 |
No Ex he means you shouldn't be mean to the rich and expect them to pay taxes when the other half doesn't. So get off that socialist bike and forget taxation, you don't need it anyway, just legalise drugs and tax that, an instant cure to the US economic woesQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Try to keep up, we're discussing the debt, not religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Obama: "Pull off the Band-Aid. Eat our peas."
I am keeping up, you were talking about not "listening to the voices" here: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Debt limitQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
P.S. you're one of those voices from your party, are you not?
That single mom, raising 2 kids and working her a$$ off for not a lot of anything, I have no problem with her getting 100 percent of her withholding back. That deadbeat not even trying, yeah he needs to contribute to society, not suck the life out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think we all agree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You need to get this done quick otherwise you are going to beat Italy to default and you can't let that happen
No we won't that(we will default ) is the biggest lie since Paulson got on his knees begging Pelosi to pass TARP. All it means is that there will be less money after debt service to run the bloated Federal Government.
What is the biggest lie? That you are going to default? That Italy is going to default? I don't know which one has the better odds at this moment. I know the stock market is very nervious and you are exporting that nerviousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We need to get all this in perspective. It is like a game of dominoes and we are waiting for the first domino to fall. It really doesn't matter whether that is the one on the end, or the one in the middle, the result is the same
Hello again,
Since NOT approving a raise in the debt limit APPEARS to solve every Republicans wet dream of SHRINKING government to its nubs, that they're convincing themselves that nothing bad will happen if they do it THIS WAY.
Talk about DELUSIONS!!
excon
Clete ;all it means is that the President and the Treasury sec. will have to sharpen their pencils and make some tough spending choices. You think we couldn't trim enough fat out of discressionary spending to offset the amt they want to raise the limit ? If we can't do that then we are Italy and Greece.
So what are you saying, that if we fail to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2nd all revenue will cease to flow into the treasury and government just stops paying its bills?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
ALL revenue?? Nope - not ALL. But, it will be reduced enough to the point where the treasury will have to DECIDE which commitment it's going to meet and which one it isn't...
It's the ones where we DON'T meet our commitment that'll cause major economic repercussions. I KNOW you'd rather believe the right wing ideologues, rather than economists, but you're doing so at the COUNTRY'S peril...
If it were me, I wouldn't be doing it. You shouldn't either.
excon
It won't be the 1st time the debt limit deadline is passed. The only difference this time is that Congress doesn't want to give POTUS a blank check. Maybe if the President spent some time proposing a budget instead of duffing we would have a sense of his spending priorities (although we can guess from past performance it is ever upward ,ever budget busting ). Will there ever be a point where a debt limit actually means you don't spend any more??
Clearly, Obama we must follow the example of that tax-dodger Charlie Rangel and ask himself, what would Jesus do?
P.S. Charlie, Jesus would pay his taxes.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No... That's because it's the WRONG way to impose fiscal policy. It's kind of like thinking that since an engine WILL blow up at 9,000 RPM'S, that it's OK to run it all day long at 8,900 RPM'S... It's like thinking we'll prosecute a war until we've expended 100,000 bullets...
Sensible policy is enacted by sensible people. We don't have those.
excon
Don't you think the good folks at ATF and the Dept of Education deserve an extended vacation ?
What would Jesus do?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tsk Tsk, the bad part about being stuck on your own ideas is that it closes the mind to other options, and opportunities.
You raise the debt limit ASAP, with no strings attached to prevent Wall street from tanking, to keep interests from rising, and to keep Government functioning through paying all its obligations.
We have defaulted before, due to technical glitches,
Professor: US Did Default in 1979
So let the date pass without resolution, it will be interesting to see what repubs do when they have added to the debt, they are trying to pay. I mean anyone ever heard of paying a late fee when you are a few days late on a mortgage or a carpayment? Or an overdraft fee for a bounced check? That's exactly what happens when the debt ceiling is not raised. No excuse, or ideology will change that. Just ask any lender, or banker, what happens when you are late, and you go back to borrow a few bucks?Quote:
They found “that the series of defaults resulted in a permanent increase in interest rates” of more than half a percent. That half a percent translated into billions of dollars in increased interest payments on the nation’s debt. “The impact is smaller at first because only new debt is affected,” they wrote according to the Post. “But over time, as the older debt matures and becomes refinanced at higher rates, the entire cost of the default is realized.”
The 1979 event is tiny compared to the size of payments the Treasury could have to forego if it can no longer borrow money Aug. 2. However, it does show what can happen if a payment is missed. “It creates doubt, and I think that’s the real lesson,” Zivney told the Post.
“The market has a much longer memory than individuals.”
Arguments and opinions are nice, but facts are facts. Go ahead, don't blink!
But I am curious about what the DEMS will cut first when we do default. Aren't YOU?
A whole half %... wow! Interest rates in the late 1970s were in double digits .
Hello again,
So, it looks to me, like we're going to find out what it's going to do, because there's enough Republicans who agree with tom to put it to the test.
If it imposes some discipline, then I agree with tom, 05% ain't squat... But, if it throws us into a worldwide depression, which it COULD, I don't think it's a very good gamble - and I'm a gambler.
The TRUTH is, the Republicans have NO idea WHAT might happen, but they're WILLING to gamble... Personally I don't want my leaders doing that. They SUCK.
excon
Back then they talked of billions, now they talk of trillions, so do the math, on an extra half percent on outstanding debts, and tell me its not more rather than less than what it was. In other words, it adds to the debt.
Then just imagine who gets put at the end of the list when they decide who to pay, and who not to pay until they borrow more to pay them at whatever interest they charge. In addition its no longer "the checks in the mail" it becomes "the check might be in the mail". How's that for waiting to go get groceries, meds, or anything else.
In addition doesn't it make sense to do what is agreed on while the debate rages on about the things we don't. Why is it conditional on what side is right when both sides can be wrong. Or is that unreasonable?
tal ; the Fed has kept interest rates artificially low for most of a decade now . A half percent is nowhere's where they should be right now . It has contributed in the devaluation of the currency (the loonie is a better currency for God's sake !) and the unreported inflation in the US ,and is negatively impacting the world financial stability.
Let the dollar and the interest rate go to where they should go .
Much of the instability in the ME is due to inflationary prices of basics like bread and that can be directly linked to a devalued US currency .
That's assuming that a half a percent is the rise in interests rates after this default. It also assumes that a deal is reached quickly, as the last one was never given a chance to develop to its full potential disaster. Run that out for a week, a month or a year, and the effects on interest rates, as well as credit ratings and borrowing power undermines your assumption of only a half a percent interest rise.
Its also a misconception that the President has a blank check for more spending, since this is already a debt that's incurred already, and its Congress that has to approve of any additional or future spending. So going forward, we will see what the repubs do. That should be interesting. Got popcorn?? Maybe now we can get a jobs bill since that's what the last election was about. And that's what the nation needs more than anything else.
Just for kicks, how do you think the unemployed will vote in 2012?
Hello again:
Well, waddya know? The Republicans thought they held a winning hand... They thought Obama would cave.. But, he didn't. He surprised everybody and raised instead.
The Republicans looked him in the eye, and folded like a cheap suit.
excon
Anything to not go on record with a straight, clean yes, or no vote.
McConnell is not running this show. The Senate does not control the budgetary process. It has to originate in the House . If Speaker Bonehead goes along with this there will be a revolt.
If this McConnell plan goes through,it means the President alone will thrice be responsible for debt increases in an election year. I can see his thinking . But I don't agree with it . To sum it up;McConnell wants to give the President the ability to raise the debt limit so everyone will blame the President for raising it and not blame McConnell for giving Obama the authority in the first place? That is 'stuck on stupid' thinking . McConnell must not want a Republican party anymore.
This will be viewed as a cave in by the TP who are already steamed over the CR cave earlier this year.When the establishment RINOs wonder why the TP bolts to form a 3rd party ,they will point to this moment if the plan is implemented.
I'm worse than bent out of shape here. Now Obammy wants to attack Social Security benefits and threatens that next money the old farts won't get their monthly checks! Since when is SSR tied into the budget when it is a worker funded FUND. The govt keeps SSR as a piggy bank to rob at the slightest whim. It's been 2 years and NO cost of living increase. It looks like Bammy is going to NOT give the cost of living increase again in 2012. But last year it was tauted that 2011 would get no raise but 2012 WOULD get the raise. Make up my mind as you talk out your behind too much Bammy. Would someone please redo his teleprompter messages?
If the debt ceiling is not raised the ENTIRE world will collapse financially! Think of what the US Dollar does around the world in aid to other countries alone! The entire civilization will collapse and everyone will be holding worthless paper money while driving around in their soon to be repoed fancy cars eating bread that costs $1K a loaf (if you can even find it to buy that is).
The wackos in Washington are really pushing the limit on this debt stuff. They need to concentrate more on less important stuff like paving roads to nowhere and leave the really important stuff alone and let the crooked Fed print more worthless paper.
Bingo! I spoke of this on an email exchange earlier today.If he does that he will expose the lie that says SS is a trust fund put aside for retirees . The AARPees may finally learn that the giverment treats their SS contribution as just another source of "revenue " .Quote:
Since when is SSR tied into the budget when it is a worker funded FUND.
Or they can finally draw the line in the sand on uncontrolled spending .Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
Raise the darn thing and lets wait for the jobs bill. Then we see what the deficit looks like after we get out of the recession. 30 million jobs should give us all a fresh perspective.
No doubt. You should think about what you expect these 30 million people to be doing after all that's many more than are unemployeed so back to the problem of illegal migrationQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Same old playbook by the Dems. Raise taxes now... vague promises unfulfilled for spending cuts in the future .They did it to Reagan (now one of their biggest talking points is about Reagan's tax increases ) and they did it to GHW Bush after he promised to not raise taxes.
You know Tom when you are spending twice what you earn, something has to give and governments have very limited options. If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse, but if they ask the people to share the pain through taxes that isn't irresponsible, unless of course they ask the people to share the pain through entitlement cuts. The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves, this in fact is a very stupid attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Because I live in a place where governments make responsible decisions about taxation without the anquish which is apparent there I find it hard to understand why the hard decisions are so unpalitable.
Yeah some giverment workers lose their jobs.Quote:
If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse
This of course is demagogery and nonsense. The "rich" already pay taxes. There is not enough wealth in the possession of the wealthy to balance our insane budget. Only cutting down the size of the central government will solve this . Many pet projects can be cut out or privatized without reducing essential services.Quote:
The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves,
Funny you should say that, Obama is actually trying to tell us that layoffs are proof that the stimulus worked instead of only delaying the inevitable. That porkulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent, "saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs."Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Whatever.
How about they just spend less of our money? Our money should not be going to fund offensive art, bribe the media, baseball stadiums, water taxis, swine odor research (it stinks), wood utilization research (every year since 1985) and wool research.Quote:
but if they ask the people to share the pain through taxes that isn't irresponsible, unless of course they ask the people to share the pain through entitlement cuts.
No one is even talking about cutting spending, they're talking about increasing spending less.
There is in fact a group of billionaires asking to be taxed more. OK, tax them more and if you don't there's nothing stopping them from giving all they want to the feds. Meanwhile, people like Sen. Lurch and Rep Rangel can stop being hypocrites on taxes and lead by example.Quote:
The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves, this in fact is a very stupid attitude.
I find it unpalatable because they're wasting money by the trillions and talking nonsense about "shared sacrifice" and "fair share" while nearly half the country pays NO federal income tax. None, zero, nada.Quote:
Because I live in a place where governments make responsible decisions about taxation without the anquish which is apparent there I find it hard to understand why the hard decisions are so unpalitable.
And by the way, Obama has raised $47 million for reelection in the first quarter, part of it by begging from the same Wall Street he's vilified for the past several years. This is a guy who raised around a billion to get elected in the first place. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for his own benefit with so many people out of work? Think of all the jobs that money could provide, how much arugula that could buy for the children.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What if the COP side of government started losing their jobs? I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier about it then.. You LOVE the cop side of government... What if Obama said let's crash the DEA?? Are you fine with losing those "giverment" jobs?? What if they decided to shut down the NSA?? I'M fine with THAT, which tells me that you wouldn't be.
excon
Of course this is not true. Even the cop side and the military side can sustain cuts and still be effective. EVERY dept of giverment is bloated .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM. |