I'm surprised no one has brought this up. 

My take?  We don't negotiate with hostage takers

They will though. He'll cave in.

Dems will give in on spending cuts. Repubs will give in on closing tax loopholes. Nancy Pelosi will be there to make sure Obama doesn't give the house away this time.

Dems will give in on spending cuts. Repubs will give in on closing tax loopholes. Nancy Pelosi will be there to make sure Obama doesn't give the house away this time.



The Repubs don't want to give ANYTHING!!!!



Cat

The Repubs don't want to give ANYTHING!!!!



Cat


The Dems ensure they'll never have to.  They are corrupt with dirty money and stupid ideology.  Even Reagan's budget advisors say it would be incredibly stupid to let the U.S. default on its debt. 

I don't like to call right wingers "mean" because they get off on it, but they are mean.  They are heartless, monomaniacal, and savage.  The righties are always in favor of war and prisons, which are the most expensive and least efficient ways of solving problems, but both increase human suffering, and the right can't get enough of that. 

Sadistic bullies now hold sway over our lives. 

The Dems ensure they'll never have to.  They are corrupt with dirty money and stupid ideology.  Even Reagan's budget advisors say it would be incredibly stupid to let the U.S. default on its debt. 

I don't like to call right wingers "mean" because they get off on it, but they are mean.  They are heartless, monomaniacal, and savage.  The righties are always in favor of war and prisons, which are the most expensive and least efficient ways of solving problems, but both increase human suffering, and the right can't get enough of that. 

Sadistic bullies now hold sway over our lives. 
See Max I don't get what is with you guys on the left with the name calling. It doesn't do anything. It may get you in the headlines for a day but it does no good as you said. The politicians that do stuff like that it makes them sound like high schoolers. In my opinion that stuff started with Pelosi in 2007 when the Dems took over the US House. Its old now and it has to stop. I realize the right does do it sometimes too but that doesn't make it right. I just pretend I don't hear the rhetoric anymore from both political parties.

Am I in favor of war? Well if we get attacked. Prisons? if a person does a crime.

The Repubs don't want to give ANYTHING!!!!



Cat
They don't want to give the tax cuts up I know that already. They'll give up the loopholes part like I said.

The budget and spending needs to be cut.

The Dems don't want to hold anybody hostage.  They just want to rape our pocketbooks.

By the way I am all for eliminating the various 'loopholes' (special breaks for oil companies, deductibility of corporate jets, blah-blah-blah), but as to actually increasing tax rates themselves, sorry, I have no interest in that.

Raising taxes is simply the Democratic Party's way of playing Robin Hood.  Robin Hood was not a philanthropist, he was a thief.

The budget and spending needs to be cut.

The Dems don't want to hold anybody hostage.  They just want to rape our pocketbooks.



An amusing image if ever there was one!
:D

If we default on the national debt we could be downgraded to a second world power.  Nobody wants that.  Social spending is a good investment for productivity and morale. 

I think millionaires can afford to pay a few extra bucks in taxes.  They ought to take one for the team.  Think of it more like war for our survival. 

This issue just really makes me angry because it is just so stupid. There really isn't a crisis and the this country really isn't broke. It is totally screwed up is what it is.

You have the Repubs who want EVERYTHING for the fat cats. And if you dare question it they will tell you it is redistribution of wealth. They are right-it IS redistribution of wealth-all for the fat cats. And they want everyone else to pay for it. They want you to believe that it is some poor schmoe should support the fat cat.

It is class warfare folk, plain and simple. And the Repubs want you to think that it is all the poor's fault.

My case in point:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCRaEwZejLg


They want you to think that there is a spending problem. The problem is that these fat cats are NOT paying their fair share. They find all sorts of loopholes not to mention tax heavens off shore. (Can you say, "Cayman Islands"?)

And as for creating jobs, the only ones they are hiring are lobbyists. They spend boocoo bucks for lobbyists so they don't have pay taxes. If they gave the government what they give lobbyists, I don't think this country would be in the condition it is in now.



Cat

I'm surprised no one has brought this up.  


Because unlike Greece - and even Greece followed its marching orders - this one really is political kabuki theater.  It will be raised, because the people that fund both sides' campaigns have demanded as much.


My take?  We don't negotiate with hostage takers


Reid: Alright, pop quiz.  Congress.  Opposing party with one seat Senate majority, he's using it for cover, he's almost to the 2012 election cycle.  You're 100 days away from your party's primary.  

Boehner: (thinking)

Reid: (pause) ...John?

Boehner: Shoot the hostage.

Reid:  What?

Boehner: Take the voter out of the equation.  Blow up the economy and he can't get to 2012 with 'em.  Clear political win.

Reid: You are deeply nuts, you know that...

(Of course, my prior confidence doesn't account for the possibility that both sides' leaders could choose to simultaneously call each other's bluff...)

By the way I am all for eliminating the various 'loopholes' (special breaks for oil companies, deductibility of corporate jets, blah-blah-blah), but as to actually increasing tax rates themselves, sorry, I have no interest in that.



The Republicans are equating closing loopholes to raising taxes. 

During the bushwacked era the debt ceiling was raised 19 TIMES .  Among those voting "aye" were Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell

During the bushwacked era the debt ceiling was raised 19 TIMES .  Among those voting "aye" were Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell
Remember Obama voted  "no" to raise the debt ceiling when he was a US Senator.

It took Bush(W.)8 years to rack up 4 trillion dollars of national debt. It took Obama  2.5 years to rack up that much.

This issue just really makes me angry because it is just so stupid. There really isn't a crisis and the this country really isn't broke. It is totally screwed up is what it is.

You have the Repubs who want EVERYTHING for the fat cats. And if you dare question it they will tell you it is redistribution of wealth. They are right-it IS redistribution of wealth-all for the fat cats. And they want everyone else to pay for it. They want you to believe that it is some poor schmoe should support the fat cat.

It is class warfare folk, plain and simple. And the Repubs want you to think that it is all the poor's fault.

My case in point:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCRaEwZejLg


They want you to think that there is a spending problem. The problem is that these fat cats are NOT paying their fair share. They find all sorts of loopholes not to mention tax heavens off shore. (Can you say, "Cayman Islands"?)

And as for creating jobs, the only ones they are hiring are lobbyists. They spend boocoo bucks for lobbyists so they don't have pay taxes. If they gave the government what they give lobbyists, I don't think this country would be in the condition it is in now.



Cat
Yeah but the left wants to redistribute wealth to the poor. Do you think that is any better?

You think the country isn't on track to go broke? If the debt is 100% of GDP then we are broke. That might happen in 10 years. We have to cut spending so that does not happen 10 years out. Look at Greece their debt is 150% of GDP.

I say about the lobbyists get rid of them. They have way too much influence on the US Government.

I just want the tax rate for people making 1 million dollars and up to be raised to 40% of their income. I don't think that is too much to ask of them like Max has somewhat entailed. I mean taxes  on the top 2% were 39% during the Clinton years(people making 250,000 and above)and I didn't see the top 2% starving for food during that time.

Yeah but the left wants to redistribute wealth to the poor. Do you think that is any better?




Well, yes...and, if you would please attention, they aren't talking about redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, they are talking about having the wealthy pay their fair share and not sucking the working and middle class dry. 

Remember Obama voted  "no" to raise the debt ceiling when he was a US Senator.

It took Bush(W.)8 years to rack up 4 trillion dollars of national debt. It took Obama  2.5 years to rack up that much.



Bush was given a surplus. Obama was given record deficits.

The thing is, the government HAS to spend to get out of this mess. By cutting back, it is only going to make it worse.



Cat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgqw77XgLds




Cat

Bush was given a surplus. Obama was given record deficits.




Cat


I have told people that and for some reason they just don't want to here it, or credit it.  Obama came into the white house at the beginning of the worst financial crises since the great depression, brought on by 30 years of deregulation and corporate greed.  This is something that will take decades DECADES to rectify, but the culture of instant gratification were looking for things to be the same as they were within 6 months.  Grow up is all I say, grow up.

I have told people that and for some reason they just don't want to here it, or credit it.  Obama came into the white house at the beginning of the worst financial crises since the great depression, brought on by 30 years of deregulation and corporate greed.  This is something that will take decades DECADES to rectify, but the culture of instant gratification were looking for things to be the same as they were within 6 months.  Grow up is all I say, grow up.



Exactly. I had a bit of a conversation yesterday about people wanting to pay down the debt with Social Security that doesn't add to the debt. She didn't think so. She thinks that S.S. is a failure.  ::)  Just wait until she retires. In the meanwhile, she can continue to clean my toilets.  :D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

The thing is, the government HAS to spend to get out of this mess. By cutting back, it is only going to make it worse.


The government is out of money.  There is nothing to spend.

The government is out of money.  There is nothing to spend.


That's probably what Hoover told Roosevelt.

The government is out of money.  There is nothing to spend.



That is because they give it all to the fat cats and the corporations.



Cat

That is because they give it all to the fat cats and the corporations.



Cat


...and themselves

...and themselves




That's what I said-the fat cats.



Cat

That is because they give it all to the fat cats and the corporations.

Cat


Actually according to the CBO, the 2011 budget breaks out as follows:

Health Care - 18%
Defense - 16%
Pensions - 16%
Welfare - 11%
Interest - 5%
Protection - 5%

Bush was given a surplus. Obama was given record deficits.

The thing is, the government HAS to spend to get out of this mess. By cutting back, it is only going to make it worse.



Cat
The government can spend money but the thing is with stimulus it only last a few months in order to grow the economy. It doesn't last a couple years and the government doesn't get 100% of its investment back. Its a very short term gain in the economy with using stimulus to prop up the economy. I mean how many stimulus's did Japan have during the 1990's and they didn't work.

That is because they give it all to the fat cats and the corporations.



Cat
Thats not true CAT I mean take Medicare for example its taking in less than it is paying out.

The government can spend money but the thing is with stimulus it only last a few months in order to grow the economy. It doesn't last a couple years and the government doesn't get 100% of its investment back. Its a very short term gain in the economy with using stimulus to prop up the economy. I mean how many stimulus's did Japan have during the 1990's and they didn't work.



What we got back beside people having jobs, we got newly paved roads which we desperately need. We got some bridges that will not collapse. But we need more.



Cat

I have told people that and for some reason they just don't want to here it, or credit it.  Obama came into the white house at the beginning of the worst financial crises since the great depression, brought on by 30 years of deregulation and corporate greed.  This is something that will take decades DECADES to rectify, but the culture of instant gratification were looking for things to be the same as they were within 6 months.  Grow up is all I say, grow up.
What 30 years? The early 90's recession wasn't even that bad. I'll grant you Obama came in during a horrible economic time. Decades to rectify? The early 80's recession was nearly as bad as the late 2007-mid 2009 one but we got out of that deal by 1983-1984. The last 2 job reports have been absolutely horrible in the last 2 months. They haven't even been respectable.

Well, yes...and, if you would please attention, they aren't talking about redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, they are talking about having the wealthy pay their fair share and not sucking the working and middle class dry. 

As I said before the people making over a million dollars can afford to pay a little more in taxes. BTW, the top 1% already do pay 38% of the taxes as Orrin Hatch(R-Utah) said in that video that CAT posted so they do pay alot in taxes already though.

As I said before the people making over a million dollars can afford to pay a little more in taxes. BTW, the top 1% already do pay 38% of the taxes as Orrin Hatch(R-Utah) said in that video that CAT posted so they do pay alot in taxes already though.


The top 1% possesses 50% of the wealth.

As I said before the people making over a million dollars can afford to pay a little more in taxes. BTW, the top 1% already do pay 38% of the taxes as Orrin Hatch(R-Utah) said in that video that CAT posted so they do pay alot in taxes already though.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/debating-the-tax-burden/

So from 1979 to 2005 the average federal tax rate for the very highest-earning families fell 11.4 percentage points. For the bottom 80 percent of earners, the rate fell only 4 percentage points, and the drop was fairly equal across different sections of this bottom 80 percent, as you can see from the C.B.O. numbers. The drop was smaller for the top 20 percent of earners as a group (exempting the very richest households): about 2 percentage points. In fact, the very highest-earning families now pay only a slightly higher tax rate than the merely affluent.

The amount of tax they pay on each dollar of income has dropped — but they’re earning vastly more dollars, so they’re paying more taxes.

Add to this that the real income for the wealthy(notice they say earning, but not HOW they earned) rose, while the real income for the the middle and working class was pretty much stagnant.

Although I understand the reasonings behind the progressive tax, I am not for it. I believe everyone should pay the same rate with the option for subsidizing (rebates) the lower incomes. The reasoning behind this isn't to put the wealthier in an advantage over the poorer. Rather its based on the concept that everyone has the same value and access to this country as American citizens. Having higher incomes pay more of their share means they rightfully have more rights and say in this country, at least in their minds anyway. Plus realistically a set percentage helps ensure that everyone actually does pay their share. In case you're wondering, yes I am of the lower classes.  

As for the actual debt ceiling, isn't this really a moot point? Isn't the cap supposed to be unconstitutional? Besides, what's the point of actually having a cap if you bump it up each time you reach it? Just a lot of unnecessary political theater and distraction if you ask me.  


14th Amendment:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Our national debt is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.  The Constitution is clear that we may not even question it absent a constitutional amendment, and for good reason: If lenders get the idea Uncle Sam is a deadbeat, we might not get enough investment to keep the country running.

Although I understand the reasonings behind the progressive tax, I am not for it. I believe everyone should pay the same rate with the option for subsidizing (rebates) the lower incomes. The reasoning behind this isn't to put the wealthier in an advantage over the poorer. Rather its based on the concept that everyone has the same value and access to this country as American citizens. Having higher incomes pay more of their share means they rightfully have more rights and say in this country, at least in their minds anyway. Plus realistically a set percentage helps ensure that everyone actually does pay their share. In case you're wondering, yes I am of the lower classes.  

As for the actual debt ceiling, isn't this really a moot point? Isn't the cap supposed to be unconstitutional? Besides, what's the point of actually having a cap if you bump it up each time you reach it? Just a lot of unnecessary political theater and distraction if you ask me.  


The progressive income tax, which as Danoot pointed out ain't so progressive, is the only fair way to tax.

The top 1% possesses 50% of the wealth.
So, you are saying they should pay 50% of the taxes? I'm just trying to get where you are at on this particular issue.

So, you are saying they should pay 50% of the taxes? I'm just trying to get where you are at on this particular issue.



No, that sounds a bit too low.

I mean how many stimulus's did Japan have during the 1990's and they didn't work.


Better question:  With every one of its major cities in smoldering ruins at the close of 1945, how many stimuli did Japan get during the 1950s, and how did that work?

Give money away in the form of entitlements to people who aren't working?  Yeah, you get pretty much nothing but votes at the end of that project.  Build roads, bridges, automobiles, televisions, Walkmen, video games, tentacle pr0n orf Pokemon?  Now we're talking.  

Well, we're not talking.  The United States has abandoned technological leadership.  The winners will be talking Chinese.


The government is out of money.  There is nothing to spend.


Of course there's plenty to spend.  This is the US Federal Reserve, not some poncy Eurobank.  Unlike every other central bank on the planet, the Fed can bloody well print more.

So long as the US prints more dollars - preferably by means of QE3 - those of us of still in the middle class can at least hedge against the devaluation of our remaining wealth by buying precious metals and/or commodities.  If we're fast.  And if we're lucky.  And if we get the timing right.  It's a crapshoot.  Most of us won't make it - I probably won't make it - but some of us will.


SPOILER ALERT: Francico D'Anconia is a retconned pseudonym for Alan Greenspan.  (Pedant Alert: If you want to get technical about the timeline, I think Greenspan took it upon himself into fulfill the role of D'Ancona.)

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

 - Pay No Attention To The Chick Who Taught Alan Greenspan Economics


If the US shuts down the government - "the government"'s spending being a damn good portion of GD"P", we immediately go back into recession.  All those bureaucrats starving in the street along with Grandma, who's SS check won't come through.  (This is just another code for keep printing money, by the way :)  Fact is, you can't cut your way out of recession.  Giving the money away in the form of entitlements may be a dead weight compared to an actual investment in infrastructure/technology/industrial/manufacturing, that might actually increase productivity, but it's better than a deflationary spiral a'la 2008.

If the US actually defaults - it's the US saying that it won't tax the middle and lower class into penury in order to pay its debts.  That would be a catastrophe.  There are no winners in that scenario, except for the politicians who have authority over the people who have the (big) guns.  If, indeed, some men just want to watch the world burn, so be it.  I prefer order to chaos, but I'll give the Joker his due; chaos is fair :)

Greece kicked the can down the road, but the market was off almost 2% today on jitters about Italy (lower risk of implosion than Greece, but far greater impact) blowing up the world, and judging from the futures (what, you think the world stops trading at 4:00 Eastern?), it looks like we're going to eat another 1-2% tomorrow, you might guess that I'm growing a little wearry, cynical, and maybe even bitter about the whole "shoot the hostage" phenomenon that's taken over macroeconomics as of late.

And you'd be right.

Except that the world ended in 2008.  If this is endgame, I thank Helicopter Ben for postponing the inevitable, for three years longer than I, or any of my countrymen, deserved.

Are they gonna 'raise the roof'? Raise the ceiling?

The progressive income tax, which as Danoot pointed out ain't so progressive, is the only fair way to tax.


The Income Tax was used during War Times, such as The Civil War...and only the rich got taxed!

Then Woodrow Wilson kept it...permanently! (Can we start blaming things on...NOT Bush...perhaps his grandpa Prescott)?

The Income Tax was used during War Times, such as The Civil War...and only the rich got taxed!

Then Woodrow Wilson kept it...permanently! (Can we start blaming things on...NOT Bush...perhaps his grandpa Prescott)?


The fight that is presently being fought is the fight to allow the tax holiday bushbaby gave that had an expiration date.  Of course the expiration date given was one that fell after he would be out of office and here we are.