US defaults next week what does everyone think?

[Jacks:Revenge]

the obvious name calling was a jab at name calling itself.
bingo! you fucking idiots

but they're not just talking points. you can call them that, but that doesn't make it so. if you don't want to respond to them because you don't want to, that's fine.
but don't sit there and reply with stupid bullshit like "I could respond, and I could cite counterpoints, but I won't because blah blah blah."
that's retarded.
instead of filling in for Larkin, just don't get involved if you don't want to.

I'll be the first one to agree with you when you say that the problems we face today are the result of politicians on both sides of the aisle. that's pretty undeniable. but in aggregate, especially when it comes to domestic fiscal policy, the GOP carries far greater blame than the Democrats.

either debate that, or stop replying.

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.

quote me acting like a cunt and I'll concede.

 

[TWD]

quote me acting like a cunt and I'll concede.

Well, I already did. I guess we could always get thorough about it.

hello?

congrats on missing the point.

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

bingo! you fucking idiots

 

[kiff]

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

It's a pretty straight-forward theory and I'd say as almost self evident as the mean value theorem in calculus (imo).

It's not some magical thing, but if you don't believe in it then I guess you'd accept that to get the highest revenue we should tax at 100%. Obviously that's not true. It just means there's a "sweet spot" for the tax rate to pull in the most revenue. go below it and you're missing out, go higher and you start to suffocate the economy. it's just logical and has been demonstrated many times. of course the exact number depends on the country's economy and the tax structure, but from the empirically driven studies I've read put it from the upper 20's to the lowers 40's. If you google around you can probably find them...

Keep in mind that that's the total tax. in the us that would need to be state, local and federal combined. most small businesses are taxed way over that.

Anyone that's truly interested in maximizing revenue would want to at least attempt to find the number for our country. the left doesn't want to do it because it puts rates lower than needed to redistribute wealth.

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.

sorry but both parties have created loopholes in the tax code. obama gave the evil "corporate jet owners" tax breaks in the stimulus, but that doesn't stop him from demonizing them.

Removing loopholes is one thing, but raising rates would be retarded. Even if we raised the top bracket to 100% we'd pull in less than a trillion. Not even a small dent in the debt at the rate we're going and it would snuff them out in process. A few percentage points? What, $50billion? Pointless, especially considering the negative effects on growth.

 

[BITE_ME]

there's no perfect solution.

Lies.
They should stop spending money, and making FIAT money.
Also.
All Government workers are now going to be paid food stamps, and WIC coupons.
Let them eat Government Cheese

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Well, I already did. I guess we could always get thorough about it.

seeing as to how all of those but "congrats on missing the point" were sarcastic retorts, I guess we have different definitions of what makes a "cunt."
I know you can't hear tone when it comes to text, but the least you could do is employ some common sense.

oh look, there I go again.
being a cunt...

It's a pretty straight-forward theory and I'd say as almost self evident as the mean value theorem in calculus (imo).

but here's the problem:
we can't act like tax cuts won't require reductions on spending in order to balance the budget. if Laffer was right, then lower taxes would never require any sacrifice in spending. it's like saying that we could pay 1% of our income in taxes and still fund all of our government spending, and maybe more. do you really think that's possible?
of course not.

you must know as well as anyone that economics is often called the "dismal science" because it's all about tradeoffs. if you want to get more of something then you'll have to get less of something else. it's a consummate balancing act.

redistribute wealth.

now c'mon Kiff.

you make good points (better than Brizz and TWD, those fucking idiots ) but then you go and say something like that. you don't really believe that Democrats want to "redistribute wealth;" not in the sense that you are using the phrase. or maybe your implication is different than how it sounds.

you'll forgive me if I'm concerned that you're relating Liberal fiscal policy to OMG MARXISM. because that's not the case even though Fox News would love for you to believe it is

Removing loopholes is one thing, but raising rates would be retarded. Even if we raised the top bracket to 100% we'd pull in less than a trillion. Not even a small dent in the debt at the rate we're going and it would snuff them out in process. A few percentage points? What, $50billion? Pointless, especially considering the negative effects on growth.

but I still don't see why it would be "retarded."

do you really feel like everyone should pay the same tax rate?
whether you've got millions in your bank account or are living paycheck to paycheck. do you really think that's ethical?

it still seems like we are arriving at the same conclusion, even though we get there using different roads. because whether it's tax policy or dieting, you obviously can't have your cake and lose weight too. which is exactly why America currently has huge deficits...... and a lot of fat people.

 

[TWD]

I think the common sense approach would be to just not use such rude language when trying to discuss a serious topic. I think the tone of your posts is clear, and you are simply lying to yourself if you think such behavior constitutes effective communication. Brizz would be much more willing to engage the point if you weren't making everything so adversarial.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I think the common sense approach would be to just not use such rude language. Brizz would be much more willing to engage the point if you weren't making everything so adversarial.

aw were you guys offended by my language?
cry me a river.

either engage the points being made or don't reply. Crotale and Kiff don't seem to have any problems doing that. why do you?
I don't care if you misinterpreted my tone. I care that you respond to the argument at hand, rather than bitch about the perceived confrontational nature of it.

 

[Benfica]

What also kills US economy is lack of industry, no "Made in U.S.A.". What suffocates current industry and potential startups is deregulation. This is very counter-intuitive, so let me explain.

Deregulation makes it easy for a business to do whatever it pleases, so it seems the best way to help job creation and lower costs. The problem is that it leads to lower quality standards, therefore making acceptable any sort of crap made anywhere in the world. It's easy to sell to the U.S. at low prices. The local industries cannot compete with low quality/low price coming from Asia and elsewhere. I'm not talking about cool looking high quality iPads here, rather what can be found at Walmart, Costco, etc...

The European industry is doing okayish under strict and heavy regulations because those regulations are protectionism in disguise, using only the rhetoric of consumer protection. It's both. It is this very complex and obtuse set of regulations well known and accessible to European corporations that make them have the edge over the U.S., Chinese and other Asiatic in the internal market. Instead of setting up explicit commerce barriers that could lead to retaliation, the idea is banning "toxic" or potentially hazardous raw materials or products. When the outside world finally match those standards, it's time to change the rules again. Sure, the products can be more expensive, but the jobs are preserved and so is quality and living habits

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I don't care about the language, it's just making me laugh watching you drown in the whirlpool of your own senseless babbling

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I just love your hypocrisy, Jacks. You sarcastically tell me "those are quality debate skills" and then you revert to some of the worst debate tactics in existence when nobody cares what you have to say. You make it too easy for me to continue not caring what you have to say

P.S. I'm still laughing!

 

[Zur]

Knight! ... erm, I meant fight.

 

[TWD]

I can see now how I misinterpreted your tone. Insulting my character and religion was all just friendly banter.

 

[Polychron]

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?

 

[Al]

How do you know they're not posting from work?

 

[Festering Anus]

lol

 

[Polychron]

How do you know they're not posting from work?

Then they shall all be fired! Wasting your labor time and corporate money on silly BUF threads must be punished!

 

[Hadmar]

I post from the place I just broke into to make some money by taking it from the rightful owners. Capitalism - Fuck Yeah!



The characters and events portrayed in this post are purely fictional. Any resemblance to real events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Bitch.

 

[Arcturus]

cunt

Gosh.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I just love your hypocrisy, Jacks. You sarcastically tell me "those are quality debate skills" and then you revert to some of the worst debate tactics in existence

is it not evident that I'm fishing for a response?
trolling, fishing, hypocrisy; call it what you will. I just want to get something out of you other than smiley faces and passive-aggressive attempts to avert any point that is raised.

but it's evident you won't bite.
guess that means I'm waiting for Kiff or Crotale to pick up the pieces.

nobody cares what you have to say.

wait, seriously??
even the "kool-aid" angle had more going for it than that.

last time I checked, this is pure entertainment for me. you think I jump into these threads because I'm trying to garner support from people I've never met online?
I'm not getting paid here. this is not going out on the airwaves. I'm not trying to amass listeners.

I could give a shit if anyone cares.
my friends don't want to hear political/religious discussions during happy hour. half of why I visit BUF is to dump thoughts that I wouldn't dare purge elsewhere. call me crazy but I enjoy the back n' forth that we usually get on this forum.

if I seem a little jumpy in this thread, it's because you're not playing along and that makes me a sad panda
I'll say it again, for the 5th time; either respond to the points that are made or stop replying. it's not that hard. either entertain the discussion or leave it alone. you're reminding me of Larkin and it's totally killing my buzz.

 

[Al]

I could give a shit if anyone cares.

I care because I agree with your views.