so high on political agendas.

whoah whoah whoah.
slow down Twrecks.

have you been following this thread?
those are just talking points. you can't come in here with talking points and hope to elicit some kind of measured response.
Sir Brizz has clearly laid down the ground rules.

 

[Capt.Toilet]

I agree with Benfica in that corporations have taken manufacturing abroad, because it made short-term fiscal sense. Unfortunately the U.S market they are selling to now only consumes and produces very little. A $800B trade deficit to China is absurd, and that was for just last year. Our U.S government is funded by corporations, at least privately through slush money, campaign contributions and simple coercion. Why do you think the top 5% earn 20% of our GDP, and pay taxes on less than 40% of what they earn? Ironically the voting Joe pays taxes on over 90% of what they earn, that shows the true value of our vote! It would take a revolution to change the current status-quo, that's why gun control ranks so high on political agendas.

Well perhaps a revolution is needed then. What the hell is Washington going to do when a few 100,000 pissed of Americans are at their front door? The only problem is getting the people to have the balls to do such a thing.

 

[Polychron]

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Sir Brizz has clearly laid down the ground rules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMC2XJw5m6Y

 

[Al]

Damn it Bruzz!

 

[Capt.Toilet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMC2XJw5m6Y

Is she 18 yet?

 

[Benfica]

 

[Crotale]

Jacks, here are some real number for you. The FY11 budget is $3.8T, with projected revenues of about $2.2T. Follow-on years are looking quite similar. With Democrats wanting to increase taxes is one thing, but Reid's plan is to cut discretionary spending by $1T or so over a decade. Wow, $100B savings each year. That will balance our budget alright. Oh yeah, the "other" costs savings in Reid's plan is to save money on the military drawdown overseas that was already accounted for. Duoble dip anyone? And, to top that off, the Democrats additional "cuts" are reduction in future spending increases, not actual cuts on spending levels.

Seeing how Reid and Obama have stated quite clearly that they refuse to see any bill from the GOP, I'm not sure why you claim this budget standoff to be leaning to the right.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Damn it Bruzz!

Is she 18 yet?

Success! And I dunno.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Seeing how Reid and Obama have stated quite clearly that they refuse to see any bill from the GOP, I'm not sure why you claim this budget standoff to be leaning to the right.

but we already know that a Democratic plan from the Senate is DOA in the House, and a Republican plan from the House is DOA in the Senate.

so ultimately it will still come down to a marriage of the 2 proposals in some sense, in which both sides must sacrifice their principles to an extent. if we are going to ignore the past (as TWD suggested; forget who's to blame for the situation) and instead focus on what is being done right now to address it, then I'm also not sure why you would think the blame could be anymore with the Left than the Right.

since negotiations began months ago, the Dem's have offered up cuts that even their own constituents are against while asking for tax reform that is no different than the kind we saw under Clinton; who also dealt successfully with a divided Congress. the Repub's are actually pretty close in terms of agreeing to the same level of cuts (relatively) but will not budge on the issue of taxes.

in the interests of getting something done, I just don't understand why they can't compromise even a little.

 

[Crotale]

The issue for the GOP is that they do agree on the reduction in discretionary spending, but they part ways in increases in taxes because the Dems offer no real compromise on their part. As I said, the cuts in entitlement spending are not actual cuts.

I do agree a marriage of two proposals into one will be the only answer, but I fail to see any real compromise on the Dem side at all.

 

[Polychron]

AMERICA, FACE YOUR RED FUTURE!

 

[Vaskadar]

So bad, yet somehow correct. Just replace that face with 'uncle sam' and you're set to go.

 

[kiff]

pardon my partisan, but this is what the left refuses to understand...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...rillion-a-good-start-20110728,0,3277102.story

Cutting the U.S. deficit by some $4 trillion over 10 years would be a good start, but more savings would be needed over time to bring the country's finances under control, ratings agency Standard & Poor's said Thursday.

So who's really serious about maintaining our credit rating? Reid's already shot down "cap'n balance" and Paul Ryan's bill... the ONLY bill so far that would meet these req's. Cry about medicare all you want, but obamacare already yanked $500billion from it

Tax hikes won't even put a dent into these numbers, but it would cripple our economy even more. I disagree with Crotale... it won't be a double-dip. We never really got out of this recession. We'll go into a full depression.

This should be a big lesson for all of those that like the idea of our federal government running social programs. Do you see any accountability in DC? At all? They piss away trillions of our dollars and do any of us benefit? Everyone complains about the stalemates, but that's what was intended for our federal gov. They weren't supposed to be passing laws left and right to micromanage our lives. That's why we have 50 states. But I'm sure this will get ignored as usual. Raise taxes! We need more socialism!

 

[Manticore]

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ&feature=related[/M]

 

[Zxanphorian]

This thread is – like all political threads – a waste of energy! Why don't you all go out and make some money instead of wasting your calories on this bullshít thread?

Actually, if we harness the energy put forth in lolitics threads, we will solve the energy crisis!

Problem oil companies?

 

[kiff]

Actually, if we harness the energy put forth in lolitics threads, we will solve the energy crisis!

Problem oil companies?

speaking of which... how about cutting the dept. of energy? Wasn't it created so we could start producing more of our own oil? So far the dept. has created any :/

 

[Vaskadar]

My money's on this stuff once we use up the black crap in the ground. There's not going to be a mad max, because mankind is just going to find another thing to use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria

 

[TWD]

so ultimately it will still come down to a marriage of the 2 proposals in some sense, in which both sides must sacrifice their principles to an extent. if we are going to ignore the past (as TWD suggested; forget who's to blame for the situation) and instead focus on what is being done right now to address it, then I'm also not sure why you would think the blame could be anymore with the Left than the Right.

since negotiations began months ago, the Dem's have offered up cuts that even their own constituents are against while asking for tax reform that is no different than the kind we saw under Clinton; who also dealt successfully with a divided Congress. the Repub's are actually pretty close in terms of agreeing to the same level of cuts (relatively) but will not budge on the issue of taxes.

in the interests of getting something done, I just don't understand why they can't compromise even a little.

I think the issue goes much deeper than just willing to give up sacred cows. I think the key question to ask here is this: how much is raising the debt ceiling worth? All other things being equal, what should the price tag be? There's no larger deal or cattle on the line. Democrats get a debt ceiling increase, and Republicans get spending level decreases. How much do the Democrats give up? I see the two bills currently in play as a benchmark. They tell us exactly how much capital hill is willing to cut spending in order to get a debt ceiling increase.

The next question you need to ask yourself is: how much SHOULD it be worth? The ratings agencies have specifically mentioned 4 Trillion as the level that they'd want to see. We want to avoid a ratings downgrade so I think that should be the minimum goal.

Yet neither plan comes close to this level. Is the full faith and credit of the United States really worth so little to Democrats? Neither of these bills are going to pass.