US defaults next week what does everyone think?

[kiff]

So that settles it. The end of the world is not going to be through a huge fireball like that old quack stated, but rather through human action, or perhaps a huge financial downturn. Money will be worth next to nothing in a few years, people are going to be eating at each other for a penny. Anarchy at its finest

a penny? c'mon give our fed's quantitative easing a little credit

you can't tax-cut your way out of a recession, it doesn't work.
stimulus spending was a necessity; the results of which are still debatable. the point however is that his spending would not have been required had Bush, and his Republicans at the time, not also spent their way through 2 completely unfunded wars and unnecessary tax cuts that DO NOT create jobs.

Yea, it didn't work for reagan or bush, coolidge et al. and when has "stimulus" spending worked? oh right, never.

BTW, there were no "shovel ready jobs"... obama's even admitted it... well ok 6% of it went to them...

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

congrats on missing the point.

there's no perfect solution.
but stimulus spending works better than the alternative which has always been "cut taxes, trickle-down," which doesn't work at all.

Actually if it weren't for the stimulus, states like Texas would not have been able to balance their budgets. So much for the 'miracle'.

Funny how many governors came out in public and refused to accept stim moneys, then accepted it in private.

ah yes, this is where I was going next.
but you said it well enough. keep in mind those governors in question were all Republican. hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[N1ghtmare]

Actually if it weren't for the stimulus, states like Texas would not have been able to balance their budgets. So much for the 'miracle'.

Funny how many governors came out in public and refused to accept stim moneys, then accepted it in private.

But here is what I do not understand...

So the 4 billion plan had cuts to medicare/social security all in contrast to closing a few corporate loopholes and tax brakes for oil companies and the top 5% of wealthy people...and the Republicans did not want this? 4 BILLION ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

 

[kiff]

congrats on missing the point.

there's no perfect solution.
but stimulus spending works better than the alternative which has always been "cut taxes, trickle-down," which doesn't work at all.


ah yes, this is where I was going next.
but you said it well enough.

I was specifically referring our federal government. sure, in smaller populations, including our states and even euro countries, it can work, but it depends on very targeted spending with existing infrastructure/socialization in place. ie: no startup times nor wasteful spending. that's why they pushed the SRJ's talking point relentlessly... oh and boehner's (el al) criticism when they pushed it through in '09

so you're saying that after reducing tax rates, neither bush or reagan had a revenue increase? laffer curve means nothing?

 

[Crotale]

hello?
Clinton and his democrats did the same thing prior to his reelection.

subsequent to that, Clinton also faced a mixed Congress in which neither party had a supermajority, yet his Congress still agreed to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy on their way to balancing the budget and obtaining one of the largest surpluses the US has seen in recent history.

Clinton worked with the GOP lead Congress after the budget fiasco was over. Also, we didn't have a split Congress like we do right now. It doesn't help that without even seeing what's in the Boehner bill, Reid vowed to kill it before it even hit the Senate and Obama declared he would veto any GOP bill that doesn't include more taxes. Sounds to me like political posturing and reindeer games are happening on both sides of the aisle.

tell me what is different about this administration that the GOP has to blockade a debt deal based on revenue being completely off the table?
I'm not saying we don't have a spending problem, we do; but we also have a revenue problem that has been allowed to fester since the days of Reagan.

Because you simply cannot tax your way out of a recession or depression. We don't have a revenue problem, what with bringing in over $200B each month. But hey, if it makes you feel better by raising taxes on any current taxpayers, then fine. Go right ahead and do it. For me, I fail to see the merits of using a tool that is supposed to generate revenues for the government to operate being used as a social "justice" device.

Republicans had NO PROBLEM voting unanimously for W. Bush's UNFUNDED wars and tax breaks for the rich.
why won't they pick up the tab under Obama? you tell me.

For one thing, we didn't have a crumbled economy and, the global economy was much stronger then as well.

Raising the debt limit this time as compared to all the other times is like you or me borrowing money. We may be able to borrow and pay back our loans and pay bills, but this time we may have the uncertainty of stable employment. Would you buy a new car on a loan if you heard that your employer might be laying people off soon?

Just to note, back in 1965 when LBJ worked to create the entitlement state, 14.6% of Americans lived under the poverty line. Today, after trillions of taxpayer dollars spent and projected spending over the coming decades, we are at 14.3%. Some gain, huh?

Obama wouldn't be in this position if not for the aggregate failure of Republican fiscal policy.

Oh, so now Obama IS the United States?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I like how Obama says rich people need to pay more taxes. Lots of "rich people" pay more than 50% of their income in taxes. I sure wish they were helping out this country more!

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Fun Fact:

36% of the "Failed" Stimulus Bill was in the form of tax cuts.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

so you're saying that after reducing tax rates, neither bush or reagan had a revenue increase? laffer curve means nothing?

the Laffer curve is simply another economic theory whose real-life implications are highly suspect compared to its claims.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html

Sounds to me like political posturing and reindeer games are happening on both sides of the aisle.

I can't argue with that.
but it's not like Obama hasn't tried to work with the GOP on this.

first it was Cantor who stormed out of bipartisan talks, then it was Boehner. this was after the President invited him to play golf lol...
seriously though, when the Democrats are compromising on points that even their own party is generally against, there's no reason why Republicans can't do the same even if for a temporary solution.

Because you simply cannot tax your way out of a recession or depression. We don't have a revenue problem, what with bringing in over $200B each month.

I never said we should only tax our way out. I said the problem is two-fold: spending and revenue.

yes we have a spending problem; the defense budget is needlessly astronomical, entitlement programs are going insolvent, both parties talk about cutting pork but neither party actually has.

but yes, we also have a revenue problem.
the corporate tax rate is supposed to be 35%, but the largest and most profitable corporations in this country haven't paid that in decades. there are so many loop holes in the corporate tax code and ridiculous incentives and tax breaks that the wealthiest businesses often end up paying nothing back to this country. more often than not, they actually get money BACK or pay more taxes to foreign governments than to their own. this, of course, is thanks to GOP fiscal policy that focuses on deregulation and incentives for outsourcing.

But hey, if it makes you feel better by raising taxes on any current taxpayers, then fine. Go right ahead and do it.

did I say we should raise taxes on "any" taxpayers?
no, I didn't say that.

For one thing, we didn't have a crumbled economy and, the global economy was much stronger then as well.

cop out.
again, it was Republican policy that allowed for the current state of the economy both at home and abroad. the housing market didn't collapse because there was too much oversight in regards to loan financing. Wall Street hedge funds weren't allowed to run amok because there was too much transparency when it came to credit default swaps.

you see where I'm going...

Raising the debt limit this time as compared to all the other times is like you or me borrowing money. We may be able to borrow and pay back our loans and pay bills, but this time we may have the uncertainty of stable employment. Would you buy a new car on a loan if you heard that your employer might be laying people off soon?

oh please.
Republicans had no problem voting for Bush's unfunded wars and tax cuts when they had the chance to raise concern. they borrowed for those expenditures like it was 1948 with no qualms about what might happen when the bill came due or how this would effect our relationship with China who was to hold the debt itself. and now they cry when China artificially manipulates the value of their currency like our incompetence had nothing to do with it.

Oh, so now Obama IS the United States?

the current President is ALWAYS the United States.

I like how Obama says rich people need to pay more taxes. Lots of "rich people" pay more than 50% of their income in taxes. I sure wish they were helping out this country more!

I'd like to see you cite that claim.

because I can cite claims that make yours look rather irrelevant.

According to the IRS, the "income split point" for somebody to be included in the top 1% of all taxpayers (by income) was $380,354 in 2008 (the last year where data is available).

So, if you reported Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $380,354 or over, then you were in the top 1% of all taxpayers in the United States in 2008.

According to the IRS, this group of taxpayers (1,399,606 total) paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.

The top 5% of all taxpayers (income split on this group was at $159,619 in 2008) paid 58.72% of all federal individual income taxes in 2008.


Let's continue to break this down:

Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 25% (Income Split Point $67,280) Paid 86.34% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 50% (Income Split Point $33,048) Paid 97.30% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Bottom 50% (Anyone Making Less Than $33,048) Paid 2.7% of Federal Individual Income Taxes

--

A few other interesting nuggets of information for you:

-top 1% of earners in 2008 brought home 20% of adjusted gross income but paid 38.02% of all federal individual income taxes

-top 1% of earners paid 40.4% of federal individual income taxes in 2007

-the top 0.1% of earners in 2008 (140,000 tax returns) paid 18.5% of federal individual income taxes

-the average income of this group in 2008 was approximately $6 million

that's courtesy of the IRS and Taxfoundation.org

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Too hard to respond through fits of laughter. Keep sipping that kool-aid that tells you only one group of people is to blame in this. It certainly makes the thread more entertaining!

Oh, on my point, I did more research. But I won't post it for fear that the thread derailment would make it lose any redeeming value.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

oh nice, the "Kool-Aid" attack. I was wondering which one of you would use it first. this obviously absolves you of having to respond to any point that was made which sure does make the debate easy on your part. yeah it definitely sounds like your reply, had you taken the time to make it, would have been right and irrefutable.

those are quality debate skills.
did you learn them in high school?

oh and look at that, you even went with the "I did my research but I won't post it" response. and here I thought such monumental argumentative mastery was reserved for Larkin.

 

[Vaskadar]

Just post it Brizz.

In any real argument, you need to support your claims with evidence, you really shouldn't attack the opposing party with names or slander.

Your lack of credibility is showing.

 

[SlayerDragon]

Where's the research certificate Obrizzma?

 

[Benfica]

Oh, on my point, I did more research. But I won't post it for fear that the thread derailment would make it lose any redeeming value.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

oh nice, the "Kool-Aid" attack. I was wondering which one of you would use it first. this obviously absolves you of having to respond to any point that was made which sure does make the debate easy on your part. yeah it definitely sounds like your reply, had you taken the time to make it, would have been right and irrefutable.

When you unilaterally attack one party with political talking heads' points instead of using solid points and rational thought, I'd call that "drinking the kool aid".

But keep doing what you're doing. Ignorance is bliss.

those are quality debate skills.
did you learn them in high school?

Haha, it would help if I was trying to debate anything here. I'm just enjoying the comedy of your "contributions" to this thread. Therefore it makes no sense for me to back up anything I say with facts or even falsities. It would either end the comedy or end the thread.

 

[Zxanphorian]

Two parties in this thread: Those who supposedly post shitty "contributions," and ones that shittily accuse people of posting the aforementioned shitty "contributions!"

How about fuck the civic duty. You vote one asshole in, only so you can vote another asshole in 2-4 years from now. They are all scum bags when it comes down to it. Next presidential election I plan on doing a write in instead of voting for anyone listed. I believe Sam "Serious" Stone or Duke Theodore Nukem would be excellent candidates.

I'll start voting when it's for the people by the people again instead of for the corporations by the corporations that it has become. It's a joke. I don't participate in jokes that have damaging outcomes. The day all of the corporations and all of their media subsidiaries are tossed out of Washington is the day I start caring again.

Since neither of you proposed a real alternative to voting, enjoy watching the world burn!

 

[DeathBooger]

Um, the alternative is to not be human anymore. There is no fix. Even if we revamp the entire government there will still be self serving people screwing it up.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I have no delusions that all I've got in here are not "contributions".

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

When you unilaterally attack one party with political talking heads' points instead of using solid points and rational thought, I'd call that "drinking the kool aid".

the only "talking points" I used were in the first post I made in the thread as an opening to get someone to respond to me.
following that I fail to see how anything I've said since is a talking point, unless you are using "talking point" interchangeably with "acknowledgment of reality."

I mentioned the fact that we have a revenue problem in addition to a spending problem. I cited the corporate tax rate (that no big corporation pays), tax loop holes, and tax incentive policies that have let more revenue flow out of this country than in (by comparison to what could be if the playing field was made fair).

I mentioned the fact that it's GOP fiscal policy of deregulation in the financial market and unnecessary tax breaks that allowed for the current state of the domestic economy.

I mentioned the fact that a GOP majority Congress had no problem voting in favor of unfunded wars, tax breaks, and raising the debt ceiling under Bush, but now whines and stomps its feet about raising it again when the bill has come due.

but you don't have to reply because those are talking points?
you don't have to cite counterpoints because you're afraid of derailing the thread?

you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Those are all talking points. I don't have to reply because I don't want to, but the above post, along with both of your previous posts, ignore reality completely by trying to place all the blame at the feet of one party when this is a problem that has been building for over 50 years, led by Presidents and Congresses of all political leanings. Prior to Reagan, the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was over 90%. Was spending under control back then? No.

There is a very simple solution to all of this, a lesson you should have learned in grade school: Don't spend more money than you make. Taxes don't need to be increased to make that happen.

I won't mention your name calling. Hypocrisy strikes again!

 

[TWD]

the only "talking points" I used were in the first post I made in the thread as an opening to get someone to respond to me.
following that I fail to see how anything I've said since is a talking point, unless you are using "talking point" interchangeably with "acknowledgment of reality."

I mentioned the fact that we have a revenue problem in addition to a spending problem. I cited the corporate tax rate (that no big corporation pays), tax loop holes, and tax incentive policies that have let more revenue flow out of this country than in (by comparison to what could be if the playing field was made fair).

I mentioned the fact that it's GOP fiscal policy of deregulation in the financial market and unnecessary tax breaks that allowed for the current state of the domestic economy.

Yeah again, talking points. This is a copy and past job from Obama's speeches. You have failed to really provide any original content or arguments that I haven't already heard from politicians on TV.

I mentioned the fact that a GOP majority Congress had no problem voting in favor of unfunded wars, tax breaks, and raising the debt ceiling under Bush, but now whines and stomps its feet about raising it again when the bill has come due.

I fail to see how the past factors into what we should be doing right now. Just because the Republicans were stupid in the past doesn't mean that they should make the same mistake again. It's so one sided here. You note that Republicans complain when the bill comes due. What about the Democrat's reaction?

I think you should try to understand someone else's perspective. Despite disastrous consequences, republicans have refused to raise the ceiling without shrinking government. Yet after all this stink we can't even get the 4 trillion is savings that the ratings agencies want to see? That's all Reid is willing to give for a debt ceiling increase? Come on.

you're a fucking idiot.

I also have to point out how you've acted like a complete cunt to everyone else in the thread from the very first post. Seriously, chill out.