 |
I'd refuse to add to the debt ceiling ;I'd let the government shut down. The President had his chance to negotiate in good faith and failed . The only Dem in leadership who can get anything done evidently is Joe Biden. So yes; the President has proven beyond a doubt that he has no interest in budget cutting . So I'd force the issue.
Hello again, tom:
I understand you would. My question is, who's going to get blamed?Quote:
So I'd force the issue.
Excon
Given the power of the compliant press ;I'm sure the Repubics just like they were blamed for the last crisis over the debt ceiling... just like they are being blamed for the delay in the Sandy bill that was also loaded with pork in the Senate by the Dems .
I'm not an elected official so I don't really care . I'm just hoping that the whimp Speaker Bonehead gets ousted today from his Speakership .
And by the way, our taxes just went up.
Can't be... we were told only the 2% would see tax increases.
What's the problem you said Obama's stimulus didn't work any way? You mean you want them back?Quote:
And “2013 will be the first year there's not stimulus-related targeted tax relief for individuals,” he said.
Me ? I'm happy this defunding of Social Security by the Dems is ending .
Why would I want to give the feds more of my money to waste? But hey, at least you can feel good about making the rich pay their "fair share" even though this disproportionately affects the poor and the middle class.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Okay speech what's the alternative, all those on welfare, social security, unemployment suddenly have no money, that will make a wonderful bounce for the economy, or perhaps you prefer the military and the civil servants don't get paid, or the government defaults on its contracts, no I get it, they just won't pay the bond holders their interest. You could, of course, shut down all those Congress boondoggles, or shutdown local government or state government, it's so wasteful having all that duplication. Hows's that for disproportionately affecting the poor
How does $150 million for fisheries in Alaska help someone who lost their home to hurricane Sandy?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
My way ;when the government shuts down ;they make a provision that essential personnel still report for duty. Then one starts to ask oneself.. 'all those people who are not reporting are 'non-essential ' employees ? Why does the government hire non-essential employees ?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Why Tom those are the people who are administering Congressional boondoggles .Quote:
'all those people who are not reporting are 'non-essential ' employees ? Why does the government hire non-essential employees ?
Now you wouldn't want those programs to stop would you? Glory be, what would the folks down home say if Homer lost his job?
But seriously, someone has to be there when the essential employees, that's the bone lazy congressmen and senators, and their hangerson go on leave. Tell you what Tom you fire all those non essential employees and the nation will grind to a halt, what would public servants do if they actually had to do some work? I know you have thought this through and have come to the conclusion no price to too high to get your capitalist agenda up
10 % across the board cuts and layoffs and the Federal government wouldn't skip a beat .
Does that include the 800,000 the DoD was planning to send on unpaid leave? I think you will have to do better than 10% to find all those non essential employees The internet suggests the government has about 3,000,000 direct employees, or 8% of population excluding the military but I wonder how many indirect employees it has. Other statistics suggest total government employment at around 12,000,000 plus 15,000,000 contractors, must be massive duplication over there, by comparison our direct government employment is about 0.7% of our population
You got it.Quote:
must be massive duplication over there
This whole fiscal cliff crap is a disaster the congress created in the first place, after they couldn't do their jobs and even raising the debt ceiling is a smoke screen since congress is the one to appropriate money in the first place. It's the congress that has spent too much, and now they have to pay for it.
Republicans use to know that. Until Obama showed up and took on the Bush fiasco and TParty BS, and ran into the republican zeal to take his job and run the 3 branches of government, so they could control the 4th. So their rich buddies could really run the whole show, and extract all the money.
The coup failed
A bloodless coup Tal, yes, those usually fail, but never mind, your Republicans will keep their guns so they can hold an insurrection against tyranny, after all that's what they are for, or at least, that's what Tom thinks they are for.
That's funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What's even funnier is shutting down the government and risking the credit of the US on money that's already been spent by the approval of the congress, specifically the house who is charged with appropriating he money.
Whether we had a deficit or not just accounting for a growing population would mean MO' MONEY is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
They can earn their own.
How do they do that when they can't do it now, will some of those job destroyers crawl out of their holesQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Don't or won't? Don't worry, paying all those people not to work has saved millions of jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
By the way, one Democratic Rep has the solution for everything, just print some trillion dollar coins and pay the bills. No, really.
Glad that goof ball Nadler is concerned about the integrity of the currency.
This is the sort of thinking that got you into the problem in the first placeQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Um, duh. Conservatives don't think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No it ain't we wus robbed... legally. Way before the president stopped wearing diapers, but we just found out.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yeh I know taxation is theftQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Theft through taxation came later after they rewrote the regulations and rules that were put in place to prevent a financial meltdown that led to the great recession of '29.
Glass
After they repealed the rules in 1999, of course they reverted to the same things that sunk us before. As the banks ran amok the credit rating agency turned a blind eye to what their donors were doing and at the same time we got he Bush tax cuts, two wars and unfunded programs that almost destroyed the health care system and education systems, along with the global finances.
None of this was apparent in 2006, but some knew, and no one after has realized what a deep blow we all have absorbed. The end game was to starve governments and let corporations and banks control the entire global economy, and have cheap labor in America... AGAIN.
To this day they say "the black guy did it". And most of us still don't know what hit us because the right is still trying to get the controls back.
Steal the money shift the blame , and divert the posse. Build a fence and bloat defense and holler "we're broke, we can't afford a safety net", and when the super storms hit, cut the budget some more.
Pee on the populations head, and call it trickle down economics, put your pensions in Wall Street, and when they crash you start all over until you die penniless, after working all your life. Holler we spend too much, but we tax to little and the rest is legal ROBBERY.
Tell me how it ain't.
You know who did it? It was GW "dopey" Bush and cleaning up his mess is in the too hard basket because conventional wisdom doesn't work anymore. You can't stimulate an economy that has no production capacity. This is where Keysian theory fails, and all these Ivy League shavetails should have known it. Doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are from, pork just doesn't go as far as it used to and QE does nothing because no one is asking the banks to lend, and even if they are, the bar is so high no one gets a start.
Here's an idea and I know I will hear the howls from across the Pacific, instead of guaranteeing bank deposits, they should be guaranteeing credit worthy bank loans. It costs the government nothing, at least, not immediately, and it just could stimulate those new industries
Or you can guarantee deposits and let investors take the risk without the promise of a bailout .Why would you privatize gains and subsidize losses ? Therein is the flaw in the current model that has just been codified with Dodd-Frank.
Ps... now that idiot Barney Frank wants to take his act to the Senate ? OMG!!
We agree Tom "Why would you privatize gains and subsidize losses?". But Dodd Frank is the mechanism to unravel those losses safely. You cannot let a failure bring down the whole system. Nor can you let failure be a hostage tool for more ROBBERY.
A small weak central government can't fight the too big to fail banks.
Sure it can... let them fail . You want banks to pay attention to moral hazard... make them pay the price.Quote:
A small weak central government can't fight the too big to fail banks
What do you do with the victims of bad behavior? Like the foreign banks and goverments who got robbed with us.Like the peole who had money in those failed banks. Fine to say let them fail, but many others will fail as a consequence.
I believe I already addressed that . Insure depositor ,let the rest of the investors (buyers ) beware . If you come across an instance of malfeasance then by all means put those responsible in a frog march.
Selling worthless over valued financial products was legal, so their was no crime to prosecute, per se, just many rules to change and consumers, and investors to protect. Some regulations are good even if they stop the flow of money into your pocket freely.
Well then ;you just identified where your efforts should be concentrated .
Buyer beware, this is why we have consumer protection Tom, to stop the shonks but you being a capitalist want an unfetted right to exploit the consumer
No ,I don't believe fraud should be tolerated .
French film star Gerard Depardieu has defected to Russia to avoid the punitive French tax on the rich . The new proposed tax is 75% in France. Russia has a flat-rate income tax of 13 percent. Got to give Putin credit ;at least he understands tax fairness.
Really where do you stand on exxon, Goldmen Sachs, It is my understanding you don't want regulation Catch me if you can is no way to run a countryQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 AM. |