1876 replies to this topic

[catsi563]

That yes but I also agree with Strange as well, coporate welfare needs to end. It angers me beyond belief to hear conservatives talking about nanny states, when the us government has been hand holding like some porcelan doll the billion plus dollar businesses like the oil companies, and hedge funds etc. The straw that broke the camels back --one among many mind you-- was finding out that we the tax payer have been supplementing corproation and rich peoples private jets.

Are you kidding me????????? whats next are going to find out theres a supplement for these peoples mansions, limosines, and yachts??? and even worse these people have the unmitigated gall to tell us that these supplements are more important to take care of then the social safety nets which protect people who cant protect themselves.

So in essense according to the republicans Im supposed to tell my dad whos a veteran and 65 and cant work due to a stroke, that he is not as important as some billionaires private lear jet. so next month he may have to take a social security check cut thats keeping him in his home because the tea party cant pull its head out of its arse long enough to embrace the common sense notion that default IS A BAD THING.

Im pretty much in agreement with Dylan Ratigans notion today. Were getting what we voted for in 2010 and now we have to live with the consequences.

The wars need to end for obvious reasons and shoudl have ended a week after they began, Iraq should never have been started in the first place, and im still in the frame fo mind to prosecute Bush and cheney for war crimes and for lieing to congress--the same thing they tried to nail clinton for--.

And strange let me clarify one thing the problem with isolationism isnt what it creates. Its what it allows to grow and fester. Hitlers rise toconquest of europe wasnt a result of isolationism so much as a pattern of appeasment half of the nations hitler conquered barely fought back or put up token resistance as he basically waltzed into them. Leadership abroad especially here in the us basically blew it off as nothing to worry about until it was nearly too late. His rise to power on the other hand was a whole new ball game and something were facing here and now if someone like bachman or palin or god forbid Perry gets into office.

we can pull back most of the troops overseas, and end both wars now without even trying and wed still be in a position to help influence world events such as whats happening in Libya. the svaings in money would allow us to reprioritize spending on military matters to be leaner and better directed. We also need to dig into the miliatry industrial complex with a fine tooth comb and make them jsutify every golden toilet seat. When you have washers and nuts that you can buy in bulk at a local hardware store getting 500% markups in price somethings wrong and needs to be fixed.

[Codus N]

http://news.yahoo.co...-092500867.html

So, what are your opinions on this, everyone??

[Nate River]

and statyements like this make me wonder if all conservatives are wearing glasses with the lenses painted. Because they seem to not read the whole statement and cherrypick what they want to make their point. Typical republican.

And your statment about baby boomers retiring causing the defecit to jump is ludicrous and factually inccorect nate. AND YOU KNOW BETTER. Soical security has nothing, zero, squat, nada to do with the defecit and never has. The only problems with Social secuirty is republican politicians sticking their hands in the freaking cookie jar.

You say you don't blame Republicans for everything....and yet, here we are.

And you don't read. I said ENTITLEMENTS. Not just social security. ENTITLEMENTS includes social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare payments, etc. But go ahead...prove it to me.

Because Democrats NEVER EVER spent social security money the second it got paid.....Oh no....never. Whatever you say. Social Security alread takes in less than it pays out. Mandatory spending is 66% of the current budget. a 3.8 trillion dollar budget..

Mandatory spending: Debt service (so, yes it does matter soccermain2...at a minumum money spent seriving the debt is money not available else where), employee pensions, entitlements. The estimated unfunded liabilities for these things is so enormous that it makes the current debt look managable.

And statements like this make wonder if most ...whatever you want to call yourself (even though it's clear you're pretty much a liberal) (I can't say all because I don't think this of Soapdish) have their heads up their ass because they consistently pretend entitlements aren't an issue and won't ever be one, despite loads of research to contrary and the dire straight numouers European nations are in because of their own entitlements.

They pretend as long as we slay their personal bogeyman and tax into oblivion the people they hate everything will be just fantastic. Let's just increase the taxes a little bit a magically everything will be like it was with Bill Clinton with no eye to any other economic factors. You spin crap that if we just tax "the rich" (i.e. a euphamism for somebody else you hate) then all our problems will be solved even as more people drop from the workforce and draw on entitlements and do so in greater numbers than come in. Screw the Demographics. We can tax our way out of this!

Just like California and Illinois are trying to do. Just like the Europeans initially tried to do. It isn't working. But whatever. You'll at least feel better for going after those rich a**holes.

As is the equally absurd notion that tax cuts pay for themselves. Because its based on the premise that people ARE WORKING. unfortunately Bushe conomic policies rewarded and are still rewarding companies who broom jobs overseas as fats as possible.

It is not based on that premise. If it were it would never be true and be obviously so on it's face.

The basic premise (and there is much more to it than this), is the idea that if you tax something you get less of it. The concept of vice taxes are based on this very principle, so are things like a carbon tax and cap and trade. The converse is you tax less of something you will tend to get more of it beause a change in tax rate changes the cost.

The idea decreases in taxes and regulation (complaince cost money), in general, will encourage activities that create economic growth, and consequencely, create more income available to taxation to a degree that would offset the lower rates. Reagan generated more revenue than Carter did even in the later 80's when the top marginal rate was 28% compared to Carter's 71%. Bush generated record levels of revenue (higher than Clinton) during the latter parts of his second term, but still ran deficits because he also spent more than Clinton did.

I do like that you b*tch about the latter statement though because if we raise taxes on corporations while ending corporate welfare (however you wish to define it), in other words, making it more expensive to do business here). Where do you think they will go? If you want to know ask California and Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsome. He actually went to Texas to see why it did so well with job creation because he was watching those jobs flee his state for Perry's.

thus the notion that we are better off at bush tax rates becomes untennable since corporations((which udner Obama are making record proftis, so much for the idea that hes anti business)) are not employing people to tax at the lower rates.

We aren't better under the Bush tax rates because corporations are making record profits? Does the reason they are stting on the money have anything to do with the tax rates? And not all corporations are making records profits.

so you are factually inncorrect that Tax hikes dont produce revenue. Bill Clinton raised taxes and produced a budget surplus ((which bush squandered in his first year in office)) Amazing that. A dem raises taxes and balances the budget. A republican gets into office and not only fails to balance the budget but fails to do so 8 years in a row even with keeping the wars off the books, but raises the debt ceiling 9 times in the process.

Bush "inheretend" the worst of the .com flameout and had to deal with 9/11 and the recssion it cause 9 months in. From 2009-2010 A dem was in office with massive dem majorities even greater than the last dem and he didn't come close to running a surplus. Imagine that. He could have raised taxes, but he didn't. At least not until the ones passed through ObamaCare kick in.

Remind me again who controlled House during the surplus years? Remind me again how good Clinton's economy from 1992-1994 was (note: it wasn't doing so well) when he was trying jam HillaryCare down our throats? And remind who controlled the entire government during that time frame? Clinton began running surplus when the house changed hands. That's not to say they deserve all the credit, but neither does Clinton.

Second, I said it to Insurrection, you in case you failed to read: I critized the Republicans from 2001-2006 for not taking care of this sooner. They spent too much. Since the creation of this thread I have said so at least half a dozen times. The last time being a mere two posts ago. They absolutely deserved the butt kicking of 2006 over this.

The rest you completely mischaracterize:

Here is what I said:

Tax increases have a history of producing less revenue than projected because of this, for example, Maryland's millionair tax, which had the predictible result of the millionaries leaving the statem decreasing the revenue available to taxation.

Tax increases have a history of producing less revenue than projected because of this, for example, Maryland's millionair tax, which had the predictible result of the millionaries leaving the statem decreasing the revenue available to taxation. .

PRODUCE LESS REVENUE THAN PROJECTED. I did not say the did not produce revenue. I complained about the problems with a static analysis of tax cuts because the ASSUME NO NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE CHANGES from changes in the tax codes.

When people say the tax cuts pay for themselves they mean that the reduction helped spur economic growth that created enough tax income to make up for the reduction in rate. That chart, therefore, doesn't support your claim.

Here. I explained the god damn theory. I did NOT say that the economics bear it out. I said you chart does not prove your claim that the Bush tax cuts "cost" money. AND IT DOESN'T because it does NO ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WOULD BE IN THEIR ABSENCE. It makes no attempt to.

That is the same problem with your Clinton claim: WHAT WOULD THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BE IN ABSENCE OF THEM. I.E. DOES IT SIGNIGICANTLY IMPACT TAXABLE INCOME. WOULD THE ECONOMY HAVE GROWN EVEN MORE THAN IT DID IF HE HAD NOT DONE THAT? I do not posses the necessary high level Mathematics and Economics to do that kind of analysis, and I strongly suspect, that you don't either.

Without out knowing that you cannot tell me whether they are a net loss or gain.

But if you want to continue to mischaratertize what I say give me the data and PROVE IT I, however, did not go so far to assert that the converse of your assertion was correct. ALL I SAID WAS: THE DATA YOU OFFERED DOES NOT PROVE YOUR ASSERTION. THAT IS IT.

That yes but I also agree with Strange as well, coporate welfare needs to end. It angers me beyond belief to hear conservatives talking about nanny states, when the us government has been hand holding like some porcelan doll the billion plus dollar businesses like the oil companies, and hedge funds etc. The straw that broke the camels back --one among many mind you-- was finding out that we the tax payer have been supplementing corproation and rich peoples private jets.

I agree with ending corporate welfare as you state it, but that's about it. Business should live and die on thier own. But this idea that corporate welfare and hand holding is somehow unique to conservates it pure crap. There are plenty of conservatives who wish to end it.

But the problem I have here is you're STILL only cherrypicking the welfare you personally hate. At least, by the words used here. When I say end it, I mean all of it. Subides, tax deductions, etc. to companies that produce wind and solar. That too, Deducitions for Wal-Mart, Target, etc. eliminate that too. If GM can't hack it in the market place or is too stupid to control it's own labor costs it needs to be allowed to fall like Borders and Circuit City did and not have the government come in assume ownership while selling chunks of it off to the UAW in procees that was more farce than bankruptcy. Will people lose jobs when it happens? Absolutely, but if that's the standard then big business will always be too big to fail and the corporate welfare you whine about should never be allowed end.

And strange let me clarify one thing the problem with isolationism isnt what it creates. Its what it allows to grow and fester. Hitlers rise toconquest of europe wasnt a result of isolationism so much as a pattern of appeasment half of the nations hitler conquered barely fought back or put up token resistance as he basically waltzed into them. Leadership abroad especially here in the us basically blew it off as nothing to worry about until it was nearly too late. His rise to power on the other hand was a whole new ball game and something were facing here and now if someone like bachman or palin or god forbid Perry gets into office

You would do yourself a great service if you explain what "whole new ballgame" is and how it is what were facing "here and now" if someone like them gets into office because it sure sounds like your calling them Hitler when, I think you mean something else.

Btw, I'm blogging this from the Texas concentration camp Perry threw me in. :

[Insurrection]

And strange let me clarify one thing the problem with isolationism isnt what it creates. Its what it allows to grow and fester. Hitlers rise toconquest of europe wasnt a result of isolationism so much as a pattern of appeasment half of the nations hitler conquered barely fought back or put up token resistance as he basically waltzed into them. Leadership abroad especially here in the us basically blew it off as nothing to worry about until it was nearly too late. His rise to power on the other hand was a whole new ball game and something were facing here and now if someone like bachman or palin or god forbid Perry gets into office.

*History Major...research....facts....pet peevs...tingling.*

NO! Bad! YOU DO NOT USE HITLER UNLESS IN THE CORRECT HISTORICAL CONTEXT!!! BAD!!!

@Nate yeah Bush inherrited the .com bubble, but Bush was warned about Bin Laden. Obama shouldn't have immediately focused on Health Care without taking care of the other major issues first. The way you earn more revenue is to have more people working because of income taxes. But Catsi's arguing from the point of the fact there's a small minority of people and they control a large portion of the nations wealth. Which shouldn't happen because it causes economic disparity and eventually internal strife. If you destroy the AAA credit rating you make it worse and then we can discuss alternative political movements.

The fact is the Government needs to spend way less in the long term for fiscal growth all these bills are just in the short term that would actually make the economy worse. If you cut a trillion immediately it causes pain. What needs to happen is a massive shift from our current economic plan and to prioritize internal structural rebuilding. But the fact is you need more revenues to achieve better quality and quantity. And probably to do that is to have tax reform and close up major loopholes which eventually has to be tax increases. People have to pay for stuff and live within their means, that was forgotten at the .com bubble when Bush's economic plan involved more people owning a home, people decided that they could own a home when they couldn't and then they allowed them to use their home as a bank which devalued everyone else's. If Bush had raised taxes to pay for the Wars who knows how different things would be.

But to a normal person, spending the most money since WWII while having the lowest revenues in 60 years will cause a problem.

http://factcheck.org...scal-factcheck/

Edited by Insurrection, 28 July 2011 - 06:15 PM.

[Strangelove]

Im pretty much in agreement with Dylan Ratigans notion today. Were getting what we voted for in 2000 and now we have to live with the consequences.

fixed


Anyways Catsi, more than likely the Social Security checks will arrive, what i am really worried about if its really going to buy anything.

Edited by Strangelove, 28 July 2011 - 08:01 PM.

[catsi563]

yeah your right about that. they need to reenact the regulations that were put into place under FDR and nail down these freaking speculators. theyre the cause of prices shooting through the roof on everything.

food costs have gone up so much that even 200$ worth of food stamps isnt enough to get you through an entire month.





oh and the majority popular vote went to al gore no one elected bush in 2000 lol



edit: Foudn this gem I wondered when the repubs would drop the pretext and just come right out and admit they want to bury the country and they did. straight from the horses mouth

Edited by catsi563, 29 July 2011 - 12:05 AM.

[Strangelove]

http://www.advancing...re-not-at-risk/


Remember that Social Security is basically a bank money. You pay your Social Security taxes early in life, and when you reach the age of 65, you take back that money for your retirement. So unless Obama and Congress were mishandling those funds, the checks should continue to go out.


Here is another thought for thought. During FDR's time what was the average life expectancy in the United States?

It was around 68, the retirement was 65, so basically you collected fewer money, and Social Security helped increase revenue.

Right now it stands in 78, so the answer to help Social Security raise revenue might be to increase the retirement age to around 75.

Edited by Strangelove, 29 July 2011 - 01:49 AM.

[Insurrection]

Republicans to Boehner: NO
House will not pass Boehner's Debt Bill. It was posponed earlier because he lacked the votes needed for passage.

Edited by Insurrection, 29 July 2011 - 02:49 AM.

[Strangelove]

Republicans to Boehner: NO
House will not pass Boehner's Debt Bill. It was posponed earlier because he lacked the votes needed for passage.

That's funny, yet i am not that surprised. The United States Empire is doom anyways, globalization by military might has failed, and the world should be better for it.

[Insurrection]

Okay where we are now and how bad things have gotten I'm just going to say this.......

*takes a deep breath* RightnowJohnBoehnermakesNancyPelosilooklikeTipOneal!

There I said it!

But if the Democrats want to pass a bill, time's up. You're up and if the Republicans continue the path they're on, try to get your party to swallow and if that isn't enough then there's nothing more you can do. Boehner has to compromise he's out of time now.

Mr President, grow a pair.

Now I will leave you with Joe Scarborough's Article, The Morning After:

http://www.politico....IqCM3rqqg.tweet

I don't whether he's being serious though, sounds like it though. But it's playing with something bigger then elections.

Edited by Insurrection, 29 July 2011 - 08:11 AM.

[Codus N]

Yeah, Barry needs to grow a pair. But looking at Scarborough's article, and if he's right that this will ultimately destroy Republicans' chances of getting the 2012 seat, I'd have to say what a sneaky fox you are Mr. President.

[Insurrection]

Yeah, Barry needs to grow a pair. But looking at Scarborough's article, and if he's right that this will ultimately destroy Republicans' chances of getting the 2012 seat, I'd have to say what a sneaky fox you are Mr. President.

I think you aren't looking at this correctly.

[Codus N]

Hmm?? explain.

[Insurrection]

Hmm?? explain.

According to Scarborough's scenario even if the default lasted a day the damage to the economy in that one day would be so destructive to the country it will leave the damage for years. And might take the Global Economy with it. He says it isn't a scenario for Obama, if Obama just did it to get rid of Republicans he would be gone too. Because Americans would be rioting in the streets.

No one has noticed this but the DOW has dropped 300 points. Asian Markets are falling as we post/speak. If American debt isn't worth what it used to be it affects the globe potentially. So it's possible, even if you're in Indonesia Newkerz it won't be pretty. Especially the Chinese. They aren't really happy with our government right now because they bought too much of our treasuries. In fact the Chinese are "Appalled" with us an think we're "reckless".

The Japanese see Deja Vu from 10 years ago in the US right now. The Japanese...are still in Stagnation. But one analyst thinks this is the worst time to focus on the deficit.

Washington's standoff is scaring more then the common American.

Edited by Insurrection, 29 July 2011 - 08:27 AM.

[catsi563]

And the worst part is that default may not even have to happen to get us downgraded. The agencies in question can see the dysfunction as is, hell one British Prime Minister was quoted as saying its sad that the entire process has been held up by a bunch of right wing nutters.

They may end up downgrading us anyways since were such an unpredictable and unsafe risk. especialy if we have to go through this again in 2012 ireegardless of whether the president unilateraly raises it or not.

takes a deep breath* RightnowJohnBoehnermakesNancyPelosilooklikeTipOneal

just an fyi. Under Nancy pelosi congress passed 450+ bills the most productive congress in history. Under Boehner since he and his giant gavel took over 50 bills in total and the majority of those were dedications of various buildings. Add in that now hes being challenged by his own majority whip for the position.

[Codus N]

According to Scarborough's scenario even if the default lasted a day the damage to the economy in that one day would be so destructive to the country it will leave the damage for years. And might take the Global Economy with it. He says it isn't a scenario for Obama, if Obama just did it to get rid of Republicans he would be gone too. Because Americans would be rioting in the streets.

No one has noticed this but the DOW has dropped 300 points. Asian Markets are falling as we post/speak. If American debt isn't worth what it used to be it affects the globe potentially. So it's possible, even if you're in Indonesia Newkerz it won't be pretty. Especially the Chinese. They aren't really happy with our government right now because they bought too much of our treasuries. In fact the Chinese are "Appalled" with us an think we're "reckless".

The Japanese see Deja Vu from 10 years ago in the US right now. The Japanese...are still in Stagnation. But one analyst thinks this is the worst time to focus on the deficit.

Washington's standoff is scaring more then the common American.

Hmm..... I haven't heard much of how this will affect Indonesia, but I am certainly following the news here and I haven't heard if it will be that bad for us or not. But then again, it could all be a political ploy by our government so they don't lose face. I'm doubting that the gov't actually has a back-up plan for this, considering the fact that we're almost as incompetent as the U.S Congress are. I have a feeling that for those following this here in my country are pretty much blaming it on the Reps. But of course, it can't be denied that we're certainly biased towards our favourite boy. But we'll see what happens here. I'll report to you guys.

Hopefully the May incident doesn't repeat all over again. If that happens, then the U.S. is pretty much going to be responsible for the death of thousands around the world indirectly. (if it happens)

[Greed-Sama]

just an fyi. Under Nancy pelosi congress passed 450+ bills the most productive congress in history. Under Boehner since he and his giant gavel took over 50 bills in total and the majority of those were dedications of various buildings. Add in that now hes being challenged by his own majority whip for the position.

Passing a lot of bills does not equate to being productive.

[catsi563]

I dont see how it would equate to not being productive. Under her they at least got to work and sent them to the senate. Cant be helped that Senate filibuster rules have held up pretty much every single one of them.

Still find it amazing that the number of fillibusters in the senate quadrupled under Obama to the point of absurdity. They were fillbustering their own bills for goodness sake.

[Insurrection]

Well the Stock Market has had its worse week this year as the DOW lost 540 this week, 4.2%. But hey, Boehner finally compromised.....He added the balanced budget amendment to his debt deal to get the Tea Party...

If they still say no again what then? They got the votes, but in doing so the Senate Republicans are fed up with their counterparts.

Reid has until Midnight to file his final bill in order to get this done by Monday.

Well, the longer this lasts it isn't like our AAA Credit Rating, which we have had for a century, is going to be stripped and have the entire world will blame Republicans. And before you start crying that I'm only blaming Republicans, guess what they picked the fight on a routine matter, they said no to the deal of a century, taking advantage of a weakened leadership, the GOP speaker couldn't get his own party in line, they're done. They're risking the international reputation of the United States and still won't budge. The Tea Party has no idea what hell they will wroght if we Default. The Establishment has an idea and they're scared s###less by it. And yet they still won't compromise, they won't budge.

They want to stab a wounded man, a sick man in the economy. And our 401(k)s with it.

Where is the President? Where is the Leader? He needs to do more.

No one is winning.

Edited by Insurrection, 30 July 2011 - 04:04 AM.

[catsi563]

exactly correct Inssurection exactly.

They're risking the international reputation of the United States and still won't budge. The Tea Party has no idea what hell they will wroght if we Default

And the hillarious thing is that these people think they actually have a mandate to do just that. They seriously think that people sent them to washington to default the country instead of creating jobs.