Forums
First  << 1  2  3  4  5 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> America Government Partial ShutDown
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 01:50:55
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By TedThomas [887131]

No there isnt anything to negotiate. Congress had a budget, now they pay the bills. Raising the debt ceiling is about money they already spent, if congress didnt want to raise the limit then they should have thought of that before they spent the money. If they want to negotiate on a lower budget, then do it after they pay the bills. We should not be having this bullshit fight every 6 months. And dont act like they are trying to negotiate cutting the deficit when they already did that weeks ago and all this is about is republicans throwing a hissy fit because they didnt get their way when it comes to Obamacare.


Yes there is a deficit, and it has been going down every year since Obama has been in office and is projected to keep dropping. Next year, our deficit to GDP ratio is projected to be lower than it was in the 80's under Reagan.

Despite your "the sky is falling" rhetoric and your ideological bullcrap, congress cant just take Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit and cut it down to zero in one year without completely f**king over the country, especially since they are not willing to raise any more revenue to do so. You might not like it but its going to take some time. Maybe if congress was willing to stop giving out corporate welfare left and right and do things like cut down the military and raise revenue instead of just cutting things like food stamps this process would go faster, but they arent. Sorry, that is called reality.



Government's business is throwing money at things.
It's expert at it!
That includes - of course - corporate welfare.
You may think that bailing out hedgefunds is outragous - I certainly think it is outrageous and plain silly to boot - but a Government can no more refrain from such things as a lecher can refrain from lusting.

Raising the debt is about borrowing moar muniez.
Cut expenditure, increase revenue, and dont raise the ceiling at all.

So where do you raise revenue?
Well, obviously at the consmption level.
The general population WILL bear the cost of Government.
And since the US does consume more more that it ears, savage cuts in consumption levels will do the balance of payments a lot of good too.

pm-gr-richpoorspending-462.gif
Source: NPR.

The sum of Food-at-restaurants+entertainment is no less than 9.5% of houshold expenditure all across the bandwith. That's 9.5% available for confiscation.




Yeah, people who work in restaurants and entertainment don't contribute to the economy with their earnings (actually they do, which should be easy enough to understand), so yeah, let us just tax those industries, put those people on the doll, and all our problems will be solved.

No, what needs to happen is that the government needs to stop overpaying for just about everything. They need to stop allowing waste... actually they need to stop just plain ripping off the tax payers. Why should government workers make more in most cases for the same jobs that civilians do? Why should they have better benefits? Why should the USA be sending money to other countries, when we have our own problems at home? Why should we be policing the globe, while we allow our own borders to be as porous as a screen door? Why do we give tax breaks to corporations that don't deserve or need them? Why do we allow the Federal Disabilities Fund to run out of money, so that crooked lawyers and judges, and paid doctors can get rich, and so that people who are not really disabled can collect a paycheck for fraud? Why, why, why?

Because that which you subsidize you get more of. The main objective of a bureaucracy is in growing the bureaucracy. Socialism is a slippery slope... and the USA is sliding right down into the muck...all with the best of intentions of course.

Of course looking at those numbers, it would seem to me that the obvious target should be in hitting the savings for retirements of all those rich $150K a year earners ($150K a year isn't crap when you have a mortgage, car payment, and just normal bills, and a kid or two, but hey, the government should surely target that money... maybe they could redistribute it either to higher pay for impoverished federal employees, or send it to the Muslim Brotherhood to help build schools in the middle-east, or a nice new tax cut for bankers...)


Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 01:56:10
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 02:52:23
By MachineGunSteve [184119]


Yeah, people who work in restaurants and entertainment don't contribute to the economy with their earnings (actually they do, which should be easy enough to understand), so yeah, let us just tax those industries, put those people on the doll, and all our problems will be solved.

No, what needs to happen is that the government needs to stop overpaying for just about everything. They need to stop allowing waste... actually they need to stop just plain ripping off the tax payers. Why should government workers make more in most cases for the same jobs that civilians do? Why should they have better benefits? Why should the USA be sending money to other countries, when we have our own problems at home? Why should we be policing the globe, while we allow our own borders to be as porous as a screen door? Why do we give tax breaks to corporations that don't deserve or need them? Why do we allow the Federal Disabilities Fund to run out of money, so that crooked lawyers and judges, and paid doctors can get rich, and so that people who are not really disabled can collect a paycheck for fraud? Why, why, why?

Because that which you subsidize you get more of. The main objective of a bureaucracy is in growing the bureaucracy. Socialism is a slippery slope... and the USA is sliding right down into the muck...all with the best of intentions of course.

Of course looking at those numbers, it would seem to me that the obvious target should be in hitting the savings for retirements of all those rich $150K a year earners ($150K a year isn't crap when you have a mortgage, car payment, and just normal bills, and a kid or two, but hey, the government should surely target that money... maybe they could redistribute it either to higher pay for impoverished federal employees, or send it to the Muslim Brotherhood to help build schools in the middle-east, or a nice new tax cut for bankers...)


Government Deficits get balanced off the back of Joe Sixpack or Otto Normalverbraucher.. and whatever his Greek equivalent is.

Get of the idea that there are viable alternatives. History shows none.
Nothing has changed between Richard Lionheart trying to sell London to the highest bidder and PASOK persuading Lehman Brothers to cook Greece's national accounts.

Fairness - which is the eye of the beholder, of course - has no bearing on what is simply a mathematical problem. You can defraud the general population [ the South Sea Bubble comes to mind ] - or you can rob 'em. The outcome is the same.





Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 03:01:10
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 03:23:54
i have a question for you ted, what is so wrong with funding Obamacare in a bill all to itself?

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:22:48
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
i have a question for you ted, what is so wrong with funding Obamacare in a bill all to itself?


I can answer that, actually.

The basis of funding Government expenses in general is the Common Budget.
When Congress passes a Bill, it assumes political responsibility for the financial consequences.
That's why Parliaments exist in the first place.

If you were to make a seperate budget bill for ever single program you'll end up doubling or tripling national administrative expenses. That is quite apart from political gridlock, of course. People do not extend credit to Bills, they extend credit to a legal person. Likewise, Debt Recovery adresses a legal person and not a Bill. Bills are Legal Instruments, not Legal Persons

Public Credit is no abstraction. It has consequences. I'm tempted [and will give in to temptation] to tack on an angle from a recent gravedly discussion on paid reviving.

If my Faction Leader advertises for Revivers in Trade Chat or IRC, then it is simply a matter of Public Knowledge that the financial consequences are backed by the credit of Nutz and my unworthy self, and we will simply meet financial obligatons without bitching or moaning. If there is an unexpected cost - such as a 5million bill for revives which we did not discuss previously, either him or me will just unlock our Vaults and ante up. Otherwise, you don't get revives for long.

The same thing applies to purchasing FHCs while chaining or emergency supplies of Xanax and so on and so forth. Th people I trade with know that I meet bills up up to 20-30 million on the spot. By extension - my Faction meets such Bills on the spot. And there is many a player and Faction that can tack zeroes on the end of that.

If that issue - the Public Credit - is in doubt, your Public Credit rating goes down and your cost of borrowing goes up.
You pay more bucks and get less bang.
Which is why we meet our Financial obligitions and make damned sure to treat our Creditors as esteemed and valued partners and not as dangerous leeches.


Now,this is how whole proces works. [wiki-pie,of course]

In the UK, the budget is often released in March of the previous fiscal year, less than one month before the beginning of the new fiscal year. Stopgap funding is provided by the Vote on Account (see below), and Parliament typically makes appropriations by the summer time. Legislative action on the proposed budget is faster in the UK and generally aligns with the executive's original budget request, since the Prime Minister's cabinet tends to exert significant control over Parliament.

Governmental departments submit their funding requests called "Main Supply Estimates" - to HM Treasury. The government then releases this data in a large consolidated document titled "Central Government Supply Estimates (Budget Year-Following Year): Main Supply Estimates".

The UK government reserves the right to submit "Supplementary Estimates" in the winter and spring of a given fiscal year to update its agencies' spending totals for the current financial year and report any governmental re-organizations.



Cabinet - Consolidated - Totals.

The Key Idea here is Consolidation. Don't mess with it.

What the Republicans are trying to do is turning a budgetary matter into a constitutional crisis. Constitutional as in 'this is how things operate' and not as in 'We the People Do Declare'.
Inducing food poisoning because they don't like the food on their plate.

I am very Right Wing but I've spent about 15 years watching the Republicans mucking up Public Credit on every occasion it can be done. That's dumb beyond belief. A Party quite incapable of administrating a Nation State.

I wrote my thesis on the Russo-Japanese war .What I am observing now is a shambles of Public Finance quite on par with Romanov Mismanagement of Public Financing during that war.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:00:49
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:59:22
By MachineGunSteve [184119]

You are a perfect example of the problem, Ted. Your side is always right, and the other side is always wrong. Congratulations. You and people like you, are the reason we are in the mess we are in. A bunch of uncompromising, knuckle-heads. Enjoy the dog a pony show, Ted, because the mindset you display helps give it a forum.

I guess it is also a good thing that the evil Republicans held the gun to Obama's head back in 2011 and forced him to make even deeper cuts during the great Fiscal Cliff fiasco. It certainly makes him look like a real hero now doesn't it? He better hope this current situation doesn't blow up in his face, because I am sure history won't be too kind to the first black president, who also allowed for the first default in US history... that won't be good for his legacy now will it, Mr. Partisan?


Lol. No you are the problem. A bunch of idiots sitting on their high horse spouting their retarded ideologies instead of living in the real world and coming up with actual feasible solutions. There are 800,000 people right now not working and not supporting their families and 9 million women not getting support they depend on to take care of their infant children, but you want to treat them as if they are pawns in some stupid game.

Not paying the government's bills and sending it into default is not a bargaining chip to get try to win on an issue that you have lost on over and over again, it is blackmail. The republicans have already got the budget they want, it has NOTHING to do with the reducing the deficit and has everything to do with Obamacare.



Dont worry, its not Obama who is going to take the heat for this, it will be the idiots who schemed for months to create this mess in the first place. The chamber of commerce has already said they are going to support any sane republican running against any tea party candidate that runs in the next elections because they are sick of the nutjobs ruining the country. If the republicans dont get their house back in order they can just say goodbye to have any sort of power again in the US.

Why should government workers make more in most cases for the same jobs that civilians do? Why should they have better benefits?


What you should be asking is why dont private companies give as good of benefits as the government (you know, like they used to), not the other way around. We should be shooting for benefits that are closer to the governments so people can actually live off of working a full time job, not trying to make everyone closer to the bare minimum they give at out at Walmart.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:24:48
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:09:00
By DarthBrogo [21801]

Raising the debt is about borrowing moar muniez.
Cut expenditure, increase revenue, and dont raise the ceiling at all.



No it isnt, raising the debt ceiling does not add anything to the deficit. Raising the debt ceiling is about paying for the deficit we already have that congress already authorized.

Even if we cut the deficit down to zero, the treasury will still have no "muniez" come November first. Which means no social security and no medicare for anyone, good luck explaining that to the American people. Spout all the philosobabble you want, that is a fact.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:09:45
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:18:30
By TedThomas [887131]
By DarthBrogo [21801]

Raising the debt is about borrowing moar muniez.
Cut expenditure, increase revenue, and dont raise the ceiling at all.



No it isnt, raising the debt ceiling does not add anything to the deficit. Raising the debt ceiling is about paying for the deficit we already have that congress already authorized.

Even if we cut the deficit down to zero, the treasury will still have no "muniez" come November first. Which means no social security and no medicare for anyone, good luck explaining that to the American people. Spout all the philosobabble you want, that is a fact.


Emergency Taxes. Confiscations. I am not thinking in terms of zero-deficit, I am thinking in terms of surplus. Tiercation - which IS a disguised Confiscation. Anticipations - in the Public Finance sense - are negotiable instruments on the asset-side of the balance-sheet. DFCs. Damned much better than selling off the family silver at a fire sale too. Discounts of 6% hurt a great deal less than discounts of 50% {I think that the sell-off of Olympic Airways ran pretty close to a 50% discount]. Printing money is too damned dicey to contemplate.

And make no mistake - the money will come out of the people's hides, one way or the other.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:27:35
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:29:29
Like I said, you can spout all the bullcrap you want but raising the debt ceiling doesnt add to the deficit. Dont raise the debt ceiling and the bills dont get paid, thats how it works.



Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:39:50
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:33:25
By TedThomas [887131]
Like I said, you can spout all the bullcrap you want but raising the debt ceiling doesnt add to the deficit. Dont raise the debt ceiling and the bills dont get paid, thats how it works.


Raising the Debt Ceiling will lead to adding to the Public Debt.

Like I said: savage cuts in private consumption. That's how it works.

Whether you put a 500$ dollar tax per year on owning handguns, or 5000 on owning an SUV, or 5million per year on owning a private airplane - or cut down on foodstamps: it comes out of the people's hides.

I have a strong preference for a round of Tiercation [ Greek Haircuts in thin disguise ] but I have doubts about the ability to get it pulled off. Supreme Court is imho too likely to scupper it.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:39:12
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:40:25
November 1st the treasury will have no money and 60 billion dollars of payments that are due. Not raising the debt limit will mean that 60 billion of dollars will not get paid. No social security, no medicare, no veterans benefits, no money to people in the military, no money to government workers, no money to companies that do business with the government, etc, etc...

This is not a damn game, this will screw our country and the people in it majorly, which is what people should care about. Not if their stupid political faction wins the "who has the better ideology" battle.

Nothing you said solves the problem of the treasury running out of money in 3 weeks, as much as you keep pretending it does. It doesnt solve jack shit.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:43:36
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:45:59
By TedThomas [887131]
November 1st the treasury will have no money and 60 billion dollars of payments that are due. Not raising the debt limit will mean that 60 billion of dollars will not get paid. No social security, no medicare, no veterans benefits, no money to people in the military, no money to government workers, no money to companies that do business with the government, etc, etc...

This is not a damn game, this will screw our country and the people in it majorly, which is what people should care about. Not if their stupid political faction wins the "who has the better ideology" battle.


You may proceed, Mr Thomas. I fully agree with you that the Democrats have the better ideology on offer - not that it makes any difference.

The Court is with you so far.

But the people by and large WILL get screwed - regardless of whether you raise the Ceiling or not,and regardless of whether that 60 billion is paid or not.

The only question is: HOW they get screwed. I really wish I could offer you Tiercation - in which it is mostly the Rich who get royally screwed - but it is no damned game and I have doubts about getting it pulled off.


Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:50:22
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:49:44
Right, so lets just crash the whole damn economy because you think that people should just suck it up and deal with it. Great idea professor.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52:35
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52:30
By TedThomas [887131]
Right, so lets just crash the whole damn economy because you think that people should just suck it up. Great idea professor.


The People will suck it up. Do it on the Installment Plan and the same observation applies.
Salami-slicing it will NOT affect the consolidated outcome- except in a negative way.
The overall crash of Greece was made worse by the attempts to slice it.


Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:55:06
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:57:27
According to the great and all knowing Brogo.

Lol, dont make me laugh.

We are not Greece and we arent going to be like Greece, sorry to break it to you.


Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:59:59
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:01:31
By TedThomas [887131]
According to the great and all knowing Brogo.

Lol, dont make me laugh.

We are not Greece and we arent going to be like Greece, sorry to break it to you.


You don't have to break it to me that America is no Greece.
Raising 60BLN worth of Emergency Taxes ought to be a snap.
Need to do it one month?
.5% GST - and Bob's your uncle.

And it still comes out of the people's hides, of course.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:18:04
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:06:19
By TedThomas [887131]
By MachineGunSteve [184119]

You are a perfect example of the problem, Ted. Your side is always right, and the other side is always wrong. Congratulations. You and people like you, are the reason we are in the mess we are in. A bunch of uncompromising, knuckle-heads. Enjoy the dog a pony show, Ted, because the mindset you display helps give it a forum.

I guess it is also a good thing that the evil Republicans held the gun to Obama's head back in 2011 and forced him to make even deeper cuts during the great Fiscal Cliff fiasco. It certainly makes him look like a real hero now doesn't it? He better hope this current situation doesn't blow up in his face, because I am sure history won't be too kind to the first black president, who also allowed for the first default in US history... that won't be good for his legacy now will it, Mr. Partisan?


Lol. No you are the problem. A bunch of idiots sitting on their high horse spouting their retarded ideologies instead of living in the real world and coming up with actual feasible solutions. There are 800,000 people right now not working and not supporting their families and 9 million women not getting support they depend on to take care of their infant children, but you want to treat them as if they are pawns in some stupid game.


>> Lol... you must be smoking again, Ted. I am not the one spouting off about how great my party is... that would be you dude. You know why? Because I don't have a dog in this race. I think both sides are a bunch of partisan asshats, who only care about themselves in the long run. f**k the USA. Who cares about what is actually good for the nation, all they want is more pork flowing into their states, and as much power and prestige as that will garner them back home. Obama should be negotiating, so at the very least he can enhance is legacy at this point, because a lame duck second term president, who really has little to show for his 2 terms, except for the continued degeneration of the USA under his watch, he certainly doesn't want to add... "Obama allowed the first Default in USA history, while president."

Not paying the government's bills and sending it into default is not a bargaining chip to get try to win on an issue that you have lost on over and over again, it is blackmail. The republicans have already got the budget they want, it has NOTHING to do with the reducing the deficit and has everything to do with Obamacare.

>>I already agreed with that bit, Teddy boy, but your selective reading must have fogged your response... or the wacky weed you been smoking did it... which ever.


Dont worry, its not Obama who is going to take the heat for this, it will be the idiots who schemed for months to create this mess in the first place. The chamber of commerce has already said they are going to support any sane republican running against any tea party candidate that runs in the next elections because they are sick of the nutjobs ruining the country. If the republicans dont get their house back in order they can just say goodbye to have any sort of power again in the US.

>> Oh really, hmmm, I don't think many schools in 100 years are going to be too concerned with teaching who John Boehner, is, Ted. Obama is the president. Presidents get the credit when things go right, and the get the blame when things go bad. That is the way it is...

Oh, and personally, I hope all the nutjobs ruining the country get voted out of office, on both sides.

Why should government workers make more in most cases for the same jobs that civilians do? Why should they have better benefits?


What you should be asking is why dont private companies give as good of benefits as the government (you know, like they used to), not the other way around. We should be shooting for benefits that are closer to the governments so people can actually live off of working a full time job, not trying to make everyone closer to the bare minimum they give at out at Walmart.


>> I agree... it would be nice if everyone had the same great benefits, but since we are in hard times, it would seem to me that those in the bureaucracy should be required to sacrifice just as equally as those who pay the bills... this just seems obvious to me, but I guess in the make believe lefty utopia you live in, it is okay for the populace to suffer, so long as the elites continue to live well... and all all this time I thought you were against trickle down economics.

On the issue of the debt ceiling... the government keeps raising it every year, and guess what? This is going to shock you I know, but every year the idiots in government keep finding a way to spend right up to the line, and then they want to raise it again... go figure, but wait... where does the money come from, Ted? Simple logic, and math suggests that we can not go on forever, spending more than we make, but the only solution I here coming from the left is to raise taxes... raise taxes... screw the people who are already living on a budget. They can afford to pay more taxes... tax the rich, tax the rich... except the definition of rich keeps getting smaller, and smaller, while federal workers pay keeps up with inflation, and the tax payers pay keeps being reduced by the burden of keeping the whole bloated thing afloat.

And both parties are to blame.

(see additional comments above in gray, or not... your call. I don't really care tbh.)

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:07:32
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:10:17
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
SNIP
On the issue of the debt ceiling... the government keeps raising it every year, and guess what? This is going to shock you I know, but every year the idiots in government keep finding a way to spend right up to the line, and then they want to raise it again... go figure, but wait... where does the money come from, Ted? Simple logic, and math suggests that we can not go on forever, spending more than we make, but the only solution I here coming from the left is to raise taxes... raise taxes... screw the people who are already living on a budget. They can afford to pay more taxes... tax the rich, tax the rich... except the definition of rich keeps getting smaller, and smaller, while federal workers pay keeps up with inflation, and the tax payers pay keeps being reduced by the burden of keeping the whole bloated thing afloat.

And both parties are to blame.

(see additional comments above in gray, or not... your call. I don't really care tbh.)


The Rich can always avoid paying more Income Tax.
( But avoiding taxation on Consumption is really hard )
Francois Hollande wasted 2-3 years in denial - before putting in a Budget this year that might just as well have been written by Sarkozy.
It got written by the ENA trained Mandarins.
{ Sarkozy is also an ENA educated man - Selogene Royale was his classmate if memory serves)
It all goes to show that the only question is which Enarque gets to decide things.
Logo-%C3%89cole_nationale_d%27administra
It's silly to ask anyone else. What would could someone who does NOT belong to the .001% possibly have to say?


Ted
What you should be asking is why dont private companies give as good of benefits as the government (you know, like they used to), not the other way around. We should be shooting for benefits that are closer to the governments so people can actually live off of working a full time job, not trying to make everyone closer to the bare minimum they give at out at Walmart.


I fully agree.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:35:38
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:32:59
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
SNIP
On the issue of the debt ceiling... the government keeps raising it every year, and guess what? This is going to shock you I know, but every year the idiots in government keep finding a way to spend right up to the line, and then they want to raise it again... go figure, but wait... where does the money come from, Ted? Simple logic, and math suggests that we can not go on forever, spending more than we make, but the only solution I here coming from the left is to raise taxes... raise taxes... screw the people who are already living on a budget. They can afford to pay more taxes... tax the rich, tax the rich... except the definition of rich keeps getting smaller, and smaller, while federal workers pay keeps up with inflation, and the tax payers pay keeps being reduced by the burden of keeping the whole bloated thing afloat.

And both parties are to blame.

(see additional comments above in gray, or not... your call. I don't really care tbh.)


The Rich can always avoid paying more Income Tax.
( But avoiding taxation on Consumption is really hard )
Francois Hollande wasted 2-3 years in denial - before writing a Budget this year that might just as well have been written by Sarkozy.


Ted
What you should be asking is why dont private companies give as good of benefits as the government (you know, like they used to), not the other way around. We should be shooting for benefits that are closer to the governments so people can actually live off of working a full time job, not trying to make everyone closer to the bare minimum they give at out at Walmart.


I fully agree.


The same solution always... TAX! Consumption tax sounds great I guess. I don't really care at this point. We are too far down the road towards socialism in this country... so f**k it! We should just all send all our money to the government. Let them decided how to doll it out to us, and before you know it, we will be Cuba.

But, whatever happens the first step is negotiation, and regardless of Ted's feelings that it is not necessary, it would seem that it is, and it will happen... looks like Obama has decided to do his job today.

www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-10-10/obama-to-seek-opening-with-gop-leaders-on-shutdown

Great! I am sure that the majority of Americans will just end up screwed again, but that is how the cookie crumbles in utopia.



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 13:39:55
By MachineGunSteve [184119]


The same solution always... TAX! Consumption tax sounds great I guess. I don't really care at this point. We are too far down the road towards socialism in this country... so f**k it! We should just all send all our money to the government. Let them decided how to doll it out to us, and before you know it, we will be Cuba.

But, whatever happens the first step is negotiation, and regardless of Ted's feelings that it is not necessary, it would seem that it is, and it will happen... looks like Obama has decided to do his job today.

www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-10-10/obama-to-seek-opening-with-gop-leaders-on-shutdown

Great! I am sure that the majority of Americans will just end up screwed again, but that is how the cookie crumbles in utopia.



I am not surprised. Obama struck me as a quite acceptable and competent Status Quo man.
But his shortcoming is dealing with opposing figures. He does not like it.
I think Boehner is out of the loop in his own faction.
Maybe Joe Biden should've been dealing with it. Mr Biden and I haven't got a great deal in common in outlook..But he is a pretty decent person. He gets on with people.

Do you think anything about it is substantially different from my observations as to how things were standing?

The whole thing had a feel like Gordon Browns bankary Intervention.I detest the man, but I fully backed it. Much to the suprise of some on my own side. The thing was, he was making the ONLY possible correct call.50-60% of the people still think he shouldn't have.

But there is only a limited number of ways in which a cookie can crumble.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 14:13:49
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 16:35:12
Straighforward Confiscation. Box 6, page 57.


www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2013/02/pdf/fm1302.pdf
Courtesy of IMF.

There have been illustrious supporters,
including Pigou, Ricardo, Schumpeter, anduntil he
changed his mindKeynes. The conditions for success
are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks
of the alternatives, which include repudiating public
debt or inflating it away (these, in turn, are a particular
form of wealth taxon bondholdersthat also falls on
nonresidents)


Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 16:35:40
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 20:26:30
By MachineGunSteve [184119]


On the issue of the debt ceiling... the government keeps raising it every year, and guess what? This is going to shock you I know, but every year the idiots in government keep finding a way to spend right up to the line, and then they want to raise it again... go figure, but wait... where does the money come from, Ted? Simple logic, and math suggests that we can not go on forever, spending more than we make, but the only solution I here coming from the left is to raise taxes... raise taxes... screw the people who are already living on a budget. They can afford to pay more taxes... tax the rich, tax the rich... except the definition of rich keeps getting smaller, and smaller, while federal workers pay keeps up with inflation, and the tax payers pay keeps being reduced by the burden of keeping the whole bloated thing afloat.


Yeah they do keep raising it every year, just as they have 78 times since the 1960's. It may not be able to go on forever, but it can go on. Our GDP is almost 16 trillion dollars and the interest that we pay on the money we borrow is fractions of a penny compared to out GDP, the debt is not the major problem going on in the country right now.

What is, is the oligarchy that the rich are trying to turn our country into and the corruption going on in our political system. Continuously cutting the social programs which have helped people people move up in society for the last half century (which is all the republicans are doing right now, and what you are suggesting is the solution to our problems) has the opposite effect. No country in history has every cut their way to prosperity, it happens by investing in the people. The country does better when everyone is doing better, not just the top 1%.

We have seen times like this before, at the end of the 1800's. It was social movements that created all these institutions that you and your so-called "libertarian" buddies like Rand Paul are so bent on destroying, which changed all of that.

At some point, "we the people" will have to take back our government and the time will come when Americans get their shit together to make it happen. I guess I just have more faith in our country than you do. Your pessimistic, do-nothing, "what's in it for me" attitude is cancer in our society.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 20:41:07
"No country in history has every cut their way to prosperity, it happens by investing in the people."

Definition: Take money out of the pocket of one group, and put it into the pocket of another group, and keep a bunch of it for yourself (assuming you are a politician or bureaucrat that is), all in the name of the "public good."

I love the way you liberals use the word "investing". You will love Martin O'Malley, Ted. He will be making a run at the White House in a couple of years. Keep your ear out for him... he loves the word "investing".

Like I have said a million times throughout these threads over the years... I have no problem paying my fair share, Ted. But, I am sure as hell not going to be duped into believing that any "investing" is going on. We have fallen from first in infrastructure on a national level to 14th over the last few years. We have pissed our money off to other countries investing in their infrastructure for sure... after we bomb the hell out of them first of course. We have now embarked on a fools gamble at socialized medicine, which at first glance looks like it is going to be a miserable failure... and those are just the first few boondoggles of "investment" that I can think of...

No, as I said before, both parties are to blame in this overspending nightmare we see before us, and it is time it be fixed... if it is even possible for it to be fixed.



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 21:08:23
Lol. No you are are just for patting Republicans on the back when they "stand up to Obama" by cutting 70 billion dollars out of food stamps while not cutting one dime from the billions of dollars of unnecessary farm subsidies.

Personally I dont think we should be cutting any social programs until we also agree to cut corporate welfare and raise revenue. But you are of the opinion that we should just keep cutting social programs with the hopes that maybe they will do the other stuff later. Well guess what? If you only do one, then you have no leverage to make them do the other and they will just continue to make all the cuts from the American people and none from the corporations. You surrender before you even start, but I guess that is your MO.

Go team USA!

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 22:54:02
Countries don't create prosperity.
Nor do financial markets let alone industrailists [ the sickest joke of that particular troika].

Merchants do.
It's a bottom-up process.

While I'm at it; the claim that the budget can be balanced by cutting down on entitlements needs debunking too.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled and do not live in a working household received only 9 percent of the benefits.


But where does tax money go then?


2-10-12bud-f3.jpg
I don't think I really need to editoralise.
Res ipsa loquitur.

Coincidentally: international transfers account for 1% of the federal budget.
A very unpromising area for finding major savings.

Safety Net Programs - pretty much the US equivalent of UK Working Tax Credits.
The gap-filler between Minimum Wage and Living Wage.
www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Safety net programs: About 12 percent of the federal budget in 2012, or $411 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2011 and 2012 as the economy continued to improve.


Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis shows that government safety net programs kept some 25 million people out of poverty in 2010. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 28.6 percent in 2010, nearly double the actual 15.


A very substantial percentage of that would tend to be costs succesfully passed by Walmart and McDonalds to the tax-payer.

America is a modern democracy -
which means it is driven by Public Opinion -
which means that taxdollars go to the loudest mouths.

That is not corruption - that is a feature in democracy!

Maybe you both get by now why I am uttterly cavalier about simply blind cutting
By and large - expenditure cuts will fall on the biggest pockets with the loudest mouths.

Last Edited: Thu Oct 10, 2013 23:59:12
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Oct 10, 2013 23:14:37
By TedThomas [887131]
Lol. No you are are just for patting Republicans on the back when they "stand up to Obama" by cutting 70 billion dollars out of food stamps while not cutting one dime from the billions of dollars of unnecessary farm subsidies.

Personally I dont think we should be cutting any social programs until we also agree to cut corporate welfare and raise revenue. But you are of the opinion that we should just keep cutting social programs with the hopes that maybe they will do the other stuff later. Well guess what? If you only do one, then you have no leverage to make them do the other and they will just continue to make all the cuts from the American people and none from the corporations. You surrender before you even start, but I guess that is your MO.

Go team USA!


What the hell are you talking about, Ted? Do you even read what I write? I don't think so... I am not patting the Republicans on the back. I would like most of them to be put on trial for treason, and hung.

I don't agree with corporate welfare anymore than I agree with giving food stamps to people so they can buy beer and smokes. I don't agree with allowing crooks to steal from the public purse, whether those crooks profess to be conservative or liberal.

You just don't get it do you, Ted? I don't know how much simpler I can write it...

I hate both parties. Two sides of the same coin. Write it down, Ted. Try to remember it for next time.


Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Tolshortte

ID: 648554
Level: 50
Posts: 3302
Score: 1368
TBLTolshortte [648554]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Oct 11, 2013 00:23:26
I don't have an issue with some of our social programs, I have an issue with the permanency of them. there should be a limited amount of money or time any individual should be allowed to collect unless physically or mentally handicapped(and both should be heavily monitored).

I would much rather see free education than free healthcare. if we are to 'invest' in the people, it should be teaching them skills so they may one day be able to contribute to the system in some way.

this idea that giving someone free housing, utilities, phones, healthcare etc will lift them out of their poverty stricken hell to me is ridiculous. unless they are required to do something while getting hand outs they will always need handouts.

Helping those who need help isn't bad, its only bad when so many people capable of providing for themselves take advantage of it.

there has been some changes to this, I hope there are more. required schooling with a passing grade, the ability to pass a drug screening, availability for 8hrs of community service per week are 3 major things id like to see attached to 'investing' in the people.



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Oct 11, 2013 00:32:09
By Tolshortte [648554]
I don't have an issue with some of our social programs, I have an issue with the permanency of them. there should be a limited amount of money or time any individual should be allowed to collect unless physically or mentally handicapped(and both should be heavily monitored).

I would much rather see free education than free healthcare. if we are to 'invest' in the people, it should be teaching them skills so they may one day be able to contribute to the system in some way.

this idea that giving someone free housing, utilities, phones, healthcare etc will lift them out of their poverty stricken hell to me is ridiculous. unless they are required to do something while getting hand outs they will always need handouts.

Helping those who need help isn't bad, its only bad when so many people capable of providing for themselves take advantage of it.

there has been some changes to this, I hope there are more. required schooling with a passing grade, the ability to pass a drug screening, availability for 8hrs of community service per week are 3 major things id like to see attached to 'investing' in the people.


Considering that 91% of all entitlement spending is on the elderly,the handicapped and your version of WTC, providing more than the most perfunctory scrutiny on such things is a waste of perfectly good dollari.
...but it makes a good job programme for civil servants, I suppose.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Tolshortte

ID: 648554
Level: 50
Posts: 3302
Score: 1368
TBLTolshortte [648554]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Oct 11, 2013 00:41:47
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By Tolshortte [648554]
I don't have an issue with some of our social programs, I have an issue with the permanency of them. there should be a limited amount of money or time any individual should be allowed to collect unless physically or mentally handicapped(and both should be heavily monitored).

I would much rather see free education than free healthcare. if we are to 'invest' in the people, it should be teaching them skills so they may one day be able to contribute to the system in some way.

this idea that giving someone free housing, utilities, phones, healthcare etc will lift them out of their poverty stricken hell to me is ridiculous. unless they are required to do something while getting hand outs they will always need handouts.

Helping those who need help isn't bad, its only bad when so many people capable of providing for themselves take advantage of it.

there has been some changes to this, I hope there are more. required schooling with a passing grade, the ability to pass a drug screening, availability for 8hrs of community service per week are 3 major things id like to see attached to 'investing' in the people.


Considering that 91% of all entitlement spending is on the elderly,the handicapped and your version of WTC, providing more than the most perfunctory scrutiny on such things is a waste of perfectly good dollari.
...but it makes a good job programme for civil servants, I suppose.


I actually used to be against the elderly getting much more than the social security they are entitled to. but since the govt has allowed so many corps. to reduce or eliminate retirement monies to ppl who worked 25+ years to earn, ive had to change my stance. its hard to blame someone who was promised by a legally binding contract a way to provide for ones self then had it ripped away for not being prepared.

Last Edited: Fri Oct 11, 2013 00:42:39


Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3842
Score: 3143
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Oct 11, 2013 01:08:42
By Tolshortte [648554]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By Tolshortte [648554]
I don't have an issue with some of our social programs, I have an issue with the permanency of them. there should be a limited amount of money or time any individual should be allowed to collect unless physically or mentally handicapped(and both should be heavily monitored).

I would much rather see free education than free healthcare. if we are to 'invest' in the people, it should be teaching them skills so they may one day be able to contribute to the system in some way.

this idea that giving someone free housing, utilities, phones, healthcare etc will lift them out of their poverty stricken hell to me is ridiculous. unless they are required to do something while getting hand outs they will always need handouts.

Helping those who need help isn't bad, its only bad when so many people capable of providing for themselves take advantage of it.

there has been some changes to this, I hope there are more. required schooling with a passing grade, the ability to pass a drug screening, availability for 8hrs of community service per week are 3 major things id like to see attached to 'investing' in the people.


Considering that 91% of all entitlement spending is on the elderly,the handicapped and your version of WTC, providing more than the most perfunctory scrutiny on such things is a waste of perfectly good dollari.
...but it makes a good job programme for civil servants, I suppose.


I actually used to be against the elderly getting much more than the social security they are entitled to. but since the govt has allowed so many corps. to reduce or eliminate retirement monies to ppl who worked 25+ years to earn, ive had to change my stance. its hard to blame someone who was promised by a legally binding contract a way to provide for ones self then had it ripped away for not being prepared.


2-10-12bud-f3.jpg
*shrug* Tax Dollars are not spent where it is generally assumed they are spent.
Allowing more than the most perfunctory scrutiny on expenditure makes the game sillier yet.

I am merely making the assumption that budget coverage in the US is similar to that in the UK, but based on that: people only analyse 2 things:
- what is in it for them
- how to cut out someone else.
Only the Times and the Guardian focussed on the overall picture.The others provided by and large only scare-stories or Great News for>their< segment.
Foreign Aid, entitlements for the undeserving poor - these things represent something like 3.2% of the Federal Budget. Peanuts.

The bottomline is: budgets by and large don't redistribute money, contrary to generally held opinion.
A few posts back,I linked to the IMF report 'Taxing Times'.
So don't take my word for it - it's in there too.

Tax Dollars do represent money people spend on themselves.
This holds true in just about every form of representative government across the globe.

...And I thought: 'Bless you, mon cher professeur Collignon, for making us memorise all those things.The unexpected crisis came and I know exactly what is to be done'.



Last Edited: Fri Oct 11, 2013 01:09:46
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Oct 11, 2013 02:10:32
Darth...

45% of the US budget is entitlements...

www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

That is a bit more than the 3.2% you mention.

We need, and should have a safety net for people in the USA. All I want to see is that the money is being used for necessary needs, and not to pad the coffers of a select few who can game the system.

There are more than enough examples of the fleecing of America, so I am not going to get into specifics, nor do I blame one political party more than the other.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Last Edited: Fri Oct 11, 2013 02:19:49
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> America Government Partial ShutDown
First  << 1  2  3  4  5 >>  Last