# President Obama announces deal reached to end debt crisis



## Kira Yamato (Jul 31, 2011)

*Obama says deal reached to end debt impasse*



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Sunday announced a last-minute deal to raise the U.S. borrowing limit and avoid a catastrophic default and he urged lawmakers to "do the right thing" and approve the agreement.
> 
> Laying out the endgame in the U.S. debt crisis just two days before a deadline to lift the borrowing limit, the White House and congressional leaders said the compromise would cut about $2.5 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Coteaz (Jul 31, 2011)

I'm worried about what these spending cuts will entail.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

let me guess

Republicans get almost three trillion dollars in cuts

Democrats get to scratch their balls


----------



## Sunrider (Jul 31, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> let me guess
> 
> Republicans get almost three trillion dollars in cuts
> 
> Democrats get to scratch their balls


If Pelosi is calling it a tough sell, you're probably right.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 31, 2011)

Is there any mention of tax increases? I was under the impression that Obama was holding out for some tax increases.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jul 31, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> I'm worried about what these spending cuts will entail.



You know those service that benefit the non-obscenely rich? They gone now.


----------



## Platinum (Jul 31, 2011)

Defaulting would of been absolutely devastating to the global economy so at least some sort of compromise was reached...


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

Platinum said:


> Defaulting would of been absolutely devastating to the global economy so at least some sort of compromise was reached...



Whatever...
It's all a goddamned scam.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Yes well how did i know that Boehner's plan would be the plan?  Amazing  That's what i get for thinking that Obama was holding firm initially, he had already given into those cuts from the beginning, Boehner was the one who had to corral his buffalo  watch the tea party caucus vote against this anyway and call Boehner a sell out


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

Shit I hope we default. Get a little chaos going on


Debt ceiling has been raised dozens of times with not a squeak in sight, but "noooooow" it's important.

Fuckin' A.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 31, 2011)

Plan mentions defense cuts, that's surprising to say the least.

Not happy about the "vote of disapproval" obvious campaign gimmick still being in there though.

Overall I'm going to reserve judgment until more information comes in.


----------



## dream (Jul 31, 2011)

hcheng02 said:


> Is there any mention of tax increases? I was under the impression that Obama was holding out for some tax increases.



No idea, the article certainly doesn't mention them.  I think Obama just caved in.


----------



## Mintaka (Jul 31, 2011)

This just infuriates me.  All this does is show the republicans that they can hold the economy hostage and get everything they want while the rest of us get fucked in the ass for it.

For fucks sake when will the dems grow a pair of fucking balls and stand up to these people!?  I seriously doubt the republicans would have let things default.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

they fucking with old people now tho. It's gonna get hilarious


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Yep, there were NO tax increases in the deal, infact there were caveats for MORE tax giveaways as well as those cuts AND social security cuts 


Hilarious


----------



## Shadow (Jul 31, 2011)

No details on the deal yet.


Yet Washington shows us once again that they can do something so little like pass this bill in two days but yet decide to drag it out for months on ahead.  Shows you that the government isn't FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE.  It's more or less like......FOR THE RICH PAID BY THE RICH


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

If I were a politician I'd be selling out now. Like "I give up, show me where to sign my pay check"


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Actually Boehners plan has been revealed for a few days now Shadow, and it aint pretty at all  There are SMALL cuts in defense(read : miniscule), and everything else is just cut cut cut.

Remember how Boehner said he was going after trillions in cuts a while back? He got it at the very first opportunity.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Jul 31, 2011)

No tax hikes?


----------



## Coteaz (Jul 31, 2011)

Haha

No tax increases and a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Fucking great "deal" guys.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> No tax hikes?



Not for the rich.
You tho? You're gonna pay alright


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

See? The GOP gets their crappy amendment which blocks tax increases for the rich, and we get stuck with cuts. How awesome is that?


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jul 31, 2011)

Looks like the Dems and Obama caved in...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> Looks like the Dems and Obama caved in...



As usual?  How sad

The future bodes terribly


----------



## dream (Jul 31, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> See? The GOP gets their crappy amendment which blocks tax increases for the rich, and we get stuck with cuts. How awesome is that?



About as awesome as having a flaming tire shoved down our throats.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Jul 31, 2011)

I'd sure like an amendment that tells the GOP to fuck off and eat a dick.

Probably never gonna happen though.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

And remember, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment which blocks ANY TAX HIKES. Meaning in the future, no possible tax hikes in the areas needed, EVER.

So, if you ever hear anything from Obama about raising taxes, just call em out as a bullshit liar. The reds we know will never be clean.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 31, 2011)

You should see Obama's face. It's like someone just told him they killed his poodle or something


----------



## Kyousuke (Jul 31, 2011)

Fuckin' GOP. 

The rich can afford tax hikes, and they damn well know it.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Jul 31, 2011)

Isn't there the option of getting rid of that amendment down the road?


----------



## geG (Jul 31, 2011)

From what I've heard the constitutional amendment thing is just something else attached to this and whether or not it passes has no effect on future debt ceiling raises or whatever

And the amendment is never going to get the needed 2/3s in the house and senate so who cares


----------



## Coteaz (Jul 31, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> Isn't there the option of getting rid of that amendment down the road?


There's the option of the states refusing to ratify such an immensely imbecilic amendment, yes.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

It takes roughly 80% of of the entire congress's votes to get a constitutional amendment approved/repealed in essence. That means all of one party's possible seats and a majority of the other party's possible seats. Meaning, no  

Its about as likely as breaking up the banks at this point. Which is to say, not likely at all.

If specific states want to deny the rules they probably can, just expect to get challenged with a Supreme court order


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Jul 31, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> There's the option of the states refusing to ratify such an immensely imbecilic amendment, yes.



I need to brush up on this kind of thing a bit more. They didn't teach us about this enough in public school. 

Still though. An amendment that tells the GOP to fuck off and eat a dick sounds nice right about now.


----------



## roninmedia (Jul 31, 2011)

According to some TEA Party members, raising taxes = increasing spending. They are gonna take our money and spend it on other stuff, not pay off the debt. Quite sure Bush didn't exactly pay off the debt with the surplus he got coming in.  




And who the hell keeps believing in trickle-down economics in this age of greed and selfishness and ineptitude?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Personally, i'm glad the progressive caucus summoned an emergency meeting tonight. All that's in this bill is cuts, and in addition to that, there will be no unemployment benefits extension whatsoever as per the deal. MEANING all of the millions of people out of work can go die, ironic for people who said that it was all about jobs jobs jobs


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 31, 2011)

Based on  it doesn't sound too bad.



> Bipartisan super-committee is tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in  deficit reduction by November 23 through tax and entitlement reform;
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Assuming this is true there's no mandate of a balanced budget amendment, nor a tax freeze attached to such an amendment (which would never pass anyway).

If Congress can't agree things will get ugly (mostly in Education) but it's not nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

> Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, who earlier in the day called the emerging debt ceiling deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich," stood by his criticism in an interview with MSNBC following Obama's announcement of the deal.
> 
> "We lost this early on," Cleaver said. "I came back to Washington at the beginning of the year thinking we were going to create jobs, and we allowed the national discourse to change from jobs to the debt, and so right now there's very little we can do."
> 
> "If I were a Republican, I would be dancing in the streets," he said. "I don't have any idea what the Republicans wanted that they didn't get. And I can't tell you anything that Democrats got out of this deal, except that we're probably going to prevent the nation from crashing."



If your a GOP member maybe, you got everything you wanted, and the cuts will come most definitely to your opposition, meaning middle class poor people  

The reason why people are so angry is because this is just to get the fucking debt limit raised. This should not have come with any caveats in the first place. If this is how its going to go from now on, i fear for everyone.


----------



## Final Giku Tenshou (Jul 31, 2011)

You people do understand that in order for the Constitutional Amendment to actually be put in place, it first has to pass Congress and _*then *_has to be ratified by 38 states, right? This isn't just some "lulz you automatically get this shit" kind of thing, it's going to take some effort for them to get it in place.


----------



## Coteaz (Jul 31, 2011)

Final Giku Tenshou said:


> You people do understand that in order for the Constitutional Amendment to actually be put in place, it first has to pass Congress and _*then *_has to be ratified by 38 states, right? This isn't just some "lulz you automatically get this shit" kind of thing, it's going to take some effort for them to get it in place.


The fact that it was even included speaks volumes about our Congress.


----------



## Doge (Jul 31, 2011)

We'll end up in the same situation later on.

What good is cutting him the grass just grows back twice as long as before?


----------



## Final Giku Tenshou (Jul 31, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> The fact that it was even included speaks volumes about our Congress.



Yes, but it does not speak volumes about the states who have to ratify it.


----------



## emROARS (Jul 31, 2011)

...and I thought the UK had it bad the with cuts.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jul 31, 2011)

Oh so they haven't voted for it yet there's still hope


----------



## Sunrider (Jul 31, 2011)

The optimist in me wants to believe the balanced budget amendment was only included because the President procured assurances that the states' majority would _not_ ratify it. 

But, I let my optimist out of the closet for food and sunlight once a months, so who knows.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

The conservatives approved the deal, there's no way they could have reached that deal of Obama had not procured assurances that it would be passed


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jul 31, 2011)

Let me guess. These cuts will be to medicaid, medicare, social security, basically to everything that actually helps people?


----------



## Sunrider (Jul 31, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> The conservatives approved the deal, there's no way they could have reached that deal of Obama had not procured assurances that it would be passed


I'm talking about the balanced budget amendment that was included in the deal.

If it were me, the amendment wouldn't even be an option unless I'd got intel ensuring that, assuming the entire deal passes Congress, the states would not ratify the amendment. 

But that's just my inner optimist running his mouth.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Let me guess. These cuts will be to medicaid, medicare, social security, basically to everything that actually helps people?






not these initial cuts, these target medicare/medicaid providers, making it harder on beneficiaries indirectly. but the "gang of six" has had social security and medicaid/medicare in their sights for months now, so expect expect direct cuts to those down the road.


----------



## Stalin (Jul 31, 2011)

Sometimes I wished I lived in a country with less shitty government.


----------



## Sky is Over (Jul 31, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> Looks like the Dems and Obama caved in...



Well, it reveals somewhat of the true nature of the more radical Republicans, which is if we can't have the country we want, we'll take it all down with us.  Lesson to be learned from this, don't vote the fuckers in office for a long long time at any level of government. The democrats tried to be civil, these assholes don't know the definition of it.


----------



## Bender (Jul 31, 2011)

Once again the GOP gets to win why the rest of lose.  When will these people ever grow the fuck up.


----------



## Pacifista (Jul 31, 2011)

It's ridiculous that everything has to come to the world falling apart and people throwing themselves off cliffs while foaming at the mouth and cursing the world before something can be agreed upon.

It's even worse when what's agreed upon is a less than half baked action that continues to delay the crashing and burning when it could start fixing it. 

Good Lord what's wrong with these people and why can't they be held accountable for their blatantly destructive and selfish actions? Come on, people how long must this go on before people stop arguing about smelling the coffee and stick their freaking noses in it.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 31, 2011)

Sky is Over said:


> Well, it reveals somewhat of the true nature of the more radical Republicans, which is if we can't have the country we want, we'll take it all down with us.  Lesson to be learned from this, don't vote the fuckers in office for a long long time at any level of government. The democrats tried to be civil, these assholes don't know the definition of it.



Actually the real lesson is "Democrats are incompetence who don't know how to actually get shit done" 

Even Clinton proposed a better alternative than this


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jul 31, 2011)

So we got the Know Nothing party and the Do Nothing party. 

Fantastic.


----------



## Talon. (Jul 31, 2011)

Well, I guess thats that.


----------



## Bender (Jul 31, 2011)

Seriously, is it really that hard for the rich people to part with their money? Aren't they rich enough?  Who wants to live in a country where your neighbors are less financially blessed are suffering from poverty due to the choices made by our government and your refusal to be taxed? who wants to be wealthy while your countrymen are poor, to me that is simply humiliating.

Although, there is a positive to this y'all.

This helps his re-election chances big time. Republicans got their cuts so they have less to campaign on in 2012. Likewise, the cuts run through the next election (which Obama openly stated that he wanted) so Obama sees this as a total victory.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 31, 2011)

With the Republicans being this way, even if Obama and the Democrats put their foot down...it wouldn't help. The Republicans have become too corrupt and too shortsighted.


----------



## Sky is Over (Jul 31, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Actually the real lesson is "Democrats are incompetence who don't know how to actually get shit done"
> 
> Even Clinton proposed a better alternative than this



And that is true, but some of the ideas such as tax increases and etc. can't even be passed because of the GOP's hard headed nature. One would think that in order to have programs such as social security, health care, etc. someone has to fucking pay for it. The level of this corruption makes me rage inside. We need a watchdog group with power established within the country that has no political affiliations, completely anonymous, and that has the capability of impeaching politicians if they begin to show tell tale signs of corruption, something to throw them back into the dark. At least back in the day they had the politicians and money-makers courtesy to do it in secrecy, now they're just like two rabbits going at it. This has set the standard, I'm voting for Obby in the 2012 election just to stick it to these assholes.

@BOG, greed is a very very powerful addiction, the one where people who gain don't ever want to loose.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Aug 1, 2011)

How is it Democrat incompetence? Its more like Republican terrorism holding the entire country hostage to get their way.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

^ Were you not listening?  Obama could have used the 14th amendment to go right through the GOP. Its their incompetence, we all know what the reds will do, the democrats are not exempt for being criticized for their failure to change the playing field..


Its too important to not rage  Now we have cuts and no revenue increases or tax reform. And its pretty much assured, now that the GOP have won on this issue on such a simple thing as the debt ceiling, that there will be no revenue increases or tax reform anytime soon, or anything to be happy about really.


----------



## Verdius (Aug 1, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> How is it Democrat incompetence? Its more like Republican terrorism holding the entire country hostage to get their way.



And meanwhile Foxnews continues to tell every dumbass that watches them at how valiantly they fight for our freedums.

When is a goddamned protest going to start?


----------



## Mist Puppet (Aug 1, 2011)

Verdius said:


> And meanwhile Foxnews continues to tell every dumbass that watches them at how valiantly they fight for our freedums.
> 
> When is a goddamned protest going to start?



When people actually give a damn about what's going on.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Aug 1, 2011)

Verdius said:


> And meanwhile Foxnews continues to tell every dumbass that watches them at how valiantly they fight for our freedums.
> 
> When is a goddamned protest going to start?


The real tipping point'll be after Obama's final term in office. The Republicans seriously will want to install a Dictator at this rate or something so they'd never lose power again.


----------



## Bender (Aug 1, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The real tipping point'll be after Obama's final term in office. The Republicans seriously will want to install a Dictator at this rate or something so they'd never lose power again.



I think I just vomited in my mouth a little.


----------



## Sky is Over (Aug 1, 2011)

Verdius said:


> And meanwhile Foxnews continues to tell every dumbass that watches them at how valiantly they fight for our freedums.
> 
> When is a goddamned protest going to start?



When the infrastructure falls apart, when your grandparents/parents fall into a deep illness with nobody to help them, when basic necessities become a hassle to obtain, when the luxuries that make this country the USA begin to slip through our fingers, that's when the shots will ring.


----------



## Verdius (Aug 1, 2011)

Sky is Over said:


> When the infrastructure falls apart, when your grandparents/parents fall into a deep illness with nobody to help them, when basic necessities become a hassle to obtain, when the luxuries that make this country the USA begin to slip through our fingers, that's when the shots will ring.



My question is, why wait until we reach this point.


----------



## Griever (Aug 1, 2011)

Bender said:


> Although, there is a positive to this y'all.
> 
> This helps his re-election chances big time. Republicans got their cuts so they have less to campaign on in 2012. Likewise, the cuts run through the next election (which Obama openly stated that he wanted) so Obama sees this as a total victory.



I don't really know anyone who's voting for Obama in 2012,  personally i'm hoping for Ron Paul, limited government is something i've wanted for years.

On the artical though, i don't really have much info on where the cuts are being made, but from what i do know of it, it doesn't sound that bad, i'll have to look into it more though.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Mentioning Ron kind of dismisses your whole sentence there as he is one of the people who didn't want the debt ceiling raised along with his son and their ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)-y tea party sponsorship


"Not that bad", really one of the dumber statements i've heard today. Tell it to the people it effects, namely us


----------



## Sky is Over (Aug 1, 2011)

Verdius said:


> My question is, why wait until we reach this point.



Unfortunately, this country is still what I would consider "barbaric" in its practices and responds only to crises when they happen rather than be prepared for them in foresight.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

Griever said:


> I don't really know anyone who's voting for Obama in 2012,  personally i'm hoping for Ron Paul, limited government is something i've wanted for years.


----------



## dream (Aug 1, 2011)

Verdius said:


> My question is, why wait until we reach this point.



Because people as a whole are generally too lazy to do something about future problems.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Its not even a matter of Global Responsibilities Mael, even domestic responsibilities he doesn't take seriously. I mean really, eliminating FEMA? And your reasoning is that "neighbors in the community will help out"? With the millions of dollars of property damage? What the fuck?


----------



## Gallant (Aug 1, 2011)

So Obama and the Dems got their clocks cleaned by the GOP _again_. What else is new? The Republicans are like freaking tanks bulldozing over the competition and instead of building their own tanks or maybe some aircrafts to bomb them back to the stone age the Dems go to war with sticks and rocks. Freaking brilliant.


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 1, 2011)

Way to go America!!! fuck it no one pay taxes from now own.


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

fuck...why'd he ask for more time? fucking hell...just get it over with and do it now. get some action up in here 


and i was watching this cnn video of mccain talking about this and he was saying how they shouldnt even be spending or whatever cuz no one is paying for it anyways blah blah, and he wanted the debt ceiling to be closed tomorrow/in 2 days like it should have, but the democrat was the one arguing to wait till november because the devestating effect on people blah blah

i actually agreed more with mccain though even though im more democratic lol. like i agreed with almost everything he said..
here's the video :
 [it aint the obama one, its the one called "two senators discuss debt ceiling"][just click the arrow for the next video after the obama one lol]


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

A short term deal will not fix anything. 

 Anyway, if that really was what Mccain said Azn, that'll be the first time i've agreed with Mccain in a long time.

Fix your economy by investing in it and then you deal with the long time problem afterward which is deficits, not the other way around. The conservatives have highjacked the discussion for a long time.


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 1, 2011)

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...not-required-for-second-debt-ceiling-increase

bit of good news


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

A small reprieve, but really, it would have been just one more layer of icing on the cake


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> A short term deal will not fix anything.
> 
> Anyway, if that really was what Mccain said Azn, that'll be the first time i've agreed with Mccain in a long time.
> 
> Fix your economy by investing in it and then you deal with the long time problem afterward which is deficits, not the other way around. The conservatives have highjacked the discussion for a long time.



he said that the way obamacare and all that other extra stuff that costed money shouldn't have even been considered because we shouldn't be spending on shit that we wont be able to pay back and that we should increase taxes and shit i think[not sure about this tax part though]

just watch that video in the link i gave [well when you click the link, click the arrow to see the next video with the 2 senators mccain debating] its really good and i really really agreed with him on like everything he said


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

and then he lost me on Obamacare

really, these people never learn. that health bill made me sick, but for an altogether different reason than what they suggest .

The issue was it didn't fix the actual underlying problem within healthcare  The bill itself was deficit neutral and instead saved money, so this is manufactured controversy


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

well you have to spend to get that..i think?

oh here's the direct link for it!


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

AznKuchikiChick said:


> well you have to spend to get that..i think?
> 
> oh here's the direct link for it!



That was a pretty cordial discussion, but i don't understand why you disagreed with Mr. Durbin? Durbin is correct.

Clinton raised 22 million jobs through raising taxes and the boom of the 90s, Reagan only a portion of that and his success had to do with raising taxes, across the board, having actual bipartisan agreement during his tenure on doing that.

I agree that blaming the current fiasco on Bush doesn't get you far, but that's only because Obama decided for himself to continue many of Bush's programs which started the deficit in the first place, like Medicare Part D, overarching war spending, and the tax cuts, as well as a multitude of other things which places the blame on his shoulders squarely.


----------



## Rescuebear (Aug 1, 2011)

Its ironic how a win for republicans is a loss for America.


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> That was a pretty cordial discussion, but i don't understand why you disagreed with Mr. Durbin? Durbin is correct.
> 
> Clinton raised 22 million jobs through raising taxes and the boom of the 90s, Reagan only a portion of that and his success had to do with raising taxes, across the board, having actual bipartisan agreement during his tenure on doing that.
> 
> I agree that blaming the current fiasco on Bush doesn't get you far, but that's only because Obama decided for himself to continue many of Bush's programs which started the deficit in the first place, like Medicare Part D, overarching war spending, and the tax cuts, as well as a multitude of other things which places the blame on his shoulders squarely.


i never said i disagreed with the other dude though.. O:

gaahh.. i am just a 16 year old high school student..!! i dont know any of this..! sorry..!! 

but i wish they'd raise taxes..even if it means normal people and rich people, if people will spend they'll spend and i doubt taxes will stop em..

and yeah i agree with you on how obama's just done what bush's done/improved/ect... but its like picking up after him, forgetting about everything else really.. but is it really capable to not do that..? 


gaaaah sorry for the dumb discussion, i dont know any of this shit, i wish i did, i really do.. i wish i understood more of this.. T_____T


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

You'll get it eventually, just keep reading the news like you have been and stay informed. Its always worse to be out of the loop completely, the forces against America's well being preys on that kind of ignorance 

Its why we have people fighting against their own best interests,i was like yourself once without actually knowing it


----------



## Griever (Aug 1, 2011)

> Inuhanyou said:
> 
> 
> > Mentioning Ron kind of dismisses your whole sentence there as he is one of the people who didn't want the debt ceiling raised along with his son and their ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)-y tea party sponsorship
> ...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Griever said:


> > Did i not say that i have limited knowledge on the bill and need to look into it more?... i don't need to 'tell it' to anyone since that is not a final conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have enough knowledge on it, then any conclusions should wait until you do  that's no excuse to be so callous


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

can you give us a little summary on what it all means? D

all i know is they cant borrow from wherever it is they used to borrow from but then they voted to give more time till november to end that borrowing which is all "debt ceiling" or whatever right?

id personally think shutting it now would better than november.. whatever plans they had of compromise should have been done earlier.all that trillions plans and shit, why wasnt it done earlier? now we have to prolong that till november and in the meanwhile build up our debt even higher than it was before, with probably no means of change during that time since they'll probably wait till the last minute again like this time.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

there's powerful voodoo at work here, not everything is what it seems


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

AznKuchikiChick said:


> can you give us a little summary on what it all means? D
> 
> all i know is they cant borrow from wherever it is they used to borrow from but then they voted to give more time till november to end that borrowing which is all "debt ceiling" or whatever right?
> 
> id personally think shutting it now would better than november.. whatever plans they had of compromise should have been done earlier.all that trillions plans and shit, why wasnt it done earlier? now we have to prolong that till november and in the meanwhile build up our debt even higher than it was before, with probably no means of change during that time since they'll probably wait till the last minute again like this time.



 first of all if i'm going to explain this to you, i just want you to remember something; Don't panic about debt. It is a problem for the US government right now, but its not something that should take over your mind with panic. 

The US takes in a lot of money from revenue(meaning money it has itself), just as it spends it, one only has to be knowledgeable about what its spent on and where the money needed to fund it is.

A debt ceiling is the legal amount of debt (meaning owned money) the US allows itself to have. It was originally put in place as a congressional acknowledgement of how much money the government owes and not an actual binding resolution. These days however, its become a legally binding rule that the debt ceiling must be raised, or else the US literally has no borrowed money to spend on the things it needs to, and essentially goes bankrupt immediately.

In times past, this ceiling would be passed without incident and without any deal or anything like that needed. But the GOP wanted cuts in spending, and so they got lots of cuts.

In this plan, what is included is about 2.8 trillion dollars in worth of cuts in US spending over a period of 10 years, and a special congressional panel called the "gang of six" comprised of six congress people have until november to come to an agreement on what these cuts will entail. If they don't come to an agreement, randomized cuts will be made to all programs to make up for the difference.


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> first of all if i'm going to explain this to you, i just want you to remember something. Don't panic about debt. It is a problem for the US government right now, but its not something that should take over your mind with panic.
> 
> The US takes in a lot of money from revenue(meaning money it has itself), just as it spends it, one only has to be knowledgeable about what its spent on and where the money needed to fund it is.
> 
> ...



i see... 

hmm that aint bad at all 

well i just wonder what these cuts will be though.. lets hope they can decide on them.


so this debt thingy is that they have gone over the legal amount of spending that hasnt been payed for to be spent..?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

AznKuchikiChick said:


> i see...
> 
> hmm that aint bad at all
> 
> ...



Yes...August 2nd was the date when the US would hit the legal limit of money it was allowed to borrow, they averted the problems that would cause by only a few days.

I would disagree with your assessment on it not being bad however. Because if i know the GOP and the Democrats, they will focus many of the cuts on the poor and middle class, who actually need the services that are supported through federal funding.  That is my first rage with this deal. I have plenty of other rages.


----------



## Tion (Aug 1, 2011)

Any raising of taxes on the rich? Or is that too socialist?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 1, 2011)

I've lost the ability to care anymore, hopefully when old people see how bad they're fucked they'll wise up. It's a wonder these old dumb mother fuckers who vote for the Tea Party haven't drowned standing in rain if they're this dumb so I doubt it will matter.


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 1, 2011)

On behalf of the European Union, I thank Americans for coming to their senses. While I personaly would have liked the Democrats to be able to do this alone, a compromise is better than default.

As a European I'm a little worried that so much of _our_ economic well-being is connected to the domestic policies of a country where we can do nothing but watch... I hope those who have American citizenship and can vote in the U.S elections realize how much power they have over the rest of the world and use it responsibly.

I'll hold off on planting a Chinese flag in Stockholm for now, althoug I have a feeling I'll get to do that within 50 years no matter what happens.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 1, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> On behalf of the European Union, I thank Americans for coming to their senses. While I personaly would have liked the Democrats to be able to do this alone, a compromise is better than default.
> 
> As a European I'm a little worried that so much of _our_ economic well-being is connected to the domestic policies of a country where we can do nothing but watch... I hope those who have American citizenship and can vote in the U.S elections realize how much power they have over the rest of the world and use it responsibly.
> 
> I'll hold off on planting a Chinese flag in Stockholm for now, althoug I have a feeling I'll get to do that within 50 years no matter what happens.



You should cut your ties to civilization and just live on Antarctica...its the only way you can hide from the stupidity that's become American Politics.


----------



## Negative (Aug 1, 2011)

Once again Obama and the Dems caved into Republicans' Demands. Seriously, when the Americans will realized that Republicans are nothing but  a cancer to America that needs to be destroy?

There should be a new set of rules when becoming a member of Congress. You cannot be an Fucking Idiot.

Honsetly, No Tax Hikes? No Closing Loopholes? Rich can dance on the tears of the Classes below them while they are shitting millions of dollars?

Makes me want to fly to DC, start a mob and storm down Congress


----------



## roninmedia (Aug 1, 2011)

Tion said:


> Any raising of taxes on the rich? Or is that too socialist?



You can't take away the ability of the job creators to create jobs. It's trickle-down economics at its best.




I was just watching C-SPAN when they were interviewing the chairwoman of the Tea Party Express. Two things stood out to me.

"Let me preface this, I am not an expert on the economy"
"I am against raising taxes on the wealthy. The USA has a spending problem. Raising taxes is increasing spending. However, I agree with closing tax loopholes."


----------



## BlazingCobaltX (Aug 1, 2011)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!  

I wanted to see America fall. 


*(I KNOW I'M FUCKING INSANE FOR WANTING THIS)*


----------



## ThatsWhatIsLove (Aug 1, 2011)

End debt crisis. :repstorm

Do Americans believe this? They need to realise the capitalist society that worked so well, thanks mainly because its easier to be greedy and selfish than to help your fellow human beings, actually doesnt work long term. You are all fucked, we are all fucked. 

Thanks ameribros.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

ThatsWhatIsLove said:


> End debt crisis. :repstorm
> 
> Do Americans believe this? They need to realise the capitalist society that worked so well, thanks mainly because its easier to be greedy and selfish than to help your fellow human beings, actually doesnt work long term. You are all fucked, we are all fucked.
> 
> Thanks ameribros.





Better to take a small deal than a complete fucking disaster.


----------



## ThatsWhatIsLove (Aug 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> Better to take a small deal than a complete fucking disaster.



Like throwing a cup of water in to the ocean it really makes no difference.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

ThatsWhatIsLove said:


> Like throwing a cup of water in to the ocean it really makes no difference.



Ok genius, what would you have done?  Convert to socialism?

I don't think you really know what an impasse is, do you?


----------



## Asmodeus (Aug 1, 2011)

Looks like Obama caved then. 

Kind of a pity he let the extreme right hold the welfare of the Nation hostage. I'm for spending cuts, but unless they're coupled with Tax increases, it's wheel spinning at its finest. 

Waste of time.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

Asmodeus said:


> Looks like Obama caved then.
> 
> Kind of a pity he let the extreme right hold the welfare of the Nation hostage. I'm for spending cuts, but unless they're coupled with Tax increases, it's wheel spinning at its finest.
> 
> Waste of time.



What makes me wonder is what would've happened if he still held firm.  I mean he's a pragmatist surrounded by leftists and right-wing tards.  It's a Scylla and Charybdis.


----------



## Asmodeus (Aug 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> What makes me wonder is what would've happened if he still held firm.  I mean he's a pragmatist surrounded by leftists and right-wing tards.  It's a Scylla and Charybdis.



That's actually the root of the real problem.

He was between a rock and a hard place. I have to wonder if the current GOP is aware their unwillingness to truly compromise, lest great harm occur to their Nation and the world, is an inadvertent form of terrorism? 

We will get nowhere with some kind of tax increase, coupled with the 7-figure and up club paying their share. Until that happens, there is no true solution, and we're going to wind up where we started, or worse.


----------



## Asmodeus (Aug 1, 2011)

The internet in general is relatively left leaning, with individual boards being exceptions to those rules on occasion.


----------



## perman07 (Aug 1, 2011)

^


----------



## ThatsWhatIsLove (Aug 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> Ok genius, what would you have done?  Convert to socialism?
> 
> I don't think you really know what an impasse is, do you?



Im not a genius or American and so I know almost nothing about what has happened here other than you are just delaying the inevitable.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

ThatsWhatIsLove said:


> *Im not a genius or American and so I know almost nothing about what has happened here* other than you are just delaying the inevitable.



So why post like you're in some sort of knowledge?

Bad enough you speak like an idealist.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 1, 2011)

Actually the US's Debt-to-GDP ratio is better than most of Europe's, and slightly better than the .



I'm not saying reducing our debt would be a bad idea, but if where the US is is a sign of some sort of inevitable failure, then a good chunk of the world is going to go first.

That said this has little to do with the deal reached (actually little to do with the entire debt ceiling issue) this is and has always been a political power struggle.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually the US's Debt-to-GDP ratio is better than most of Europe's, and slightly better than the .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Might wanna bring this up to several Europeans who think they know what they're talking about.

And yes it's more politics than anything else, both sides trying to save face.  However, I won't back down in my opinion thinking the Tea Party only made this worse.


----------



## Ceria (Aug 1, 2011)

This whole fucking thing infuriates me and granted as i've proven here, i'm an idiot when it comes to most of politics because it seems like our leaders do things that exist beyond the limits of common sense. I'm the typical uninformed voter because most of what goes on in politics might as well be spoken in russian since i'm not going to understand it to begin with. 

Did anything really happen that's going to change the way i live my life or will this be a big to do about nothing and nothing will really change?

How does anyone make sense of all this.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

Ceria said:


> This whole fucking thing infuriates me and granted as i've proven here, i'm an idiot when it comes to most of politics because it seems like our leaders do things that exist beyond the limits of common sense. I'm the typical uninformed voter because most of what goes on in politics might as well be spoken in russian since i'm not going to understand it to begin with.
> 
> Did anything really happen that's going to change the way i live my life or will this be a big to do about nothing and nothing will really change?
> 
> How does anyone make sense of all this.



*Spoiler*: __


----------



## kayanathera (Aug 1, 2011)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually the US's Debt-to-GDP ratio is better than most of Europe's, and slightly better than the .


thats BS US official public debt is already 14 tn+ and keep in mind that americans do not use the same methodology as europeans which allows other kinds of obligations like GSE debts to be hidden+fiscal deficit will be in the trillions for years to come.it doesnt matter how you put it *US is Greece like* however they can print as much as they want and they will


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 1, 2011)

I would like to cash in now. Who's balls should I suck ? Really, I got a handful of a lube and a cash register going hungry, let's get crackalackin'


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

Guess moving to Korea in 3 years ain't such a bad idea after all?


----------



## Han Solo (Aug 1, 2011)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually the US's Debt-to-GDP ratio is better than most of Europe's, and slightly better than the .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh, isn't public debt more relevant to government defaults or debt ceilings?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Aug 1, 2011)

They need to stop wasting so much money on pork bellies.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 1, 2011)

Han Solo said:


> Uh, isn't public debt more relevant to government defaults or debt ceilings?



Not really.  The debt ceiling is an American invention that basically is Congress limiting itself as to how much money it borrows.  It doesn't relate to other countries because those other countries (at least mostly) don't do this and even if they do it's an artificial construct.

Defaulting is when the government cannot pay its obligations.  There is obviously a component of this that relates to debt (look at ratios of debt to expenditures for this).

However I use debt to GDP as a comparing point because the GDP represents the amount of economic activity in the country and IMO more clearly relates to how "bad" the debt is within a country.


----------



## Han Solo (Aug 1, 2011)

EvilMoogle said:


> Not really.  The debt ceiling is an American invention that basically is Congress limiting itself as to how much money it borrows.  It doesn't relate to other countries because those other countries (at least mostly) don't do this and even if they do it's an artificial construct.
> 
> Defaulting is when the government cannot pay its obligations.  There is obviously a component of this that relates to debt (look at ratios of debt to expenditures for this).
> 
> However I use debt to GDP as a comparing point because the GDP represents the amount of economic activity in the country and IMO more clearly relates to how "bad" the debt is within a country.



Okay, but what is the point of listing external debt to GDP ratios without also including the external assets as well? It's pretty meaningless otherwise surely?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Aug 1, 2011)

It's not "meaningless" it speaks to what impact the debt has on the nation based on its productivity.  But it's hardly the only measure one could use.

As I said above you could use a debt:expenditures ratio, I suppose you could also do a debt:assets though I'm not aware of anyone using this at a national level.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 1, 2011)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually the US's Debt-to-GDP ratio is better than most of Europe's, and slightly better than the .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So Ireland is pretty fucked eh.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

this deal is total shit, i hope it's voted down and we default.


----------



## martryn (Aug 1, 2011)

> We will get nowhere with some kind of tax increase, coupled with the 7-figure and up club paying their share. Until that happens, there is no true solution, and we're going to wind up where we started, or worse.



This is the sort of bullshit I hate hearing, and this line of thought is largely what put us in the mess we are in today.  Tax increases don't really amount to a whole lot of revenue increase for the government.  When the government increases taxes, the uber rich just take advantage of deductions and legal tax shelters not available to the middle class.  In other words, they don't actually pay that much more.  But they do spend less.  

I know this because I worked in an industry where we helped uber rich people manage or mitigate the effects of taxes on their wealth.  The wealthy have the option of municipal bonds, or paying capital gains tax at lower rates.  Increase taxes and you'll see wealthy folks in the 50's and 60's decide to retire instead of continue running their businesses, avoiding taxes that way.  You'll see lots of businesses incorporating.  The rich are rich because they understand money, and how to preserve it.  They're not going to just roll over and pay higher taxes.

The US government, upon realizing that their tax hike on the rich didn't result in much revenue, then decide, because they upped taxes on the rich, they are justified to up taxes a little on the middle class.  Upping taxes on the middle class makes it ok to up taxes on the poor, and the end result is that taxes on everyone go up.  It's a god damn cycle that started in the early 1900's, and was continued because of the costs of two fucking world wars, and that the government can't seem to end.  At one time we didn't have income taxes, and America was the most powerful nation in the world.  What happened? 

But because of the cross the board tax increases, congress also adds new deductions to the tax code, which then allows more people to take advantage of them, but only those people that can or are in the know.  And that, for the most part, is the rich or upper middle class. 

But then you talk about the very wealthy "paying their share".  It's as if you don't know where all of our tax revenue comes from.  If you want to tax people that have a shit ton of money, don't talk about fairness or everyone doing their part.  Almost half of all Americans don't even pay income taxes, or receive more in benefits than they pay in.  Call it what it is: the wealthy need to donate their wealth to congress.  We need to revert to socialism.  

Not that it matters.  If America's billionaires gave all their money, all their wealth, to the US government, it not only wouldn't eliminate debt, it would also not even take care of this year's spending deficit.  

So yeah, we need to talk about the deficit.  And not about reducing it.  We need to talk about getting rid of it.  Let's fucking balance the government's pocketbook, and stop spending more than we make.  Everyone else has to live within it's budget, why shouldn't the US government.  

Military spending needs to be cut big time.  That means the US needs to reevaluate where we want to be in our global alliances.  Remember the days where we weren't trying to play nice and didn't have to worry about NATO?  Yeah, we need those days.  The days where we show up late to world wars because we don't want to get involved.  We need 1800s America back.  We need the America that won the Revolution by using French guns in French hands and then refusing American aid to the French in their own revolution, not the America of James Madison and his stupid war with Britain that almost destroyed our fledgling nation.  Pre-Cold War America.  

Then we can reduce military spending because other nations know better than to knock on our door and ask us to defend them from their bully neighbor country next door.  Let's close down most foreign military bases, withdraw our troops back home, increase the size of our National Guard, reduce the size of our active military, and trust that once we stop fucking the Muslims in the ass, they'll stop fucking us in ours.  North Korea won't do shit to us.  No aid to Africa.  And we've been ignoring the plight of Tibet for decades. 

But, on top of military spending cuts, we'd also need to cut social programs.  Especially those being abused by Americans.  And yes, I'm looking at Medicare and Medicaid.  They don't work properly, and they're plagued with Americans abusing them.  Then let's take a look at the hundreds of subsidiary programs and departments being run in the Department of Health and Human Services.  Cut them, reduced them, viola.  No more deficit. 

In summary:
Raising taxes does not raise tax revenue and is a form of socialism
Extreme budget cuts are necessary, especially in the Department of Health and Human Services and the DoD.  
Let's not talk about reducing deficit, let's talk about getting rid of it. 
Balance the fucking federal budget.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 1, 2011)

This is an example of why democracy is such a failure in working through complex issues. The populist knee-jerk Tea Party doesn't even understand government debt or how it works, yet they are certain we need a constitutional balanced budget amendment () and that we need to cut spending (GDP) in a recession. 

They actually think cutting spending will increase growth even though there is no logical reason it should do so, let alone empirical evidence linking the two.

The US government is like something you'd see in a banana republic, the voters depressingly ignorant, and let's face it, the future isn't bright with the Tea Party running things.

@martryn: that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. I'm in the tax industry and none of that makes any sense. That lower capital gains rate is one of the tax decreases. If they raised it back to its old levels, it would not cause people to flock to it because it would not exist. Municipal bonds don't even have a great rate of return anymore, and even if they do, it's a high default risk for anything decent. Munis reflect t-rates anyway, which have awful yields. It's a very marginal market compared to equities and treasuries. 

And people would never, ever retire from a profitable business because of a tax increase. If they increased taxes from 30% to 40%, why the hell would someone close up a multi-million dollar business just because they take away 60% instead of 70%, that argument has never held water. I don't even want to take the time to read through the rest of it. It's such a load that it makes my brain hurt reading it.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

martryn said:


> This is the sort of bullshit I hate hearing, and this line of thought is largely what put us in the mess we are in today.  Tax increases don't really amount to a whole lot of revenue increase for the government.  When the government increases taxes, the uber rich just take advantage of deductions and legal tax shelters not available to the middle class.  In other words, they don't actually pay that much more.  But they do spend less.
> 
> I know this because I worked in an industry where we helped uber rich people manage or mitigate the effects of taxes on their wealth.  The wealthy have the option of municipal bonds, or paying capital gains tax at lower rates.  Increase taxes and you'll see wealthy folks in the 50's and 60's decide to retire instead of continue running their businesses, avoiding taxes that way.  You'll see lots of businesses incorporating.  The rich are rich because they understand money, and how to preserve it.  They're not going to just roll over and pay higher taxes.
> 
> ...



parts of your post are messed up.  

slippery slope fallacy when it comes to taxes.  you said yourself the wealthy are hiding from their tax burden and gaming the system (helped by none other than you! ) yet you think they are paying their fair share.

so which bases do we close then?

and the social program abuse probably doesn't amount to a fraction of the taxes rich people have specialists, like you, to avoid paying.

i thought u worked in physics?


----------



## Ceria (Aug 1, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The real tipping point'll be after Obama's final term in office. The Republicans seriously will want to install a Dictator at this rate or something so they'd never lose power again.



Wow, i never thought i'd hear someone claiming a republican would be the dictator.


----------



## Toby (Aug 1, 2011)

Much better than the NYT article that wanked the crap out of Obama.

This deal may do some good but an overall decrease is only necessary in the long run. Right now, what is needed is to let those fucking Bush tax cuts expire and plan a level-headed return to sane taxation levels while cutting back on some silly programs. Defense can definitely manage a cut. I would be surprised if they didn't cut entitlements. Positively surprised. Waiting to see what reason Ezra Klein uses to spin this. According to him, Social Security will remain untouched while Medicare faces cutbacks. We'll see though.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

Medicare doesn't _need_ to be cut, it needs to be made more efficient.  Medicare part D was made to be purposefully inefficient so they would have an excuse to demand cuts in it later on.  Its set up so they can't negotiate for lower drug prices like the VA does.  If that were changed the program would cost considerably less.


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

Toby said:


> Much better than the NYT article that wanked the crap out of Obama.
> 
> This deal may do some good but an overall decrease is only necessary in the long run. Right now, what is needed is to let those fucking Bush tax cuts expire and plan a level-headed return to sane taxation levels while cutting back on some silly programs. Defense can definitely manage a cut. I would be surprised if they didn't cut entitlements. Positively surprised. Waiting to see what reason Ezra Klein uses to spin this. According to him, Social Security will remain untouched while Medicare faces cutbacks. We'll see though.



Social Security is sadly a mess.  It's a great program that clearly lacked foresight.

And yes those cuts need to go.  I hate to say this as a working man who aims to make more in the future but sometimes that libertarian feel can go fuck itself in the face of utilitarianism.

Defense budgets should go in terms of reckless projects.  I'm still debating just how useful that fucking Osprey is.

And if you don't like it Toby, you can derelikt my balls, el capitan.


----------



## Toby (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Medicare doesn't _need_ to be cut, it needs to be made more efficient.  Medicare part D was made to be purposefully inefficient so they would have an excuse to demand cuts in it later on.  Its set up so they can't negotiate for lower drug prices like the VA does.  If that were changed the program would cost considerably less.



I actually agree with you 100% on this. 

Btw, FiveThirtyEight does a great commentary on ... well everything policy-related. Here's their take on , including .

BRB reading


----------



## kayanathera (Aug 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> Guess moving to Korea in 3 years ain't such a bad idea after all?



I sincerely hope you get lost and end up in North Korea


----------



## Mael (Aug 1, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> I sincerely hope you get lost and end up in North Korea



Go fuck yourself, kid.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Cuts cuts and more cuts   No tax revenues, no jobs programs on the table, unemployment benefits shut down for the foreseeable future. 

Its great to know we can depend on such excellent politicians to act on the countries general welfare


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Cuts cuts and more cuts   No tax revenues, no jobs programs on the table, unemployment benefits shut down for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Its great to know we can depend on such excellent politicians to act on the countries general welfare



there's a lunatic right holding a scorched earth card, there is no equivalent on the left.  The tea party are terrorists.


----------



## martryn (Aug 1, 2011)

Shinigami Perv, you say you're in the tax industry?  Doing what, exactly?  I was trained by and worked for a Fortune 500 company in the financial services industry.  I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass.  

Let's talk about cutting spending, not to encourage growth, but to try to get a wrangle on the deficit.  Increasing taxes isn't going to do anything without also cuts in military spending and on social programs.  I haven't looked at the compromise, but if their primary solution is raising the debt ceiling, then they're doing something wrong.  If they want to cut spending but keep a deficit, they're doing something wrong.  They're delaying the problem instead of dealing with it.  Staying in debt is not a big deal, but staying this far in debt is.  



> so which bases do we close then?



You want to solve the problem?  Most, if not all, of the overseas military bases.  We should cut down on overseas engagements, and put stricter requirements for joining a branch of the armed forces to curtail enlistment.  We should also encourage more people to join the National Guard.  

Our foreign policy would have to change to reflect this, of course, but since most of the world hates us anyways, who cares?  Basically we should strive for diplomatic neutrality and stop involving ourselves, as a nation, in anything that doesn't immediately concern us.  

No funding wars in secret.  Less reliance on foreign trade or product.  Let's stop listening so much to UN or NATO.  

War is won less by men now, and more by scientists.  Lets try not to cut a lot of military research or development programs.  We still want the best stuff in the world, but we don't necessarily need the largest or most prolific armed forces. 



> and the social program abuse probably doesn't amount to a fraction of the taxes rich people have specialists, like you, to avoid paying.



The top 5% of earners pay over 50% of total income taxes.  And dropping more than a 3rd of your salary to pay for things that you don't use is ludicrous.  Drastically increasing taxes on the uber rich won't do more than dent the deficit anyways.  I'm not against increasing the taxes on the wealthy, but that's not the solution, and it won't solve any problems.  The only thing it'll do is make people like you feel better about yourself. 



> i thought u worked in physics?



My degree is in physics.  I don't work in physics.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 1, 2011)

martryn said:


> Shinigami Perv, you say you're in the tax industry?  Doing what, exactly?  I was trained by and worked for a Fortune 500 company in the financial services industry.  I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass.



Tax preparation and consulting for corporations, partnerships, trusts, and individuals at a Big 4 firm. 

I just wanted to let you know that some of the stuff you're saying doesn't make any sense from a tax perspective, never mind the economics.


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

So needless to say, republican agenda mostly achieved. And not a single increase in revenue. Jeez.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

the vote was bullshit.  i was watching it. it looked to me like repubs couldn't pass it with out dem support, dems are a bunch of sellouts


----------



## First Tsurugi (Aug 1, 2011)

And, just as I thought, the crisis is averted with a deal that literally no one is happy with.


----------



## geG (Aug 1, 2011)

Looks like the democrat vote was split almost 50/50


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

That's probably because the Progressive Caucus made a stink last night and split the ranks. Good on em i say  Durbin himself knew how bad a deal they were getting.

For *First Tsuguri*, a deal that noone is happy with is not a balanced deal, its simply a deal that no-one is happy with  The fact that the conservatives and the tea partiers would have only have been happy if they could tank the entire economy and cut all social programs until they were non existent and then blame the ensuing destruction on the liberals, is not a sign of victory 

I know that's not what you were saying, but still...its pisses me off


----------



## First Tsurugi (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> For *First Tsuguri*, a deal that noone is happy with is not a balanced deal, its simply a deal that no-one is happy with  The fact that the conservatives and the tea partiers would have only have been happy if they could tank the entire economy and cut all social programs until they were non existent and then blame the ensuing destruction on the liberals, is not a sign of victory
> 
> I know that's not what you were saying, but still...its pisses me off



Any deal is better than the alternative of default, even a bad one.

I am not implying the deal is balanced, but from what I understand of the deal, it is not the "worst case scenario" many are framing it too be either.


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> the vote was bullshit.  i was watching it. it looked to me like repubs couldn't pass it with out dem support, dems are a bunch of sellouts



Pretty obvious they were going to bend over. They've done that for everything else. Also they're not as crazy as to let the nation default. But still it annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> Any deal is better than the alternative of default, even a bad one.
> 
> I am not implying the deal is balanced, but from what I understand of the deal, it is not the "worst case scenario" many are framing it too be either.



Its not the worse case scenario no, especially not now that the crappy amendment provision has been dropped but..its still bad news and a sign of cloudy days ahead.

I know that the conservatives ability to hold hostage this sort of thing for what they want is no way to haggle, but its also true that the other party has other ways to lead in a responsible fashion and still refuse to bend over at the faintest hint of a threat


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> Any deal is better than the alternative of default, even a bad one.
> 
> I am not implying the deal is balanced, but from what I understand of the deal, it is not the "worst case scenario" many are framing it too be either.



of all the proposals, this deal represents a great collection of republican desires.  the only democratic concession was that the raise goes beyond 2012.  it's an awful deal for dems.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Hell the only thing the Dems did get was the fact that there would be no default  When that should have been understood by all members of congress both GOP and Dem. So technically, the GOP still got what they wanted and the Dems came out looking like pussies again while holding nothing


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Hell the only thing the Dems did get was the fact that there would be no default  When that should have been understood by all members of congress both GOP and Dem. So technically, the GOP still got what they wanted and the Dems came out looking like pussies again while holding nothing



Pretty much. We have a democratic president and more republican agenda has been accomplished than anything really.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

ShadowReij said:


> Pretty much. We have a democratic president and more republican agenda has been accomplished than anything really.



Its hard to negotiate when one side actually seems to be hoping for economic catastrophe so they can blame it on you.


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its hard to negotiate when one side actually seems to be hoping for economic catastrophe so they can blame it on you.



True enough, but even before the republicans had the house Obama and the Dems have been bending over continuously. Now I really don't expect much since the crazies want the economy to crash and take us to the 20's and 30's.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

ShadowReij said:


> True enough, but even before the republicans has the house Obama and the Dems have been bending over continuously. Now I really don't expect much since the crazies want the economy to crash and take us to the 20's and 30's.



Even before they controlled the house their numbers were still large enough to block anything they wanted in the senate.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Even before they controlled the house their numbers were still large enough to block anything they wanted in the senate.



 Apologist in chief? 

Now i agree with you on pretty much 99% of all things Tsuki, but one place we clash is this incessant need of yours to shift every single thing that the Democratic administration should be criticized for to the GOP  It hardly makes sense. Yes the GOP's position is set in stone, but you work around that, you don't give into their demands at every turn. That makes people think you've got your cards in with them. Whatever actually motivates the White House and the Democratic party is not the issue here.


----------



## A. Waltz (Aug 1, 2011)

Does this make buying houses easier or better? Hehehe...just curious~


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

AznKuchikiChick said:


> Does this make buying houses easier or better? Hehehe...just curious~



The foreclosure crisis is good for home buyers..unless of course your wanting the economy to succeed  In certain places you can buy your house straight from the bank for only a couple hundred bucks, cause the banks started taking people's houses when they went under water


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Apologist in chief?
> 
> Now i agree with you on pretty much 99% of all things Tsuki, but one place we clash is this incessant need of yours to shift every single thing to the GOP  It hardly makes sense



Alright, let me ask you a question and if you can answer it I'll admit I'm wrong and change my mind.

The republicans fillibustered an unprecedented amount of legislation and put secret holds on other pieces of legislation.  The "super majority" people think the democrats held relies on the cooperation of independents and conservative democrats whose political views were more republican than democrat.

What EXACTLY could the democrats do to stop them as long as the filibuster and secret holds remain in existence?

Negotiation in politics relies ENTIRELY on the fact that you are both looking for a common solution to the same problem.  If one side doesn't want a solution then meaningful negotiation is impossible.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Alright, let me ask you a question and if you can answer it I'll admit I'm wrong and change my mind.
> 
> The republicans fillibustered an unprecedented amount of legislation and put secret holds on other pieces of legislation.  The "super majority" people think the democrats held relies on the cooperation of independents and conservative democrats whose political views were more republican than democrat.
> 
> ...



 Fix the fillibuster so that the rules cannot be gamed?  Make the majority in the senate an actual majority by shifting the number of votes officially to 51 instead of 60?  Have the President actually use his authority to make his vision clear instead of throwing down weakling gang of six/ten/15's that only destroy the legislation?

A 'super majority' of 60 votes is not necessary and it was never necessary. The democrats only tied themselves into knots during Healthcare and Finreg with that bullshit to attempt a 'bipartisan compromise". And guess what happened? The GOP didn't vote for it anyway, the bills were stripped of any actual solutions and we get a bad deal that the Democrats try to trumpet later and fail and then subsequently forget about.


----------



## hellohellosharp (Aug 1, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> let me guess
> 
> Republicans get almost three trillion dollars in cuts
> 
> Democrats get to scratch their balls



Haha exactly. No the deomcrats get to supply the three trillion


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Even before they controlled the house their numbers were still large enough to block anything they wanted in the senate.



No, the Dems had a super majority and still couldn't get shit done.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Hell forget what i said about finreg, i don't even know if Obama was trying to even get a good deal intiially then, what with his over eagerness to appear "pro business" and whatnot(we all know what that means)


----------



## thekingisback (Aug 1, 2011)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually the US's Debt-to-GDP ratio is better than most of Europe's, and slightly better than the .


Same can be said for Greece, are you implying they have a healthy economy?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Fix the fillibuster so that the rules cannot be gamed?  Make the majority in the senate an actual majority by shifting the number of votes officially to 51 instead of 60?  Have the President actually use his authority to make his vision clear instead of throwing down weakling gang of six/ten/15's that only destroy the legislation?



Senate rules like the filibuster can ONLY be changed at the beginning of a new congress.  Try again please.



Inuhanyou said:


> A 'super majority' of 60 votes is not necessary and it was never necessary. The democrats only tied themselves into knots during Healthcare and Finreg with that bullshit to attempt a 'bipartisan compromise". And guess what happened? The GOP didn't vote for it anyway, the bills were stripped of any actual solutions and we get a bad deal that the Democrats try to trumpet later and fail and then subsequently forget about.



It is necessary when a filibuster is used as it is currently set up which is what the republicans were abusing.



ShadowReij said:


> No, the Dems had a super majority and still couldn't get shit done.



Bullshit.  

Just because you have 60 people with a "D" in front of their name doesn't mean you have a functioning super majority.  Some of those people were basically republicans who ran with a "D" in front of their name because after Bush people were pissed at republicans.


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Hell forget what i said about finreg, i don't even know if Obama was trying to even get a good deal intiially then, what with his over eagerness to appear "pro business" and whatnot(we all know what that means)



Such a shame that as good as he is with rhetoric he can never keep his talking points, him nor the dems. The solution is quite simple. Explain your plans and position. The american people are a little slow but if you explain it enough, they'll get it or assume they do at least.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Senate rules like the filibuster can ONLY be changed at the beginning of a new congress.  Try again please.




A new congress just passed earlier this year, and even if that was unfeasible, i said Presidential authority is an alternative. Remember those nominees that are being held up? Obama refuses to do recess appointments regardless of having the ability to do so, and the same for this deal with his ability to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling just by Presidential authority.  I see no leadership skills in any of this.



> It is necessary when a filibuster is used as it is currently set up which is what the republicans were abusing.



It came to a point when the Democrats were actually scared of a threat of veto  How pathetic. Reinstating the old rules of having to stay up while filibustering would have been a better alternative, hell keeping congress open until bills pass would be better too. The GOP did it with Medicare part D until they got their way. 

Democrats simply lack spines to grasp the reigns.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Just because you have 60 people with a "D" in front of their name doesn't mean you have a functioning super majority.



What kind of excuse is this?

I'm supposed to cut the Dems some slack because they can't run as tight a ship as the Republicans when it comes to voting as a block?

Do you think RINOs are a myth?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> A new congress just passed earlier this year, and even if that was unfeasible, i said Presidential authority is an alternative. Remember those nominees that are being held up? Obama refuses to do recess appointments regardless of having the ability to do so, and the same for this deal with his ability to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling just by Presidential authority.  I see no leadership skills in any of this.



Given that the republicans gained control of the house, changing the rules at that point would have accomplished dick.

When it comes to LEGISLATION the President has very little authority.  I'm not talking about appointments, I'm talking about legislation.  You know those things that form the laws those appointees have to follow?


----------



## mmagikman (Aug 1, 2011)

Another Obama I-know-what-im-doing cover up


----------



## hellohellosharp (Aug 1, 2011)

mmagikman said:


> Another Obama I-know-what-im-doing cover up



I don't think Obama is all that bad...he just put himself (or was elected into) an impossible position.


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Senate rules like the filibuster can ONLY be changed at the beginning of a new congress.  Try again please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the better idea is to try making bipartisan legislation? That was moronic, part of being a leader is the ability to rally your base. Instead of doing this Obama tried to appeal to the other end that has pledged to be a thorn in his side since he got in office. Dumbing down his legislation until it was practically Republican in ideal. Obama has shown he can't bring his party together the only time the dems did anything was when large amounts of them were about to loose their seats. And now we have true nutcases in power.


----------



## mmagikman (Aug 1, 2011)

hellohellosharp said:


> I don't think Obama is all that bad...he just put himself (or was elected into) an impossible position.



OBAMA was the worst thing that ever happened to America. He shouldnt have ran in the first place


----------



## hellohellosharp (Aug 1, 2011)

mmagikman said:


> OBAMA was the worst thing that ever happened to America. He shouldnt have ran in the first place



Im not too big of a fan of him myself. But you make him sound worst than a terrorist in office. He's sucking but he's trying.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

i believe a guy with 2 posts bagging on obama is gonna be a legit poster


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

ShadowReij said:


> So the better idea is to try making bipartisan legislation? That was moronic, part of being a leasder is to rally your base. Instead of doing this Obama tried to appeal to the other end that has pledged to be thorn in his since he got in office. Dumbing down his legislation until it was practically Republican in ideal. Obama has shown he can't bring his party together the only time the dems did anything was when large amounts of them were about to loose their seats.



The better idea is passing what is possible rather than demanding you get your way and letting the country collapse (which it would since the republicans have shown the willingness to let everything go to hell).


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

i don't even think we'll avert a credit down grade, we really needed that grand bargain.

i called this voodoo a few pages back.  i think tea party idiots are gonna get exactly what they want, a fucked up country


----------



## mmagikman (Aug 1, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i believe a guy with 2 posts bagging on obama is gonna be a legit poster



Hey sorry I am new I just joined today....just my opinion sorry lol


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 1, 2011)

mmagikman said:


> Hey sorry I am new I just joined today....just my opinion sorry lol



no one believes u'll remain unbanned for  ur 15th post, save it.


----------



## mmagikman (Aug 1, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> no one believes u'll remain unbanned for  ur 15th post, save it.



Did I break a rule...? Im so confused


----------



## Raiden (Aug 1, 2011)

Mission accomplished!


----------



## ShadowReij (Aug 1, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The better idea is passing what is possible rather than demanding you get your way and letting the country collapse (which it would since the republicans have shown the willingness to let everything go to hell).



In this case, yes, anything was better than defaulting; however, the Dems would've won more if they would've continuously explained why, over and over why it is important to increase revenue why taxing the rich heavier is a necessity. The reason why the republicans have convinced half of americans the bs they spout is because they never shut up. The Dems need to crank their machine and get their talking points in order. And constantly combat and debunk. Have the people understand, they need to find their fucking balls.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Aug 1, 2011)

From what I've seen, this incident has done more damage to Republican's credibility in the eyes of the American people than anything.

If there is a victory for the Dems and Obama it is probably how they've succeeded at portraying the Republicans as unreasonable and ruled not by the will of the American people, but by the Tea Party and these anti-tax pledges.

There is great potential to capitalize on this come election time.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 1, 2011)

I agree with First Tsurgui. 

But the President's numbers are likely to remain down because of very bad manufacturing numbers. The House should viciously commit themselves to job growth.

And those damn trade bills need to be passed by the Senate.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 1, 2011)

ShadowReij said:


> In this case, yes, anything was better than defaulting; however, the Dems would've won more if they would've continuously explained why, over and over why it is important to increase revenue why taxing the rich heavier is a necessity. The reason why the republicans have convinced half of americans the bs they spout is because they never shut up. The Dems need to crank their machine and get their talking points in order. And constantly combat and debunk. Have the people understanding, they need to find their fucking balls.



Its kind of hard when republicans control so much of the media.  Walk up to a couple random people on the street and ask them how often they stop and watch when the President or representatives hop on TV to "explain" something.

Its a depressingly small amount of people.  Most of them just absorb what little bits they get from the corporate owned media.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 1, 2011)

Raiden said:


> I agree with First Tsurgui.
> 
> But the President's numbers are likely to remain down because of very bad manufacturing numbers. The House should viciously commit themselves to job growth.
> 
> And those damn trade bills need to be passed by the Senate.



The GOP got the house by saying jobsjobsjobs, they haven't had one jobs bill since gaining it  Instead we get anti women's health legislation and anti gay legislation every other day.


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 2, 2011)

Gentlemen Introducing you to your Super Congress

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtzuKO36aKU&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXIUHW3cEAw&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 2, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO9JJ7X25Eg&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## iander (Aug 2, 2011)

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU[/Youtube]

Congress again channeling some History of the World.


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2011)




----------



## Raiden (Aug 2, 2011)

Not sure who gave this thread five stars. According to Bloomberg news, a deal three times as much as Boehner's and Obama's plan would be needed to put a substantial axe in the debt.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2011)

Raiden said:


> Not sure who gave this thread five stars. According to Bloomberg news, a deal three times as much as Boehner's and Obama's plan would be needed to put a substantial axe in the debt.



putting a substantial axe in the debt isn't a true priority, bc govt spending is needed to stimulate the economy.  this is what the whole world has been doing for the last few years.  only tea party morons think now is a good time to cut the deficit and spending.

and obama's plan was by far the most ambitious of all the plans that had been discussed


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 2, 2011)

A picture really does say more than a thousand words... 

This is what I was trying to say when I said American voters hold the fate of the world in their hands and therefore have a greater responsibility to make the right choices than any other democracy in the world.

Good find.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

Raiden said:


> Not sure who gave this thread five stars. According to Bloomberg news, a deal three times as much as Boehner's and Obama's plan would be needed to put a substantial axe in the debt.



The debt is a long term problem.  One that would be fixed if we fixed our economy since that would increase revenue tremendously.  Cutting domestic spending is only going to slow the economy down further.


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> A picture really does say more than a thousand words...
> 
> This is what I was trying to say when I said American voters hold the fate of the world in their hands and therefore have a greater responsibility to make the right choices than any other democracy in the world.
> 
> Good find.



I'll just further state how much the Tea Party rhetoric has ruined politics.

I wrote them off as a joke, and boy was I wrong.  I'll fully admit and apologize.  I was wrong.  Now they're a bane to everyone.  It's filled with ignorant lower classes who are illogically convinced the government is invasive and higher class pseudo-Libertarians and those with serious means who can't shred an iota of their lifestyle.  It's the worst of both sides of the spectrum, far worse than the biggest Itachi Uchiha fan and Naruto Uzumaki fan put in the same room.  This "no taxes ever!" policy basically means cutting with zero revenue and zero savings.  It's only going to keep an economy still stagnant and at a negative while likely cutting things that matter most like education due to an illogical fear of unions.  Unions are a pain in the ass and many still try to figure out what they can take from business illogically since the days of rampant slave labor are quite over, but teachers?  Gimme a fucking break.

In short, fear the Tea Party.  Inject logic...and if not that...heroin.


----------



## hyakku (Aug 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> I'll just further state how much the Tea Party rhetoric has ruined politics.
> 
> I wrote them off as a joke, and boy was I wrong.  I'll fully admit and apologize.  I was wrong.  Now they're a bane to everyone.  It's filled with ignorant lower classes who are illogically convinced the government is invasive and higher class pseudo-Libertarians and those with serious means who can't shred an iota of their lifestyle.  It's the worst of both sides of the spectrum, far worse than the biggest Itachi Uchiha fan and Naruto Uzumaki fan put in the same room.  This "no taxes ever!" policy basically means cutting with zero revenue and zero savings.  It's only going to keep an economy still stagnant and at a negative while likely cutting things that matter most like education due to an illogical fear of unions.  Unions are a pain in the ass and many still try to figure out what they can take from business illogically since the days of rampant slave labor are quite over, but teachers?  Gimme a fucking break.
> 
> In short, fear the Tea Party.  Inject logic...and if not that...heroin.



I agree wholeheartedly with this. I had no idea the tea party would ever get this influential. It's fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 2, 2011)

It's a result of our primary system. 15% can hijack the congress. Enough congressman have been primaried by right-wing fundamentalists that the Republicans fear them.

This has been going on longer than the Tea Party.


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2011)

hyakku said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with this. I had no idea the tea party would ever get this influential. It's fucking ridiculous.



It's also absurdly naive.  I mean, I wonder if half these people realize that destabilizing the way they see fit will only have more notorious nations gang up.  



Shinigami Perv said:


> It's a result of our primary system. 15% can hijack the congress. Enough congressman have been primaried by right-wing fundamentalists that the Republicans fear them.
> 
> This has been going on longer than the Tea Party.



Consider the TP the catalyst.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Aug 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> I'll just further state how much the Tea Party rhetoric has ruined politics.
> 
> I wrote them off as a joke, and boy was I wrong.  I'll fully admit and apologize.  I was wrong.  Now they're a bane to everyone.  It's filled with ignorant lower classes who are illogically convinced the government is invasive and higher class pseudo-Libertarians and those with serious means who can't shred an iota of their lifestyle.  It's the worst of both sides of the spectrum, far worse than the biggest Itachi Uchiha fan and Naruto Uzumaki fan put in the same room.  This "no taxes ever!" policy basically means cutting with zero revenue and zero savings.  It's only going to keep an economy still stagnant and at a negative while likely cutting things that matter most like education due to an illogical fear of unions.  Unions are a pain in the ass and many still try to figure out what they can take from business illogically since the days of rampant slave labor are quite over, but teachers?  Gimme a fucking break.
> 
> In short, fear the Tea Party.  Inject logic...and if not that...heroin.



I myself though the Tea Party was just a run of the mill bunch of chumps trying to look important but see that was a serious underestimation of them.

I'm wondering how deep of a hole we would be in if they had a majority of either House and Senate seeing that they got quite a few seats in Congress...


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> I myself though the Tea Party was just a run of the mill bunch of chumps trying to look important but see that was a serious underestimation of them.
> 
> I'm wondering how deep of a hole we would be in if they had a majority of either House and Senate seeing that they got quite a few seats in Congress...



Repubs gave those lunatics legitmacy, rather than marginalizing them they gave them a chair at the table, now the repubs have to eat their shit filled cake.


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> Repubs gave those lunatics legitmacy, rather than marginalizing them they gave them a chair at the table, now the repubs have to eat their shit filled cake.



No dude...we ALL have to now.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> I myself though the Tea Party was just a run of the mill bunch of chumps trying to look important but see that was a serious underestimation of them.
> 
> I'm wondering how deep of a hole we would be in if they had a majority of either House and Senate seeing that they got quite a few seats in Congress...



Your estimation of them was accurate, its because the media hyped them up and the republicans _made_ them important because they saw them as a potential way to unseat Obama.  Now they're going Frankenstein's monster on the republicans.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 2, 2011)

DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT.
We were SO close to Canadian supremacy.
Damn you Obama!

Anyways as an external observer...I wonder are any conspiracy theories poppin up on this whole situation?
Waiting until the last minute to act for something that was apparently a potential crisis? Sounds more like it was all politics to sway public opinion as much as possible on the issue and then seal the deal.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT.
> We were SO close to Canadian supremacy.
> Damn you Obama!
> 
> ...



yeah, this is a republican ploy to damage obama's governance.  since repubs and tea party make shit up, later on they'll rewrite history to blame this all on obama. they do it now.  they say "he didn't write a plan down".  He doesn't have to. there's no law that states the president has to come to the table with a plan, which he had anyway.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Aug 2, 2011)

our credit is low now?
never really paid attention tho, or is it that the rich dont have to pay taxes nomore?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

They might as well not. The tax rate is the lowest its been since we started taking tabs on taxes, and for the most part, corporate tax dodging is as high as its ever been. The problems in the tax code allow them to do so.


I always find it perplexing that Ron says he's on the side of the people against the banks and corporations and whatnot, but apparently wants no government regulation and thereby indirectly supports the banks and corporations gaming the system


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

I don't know a whole lot of the specifics but if the gist is cuts and no tax raises it sounds okay to me. That is of course assuming the cuts are relevant and where they need to be made. The more you give the govt. the more they will try and spend on new and useless things or more unnecessary handouts. What needs to be handled first and foremost is getting rid of the current spending that isn't needed and cutting all the fat out. 

Secondly, I think anyone who wants new taxes whether politician or simply the people of this country, they should be the first to be given tax hikes. I mean they are all for getting the govt. more money right? So they can line up to pay a "volunteer" tax for the good of the country. If they don't like that then they can just STFU. It is completely unfair to place unfair burdens on people just because they are better off. 

Before I continue I should say that I myself am not rich and in general have no sympathy for rich people. I do however consider myself a fair person and only ever "demand" things from people that I too am willing to do. A lot of people on here are crying about taxes so I am curious to know how many of them would line up to pay more taxes. Me personally, I don't want to pay anymore taxes than I already have to so I am certainly not going to sit here and say someone else should have to do it. That may just be me though.

Last point I will make about this specifically is that *IF* there were a tax raise it should be on everyone. You don't just say "oh the rich are rich so we should just take more of their shit". That isn't how it works. Hike them across the board if you want to hike them....Although I wouldn't be happy about it......

Someone did give me an interesting comparison before that they said they saw on TV. I didn't personally see it so if my details are shaky and if someone knows more they should feel free to correct me. Anyway a reporter (or someone similar) went to a college and was asking students about taxing people or whatever and the ones who said "yes, raise taxes" (possibly only on the rich....Can't remember this part) were asked if they were willing to give up some of their GPA to other students who weren't doing as well. Of course they all said no to that. Said they earned their grades and wouldn't be willing to give them up to help another student. I feel like the same thing basically applies here. Interesting IMO.


For my final point.....As I was skimming some of the posts and saw a part of Martyn's long post (I believe it was), he mentioned business men leaving or retiring to avoid taxes. Someone responded saying that wasn't true. It actually is in some cases. Right before Obama was coming into office (or maybe it was after he was already in and making plans) some of the Pittsburg Steelers owners wanted to sell their ownership of the team to avoid being hit with the coming tax hikes or whatever. I am not arguing that this happens more times than not as I have no clue how often it actually occurs but it *does* happen.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

You always start your nonsensical rants with "i don't know much about so and so" Cyphon, a word of advice, just don't comment if you don't actually understand the subject your talking about


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> You always start your nonsensical rants with "i don't know much about so and so" Cyphon, a word of advice, just don't comment if you don't actually understand the subject your talking about



/argument.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> You always start your nonsensical rants with "i don't know much such and such about so and so" Cyphon a word of advice, just don't comment if you don't actually understand the subject your talking about



I completely understand the subject, I simply don't know everything specifically in this deal. Which seems to apply to a lot of people posting in here.

Now you as someone who acts superior in intelligence to everyone (though you have yet to prove it) should at least be able to comprehend that much. If you can't than you just shouldn't comment


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I completely understand the subject, I simply don't know everything specifically in this deal. Which seems to apply to a lot of people posting in here.
> 
> Now you as someone who acts superior in intelligence to everyone (though you have yet to prove it) should at least be able to comprehend that much. If you can't than you just shouldn't comment



I have yet to prove it? Im pretty sure i embarrassed you in the last thread you tried to bullshit  

And i've never assumed i knew more than everyone else, just those like you, who display an obvious lack of knowledge and common sense in regards to the subject.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> I have yet to prove it? Im pretty sure i embarrassed you in the last thread you tried to bullshit



Lol.



> And i've never assumed i knew more than everyone else,



You certainly act like it though. Just bs arrogance.



> just those like you, who display an obvious lack of knowledge and common sense in regards to the subject.



Pot meet Kettle. He doesn't know he is black just like you.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Lol.



lol?



> You certainly act like it though. Just bs arrogance.



Its like those hicks who assume others are talking down to them because they're more educated  Just read a book and you'll be fine.



> Pot meet Kettle. He doesn't know he is black just like you.



Why yes..i am black   Is that a veiled race joke or something?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> lol?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hmmm, was it a race joke, shitty joke teller


----------



## Raiden (Aug 2, 2011)

Well, it looks like this is turning out to be a big loss for the President and Democrats. 

He had to meet with the AFL CIO today, likely to assure him people wouldn't get screwed.

The market is also slipping. I'm not quite sure why that's happening, as reports on CNN are contradictory. I assume it's because of two things: 

a. The President said that a reduction report would be submitted in upcoming months, making investors feel as if this going to happen all over again. 

b. They waited too long to get a deal. The economy has already crunched because of bad negociations, and it is merely reacting to itself. 

c. This is the second or third month in a row that the President has asked Congress to get serious about those trade deals, and they will be gone for another five or so weeks. 


The one good thing from all of this is that for the next month or so, he will have control of the national conversation. Or at least he can.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2011)

dow fell 260 pts anyway, thanks boehner and ur shit plan, the market knows this is gonna suck


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Aug 2, 2011)

lol gpa and they've earned it...only the new rich has earned their money.
The wealthy who avoid taxes are the people who aren't fair. we all pay taxes, do the same.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Aug 2, 2011)

​


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 2, 2011)

This confirms it...Democrats are actually Republicans. There are no progressives in this country.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> lol?



Short for "laugh out loud"



> Its like those hicks who assume others are talking down to them because they're more educated  Just read a book and you'll be fine.



Nah it's more like someone who recognizes arrogance from people with a bad superiority complex.

Anyway your lack of making any relevant points has now drawn me off topic so I will leave it at this unless you actually want to post something more topic appropriate.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 2, 2011)

Obama is a disgrace.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> This confirms it...Democrats are actually Republicans. There are no progressives in this country.



Don't sell the progressive caucus short, remember that more than half of the dems voted against this plan. You could say an even split between the incompetents and the people who knew it would be terrible


----------



## lowtech redneck (Aug 2, 2011)

makeoutparadise said:


> We're mostly western kids who enjoy watching Japanese cartoon shows and Japanese culture if that's not a red flag that most of us here have a liberal bias then I don't know what would be!



You mean the same Japan that has had a center-right one-party dominant state for most of its post-war existence?  I don't see the connection, unless you simply think conservative=xenophobic, and therefore not a fan of entertainment with foreign origins.


----------



## soulnova (Aug 2, 2011)

Haven't been following the bill closely. Now what? is the world going to end? Is this what the Mayan Prophecies foretold? 

/jk


----------



## Raiden (Aug 2, 2011)

FOX says on the "Five" that the group of twelve politicians are being referred to as the "Dirty Dozen."

>I have never heard that : I.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Raiden said:


> FOX says on the "Five" that the group of twelve politicians are being referred to as the "Dirty Dozen."
> 
> >I have never heard that : I.



Well dur  Any conservative who even tries to deal with a bipartisan deal even if its not bipartisan, will be shamed and cast out


----------



## Raiden (Aug 2, 2011)

The point was I love how they just made up a name and said it was spreading. lol.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Aug 2, 2011)

Raiden said:


> The point was I love how they just made up a name and said it was spreading. lol.



Wouldn't expect anything less from Faux News


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Raiden said:


> The point was I love how they just made up a name and said it was spreading. lol.



Well that's what Fox does, they're going to implant the thought that some conservatives are traitorous because they're looking into this into the heads of the braindead watchers  Soon there will be tea party primaries for all of them


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

The "super congress" is a horrible idea.  So regardless of the political balance in the country we slice legislation evenly in half between the two major parties?

That's ignoring the fact that if we get even a single "blue dog" democrat on this group the republicans are going to get whatever they want.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Yes well, that's how the cookie crumbles  We get the short end of the stick and everyone else laughs and laughs and laughs. 

I doubt we'll even get any liberals on this panel, someone like Bernie would not be welcome so...the conservatives will win again, and we'll be fucked up the arsehole with more cuts to important programs


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 2, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The "super congress" is a horrible idea.  So regardless of the political balance in the country we slice legislation evenly in half between the two major parties?
> 
> That's ignoring the fact that if we get even a single "blue dog" democrat on this group the republicans are going to get whatever they want.



Violates the Constitution and destroys checks and balances.


This super congress crap is unconstitutional, but i guess everyone in this country is too busy to even care.


----------



## Mikaveli (Aug 2, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Someone did give me an interesting comparison before that they said they saw on TV. I didn't personally see it so if my details are shaky and if someone knows more they should feel free to correct me. Anyway a reporter (or someone similar) went to a college and was asking students about taxing people or whatever and the ones who said "yes, raise taxes" (possibly only on the rich....Can't remember this part) were asked if they were willing to give up some of their GPA to other students who weren't doing as well. Of course they all said no to that. Said they earned their grades and wouldn't be willing to give them up to help another student. I feel like the same thing basically applies here. Interesting IMO.



That's no where near the same thing.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

FireHawk64 said:


> This super congress crap is unconstitutional, but i guess everyone in this country is too busy to even care.



I don't think they're busy, I think they just don't give a darn.  People don't care if something is unconstitutional unless it directly effects their personal life.


----------



## Mikaveli (Aug 2, 2011)

What is this "Super Congress" I'm hearing about?


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 2, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> What is this "Super Congress" I'm hearing about?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> That's no where near the same thing.



That is correct. Taxes are revenue and what governments live on, they aren't supposed to live on borrowed money, and every modern economy uses them  

The only people who can believe those talking points about taxes are the people who have never seen themselves as part of a society.


----------



## Mikaveli (Aug 2, 2011)

Haha that Super Congress thing is soooo not right

How was that even taken seriously?


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> That's no where near the same thing.



It is similar enough for the comparison.

The point of it really isn't even to try and compare the 2 things though. It is just to show the hypocrisy in people. 

It is easy to sit back and demand that we help people but it is not so easy for the people making demands to be the first to offer help. Which is clearly shown in these students. They run around spouting BS about higher taxes and such but when it comes to them helping someone they immediately shoot it down.

A lot of young people are hypocritical though. They run a bit more on emotion than logic and they do a lot more following than leading.


----------



## Mikaveli (Aug 2, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> It is similar enough for the comparison.
> 
> The point of it really isn't even to try and compare the 2 things though. It is just to show the hypocrisy in people.
> 
> It is easy to sit back and demand that we help people but it is not so easy for the people making demands to be the first to offer help. Which is clearly shown in these students. They run around spouting BS about higher taxes and such but when it comes to them helping someone they immediately shoot it down.



Similar enough isn't enough though. 

Higher taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing. But that's not as important as ending tax loopholes and special shit for the rich. Everyone should be paying taxes.

But yeah, your whole point falls apart if even you say the comparisons aren't close enough. You can't share your GPA.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> Similar enough isn't enough though.



Actually it is more than enough because the point is there and simple to see. 

If you don't understand the point you simply aren't trying to.



> Higher taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing.



Very true.

This is assuming they are used to the good though. The govt. is very wasteful.



> But that's not as important as ending tax loopholes and special shit for the rich. Everyone should be paying taxes.



Again, we mostly agree here. Even with the loopholes the rich still pay quite a lot of the taxes coming in though. Not that I disagree with closing them, just sayin. 



> But yeah, your whole point falls apart if even you say the comparisons aren't close enough. You can't share your GPA.



Well I say the comparisons are plenty close enough. If it is up to you to decide for yourself how you feel about it.

Obviously you cannot share your GPA but you are nitpicking. The question is an "if you could" question. 

Look at it like this:

Super Mike you have a lot of money from working and saving up. Would you be willing to give it to this person who doesn't have so much?

Super Mike you have a high GPA from working and studying. Would you be willing to give some of your GPA points to this dumb person?

The concept is for all intents and purposes, the same.


----------



## Mikaveli (Aug 2, 2011)

Replacing words doesn't make it a valid comparison. Comparing donating money and tutoring or something would make more sense. But whatever, it's off topic.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> Replacing words doesn't make it a valid comparison. Comparing donating money and tutoring or something would make more sense. But whatever, it's off topic.



Wouldn't tutoring be compared to job training? I am not quite sure the scale you are using to equate the 2 things being discussed.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

Unless you can inherit a GPA from your parents or win it in a contest I don't see how comparing GPA to wealth is a valid comparison.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Unless you can inherit a GPA from your parents or win it in a contest I don't see how comparing GPA to wealth is a valid comparison.



It seems like you and Mike are just trying a bit too hard to discredit the comparison by creating holes.

The point is to view the 2 things/values equally.

So if you are assuming the money is inherited as opposed to earned than you should be assuming the grades were given by teachers for favoring the student and allowing them to cheat or something similar.

If you are assuming the student worked hard to earn their grades than you should also be assuming the rich person worked hard to earn their money.

So again, a completely valid comparison.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

Some people do work hard for their money, but I can't fathom any amount of personal work that is worth BILLIONS of dollars.  People who get that rich generally get that rich by having other people do work _for_ them.

Your GPA is tied to you directly and if you got someone else to do your work for you you could be expelled.  So the fact that you have a high GPA means YOU had to work hard for it, the fact that you have money doesn't necessarily mean you had to put any work into it whatsoever.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Some people do work hard for their money, but I can't fathom any amount of personal work that is worth BILLIONS of dollars.  People who get that rich generally get that rich by having other people do work _for_ them.



Here I guess it just comes down to trying to value what work is worth. For you it is an attempt to "fathom" what amount of work equals billions and for me it is simply "that person did what they had to do".

I am not worth billions, millions or even high tier thousands but I certainly don't think Bill Gates owes me anything for taking better advantage of oppurtunity.

It seems to me it just comes down to fundamenal personality differences that can never really be agreed upon. You will always think it is okay to take from those who did better for themselves whereas I believe in a more fair approach. They got their money and it is theirs to do with as they please. Just like my money is mine to do with as I please.

Again, I don't ask anything of others I wouldn't do myself.

So let me ask you this....

What percentage of taxes do you think the wealthiest people should pay and whatever the number, would you be willing to pay that same percentage of your income?



> Your GPA is tied to you directly and if you got someone else to do your work for you you could be expelled.



This is a big exaggeration in most cases. Getting someone to do your work typically results in getting a "0" on the work, not being thrown out of school and even then you have to get caught. 



> So the fact that you have a high GPA means YOU had to work hard for it, the fact that *you have money doesn't necessarily mean you had to put any work into it whatsoever*.



Apply the bold to the GPA and you are getting somewhere. I am not sure why you choose to put a negative light on one and not the other.

Many people have cheated to get a 4.0 just as many people have gotten money without much work. It is no different yet you try to claim all GPA is completely earned.

I can name dozens of people I went to highschool with who put more time into creative ways of cheating than into studying and they all had good grades.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 2, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Here I guess it just comes down to trying to value what work is worth. For you it is an attempt to "fathom" what amount of work equals billions and for me it is simply "that person did what they had to do".



What the hell does that mean?  Did what he had to do?  Bill Gates bought a system someone else made (DOS) and built a company off of someone elses work that he paid for.

When you're buying someone elses work it kind of kills the whole "they worked hard for their money" argument.  Giving someone a check is not "working hard".



Cyphon said:


> I am not worth billions, millions or even high tier thousands but I certainly don't think Bill Gates owes me anything for taking better advantage of oppurtunity.



People that rich have made their money through the hard work of those under them and by using the infrastructures and systems put in place by society (such as being able to write off business expenses).  I see nothing wrong without asking them to give something back because of that.



Cyphon said:


> It seems to me it just comes down to fundamenal personality differences that can never really be agreed upon. You will always think it is okay to take from those who did better for themselves whereas I believe in a more fair approach. They got their money and it is theirs to do with as they please. Just like my money is mine to do with as I please.



"They got their money" is being horribly simplistic and if that's really how you view the entirety of the argument then there is little point in having a discussion.



Cyphon said:


> Again, I don't ask anything of others I wouldn't do myself.
> 
> So let me ask you this....
> 
> What percentage of taxes do you think the wealthiest people should pay and whatever the number, would you be willing to pay that same percentage of your income?



I'd like to see the percentage go back up to the 75%+ we had decades ago.  And if I were in their position I would most certainly be willing to pay that much because even if I did I would still have MORE than everyone in the lower brackets.

Saying "would you be willing to pay that percentage" is not a valid comparison since I'm not in their position.  If I paid that much of my income I couldn't survive, but they would still have enough to live better than I could since that higher tax bracket only kicks in after they've already exceeded my wealth.



Cyphon said:


> This is a big exaggeration in most cases. Getting someone to do your work typically results in getting a "0" on the work, not being thrown out of school and



For paying someone else to do your school work?  You think that would only result in a zero on that single assignment?  It calls into question EVERY assignment you've ever done.  The school I used to teach at expelled students for doing that.



Cyphon said:


> even then you have to get caught.



I see so we're factoring criminal activity into this?  You've "earned" your GPA/Money as long as you don't get caugh?



Cyphon said:


> Apply the bold to the GPA and you are getting somewhere. I am not sure why you choose to put a negative light on one and not the other.
> 
> *Many people have cheated to get a 4.0 just as many people have gotten money without much work.* It is no different yet you try to claim all GPA is completely earned.
> 
> I can name dozens of people I went to highschool with who put more time into creative ways of cheating than into studying and they all had good grades.



Do you _really_ think the number of people who paid someone else to get them a 4.0 is really comparable to the number of rich people who got their money through inheritance or through the work of their employees?  Really???


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 2, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDgLVPFE-Mk&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## First Tsurugi (Aug 2, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDgLVPFE-Mk&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]



Like hell I'm going to watch ten minutes of Keith Olberman.

Anyway, here's a bit of good news.



We get to keep our AAA credit rating.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 2, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> What the hell does that mean?  Did what he had to do?  Bill Gates bought a system someone else made (DOS) and built a company off of someone elses work that he paid for.
> 
> When you're buying someone elses work it kind of kills the whole "they worked hard for their money" argument.  Giving someone a check is not "working hard".



Again, whatever you define as "working hard" he still took advantage of oppurtunities presented to him, which is what I was just discussing. May have been poor wording on my part. 



> I see nothing wrong without asking them to give something back because of that.



They already give something back and they make money from those working under them because they worked to get into that position to begin with. Just like the people under them could have been there.

So again, you are basically punishing (though punishing is the wrong term) those who did better for themselves. 

Most people have the oppurtunity to set things up to become rich but they don't use those oppurtunities. They get lazy or settle or some other reason. My point is simply people shouldn't be rewarded for laziness or apathy and you are more or less saying they should. 

Don't get me wrong, SOME people really don't ever get oppurtunities but you can't really quantify that so it is pointless to get into a big debate over.



> "They got their money" is being horribly simplistic and if that's really how you view the entirety of the argument then there is little point in having a discussion.



It is not always that simple. If it comes to some crime than of course "they got their money" is too simple and doesn't apply. To most other things it really is that simple. They have money they either got as a gift or worked for and it isn't your right to take it or demand it be given away, just like it isn't my right to demand you send me a check right now.



> And if I were in their position I would most certainly be willing to pay that much because even if I did I would still have MORE than everyone in the lower brackets.



I think I worded the question wrongly. I am asking about your position now. Would you be willing to pay 75% of your check to taxes? 

How can you demand something of somebody you aren't willing to do yourself. If you think they should give 75% you should give 75%



> If I paid that much of my income I couldn't survive



Honestly I wasn't expecting you to pick a rate as absurd as 75% so you may have a point when using an outlandish amount. If we are using something reasonable though you could pay it and survive, you would simply have a lower standard of living. 

Even at 75% I am pretty certain you could survive because with that kind of tax money the govt. would be giving plenty of handouts to people.



> For paying someone else to do your school work?  You think that would only result in a zero on that single assignment?  It calls into question EVERY assignment you've ever done.  The school I used to teach at expelled students for doing that.



I never said pay someone else. I am still referring to cheating/getting help. I was never charged by people in school for copying their stuff. 

I can't remember what they did at my university.

The only rule I remember specifically along these lines was plagiarism and I believe the punishment was a 0 in the class at worst. Possibly just a 0 on the assignment if you were lucky.



> I see so we're factoring criminal activity into this?  You've "earned" your GPA/Money as long as you don't get caugh?



I don't recall cheating on a test carrying any kind of a jail sentence or fine. 



> Do you _really_ think the number of people who paid someone else to get them a 4.0 is really comparable to the number of rich people who got their money through inheritance or through the work of their employees?  Really???



I honestly am not sure where money came into the equation of cheating in school but that is hardly relevant.

Do I really think the amount of people who cheat in school to get good grades is the same as those who get money without working for it? No. I think the amount of people who cheat is higher.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 2, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDgLVPFE-Mk&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]



What Keith says is true. 


*First Tsurugi*, i would not call that happy as S&P are already threatening to downgrade if an extensive plan to cut the deficit over a longer period isn't managed.

Personally, these ratings agencies are nothing but bad news, as they hold too much power over global investing. But there have to be solutions eventually, or else.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2011)

one of the credit agencies already downgraded the US to AA.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 2, 2011)

That's hilarius bullshit. Rating agencies still give the US premium rating and yet countries with half the debt per citizen and actual austerity measures now in place are downgraded to financial trash tier.
It's all bullshit and it's all bad for you


----------



## Parallax (Aug 2, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> I think I worded the question wrongly. I am asking about your position now. Would you be willing to pay 75% of your check to taxes?
> 
> How can you demand something of somebody you aren't willing to do yourself. If you think they should give 75% you should give 75%
> 
> ...



This isn't an absurd number.  It really was that high.  

and comparing Tsuku's wages (or most people here) to someone like Carlos Slim Helu, Bernard Arnault, or Larry Ellison is really stupid

if I made 74 BILLION dollars in a year yeah I would give up that much.  If I made 40 Billion, 30 Billion, or hell even 1 Billion I would have no problem getting taxed 75% because even the worse case scenario I still keep 75 Million dollars.

which really if you have a problem keeping that much then that says loads about your character


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 3, 2011)

China's credit agency has downgraded the US too


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 3, 2011)

Parallax said:


> This isn't an absurd number. It really was that high.


 
Because it was once at that doesn't change the absurdity of it. Taxing someone for the majority of their money is simply ridiculous no matter how much they make.



> and comparing Tsuku's wages (or most people here) to someone like Carlos Slim Helu, Bernard Arnault, or Larry Ellison is really stupid


 
Never really compared their wages. Simply saying if you are demanding someone else pay 75% of their money you should be more than willing to do the same yourself. Otherwise you are basically just a hypocrite and an asshole.



> if I made 74 BILLION dollars in a year yeah I would give up that much. If I made 40 Billion, 30 Billion, or hell even 1 Billion I would have no problem getting taxed 75% because even the worse case scenario I still keep 75 Million dollars.


 
Again, I am talking about what you actually make not an amount rich people make. IMO it doesn't matter what you make it should still be fair. 



> which really if you have a problem keeping that much then that says loads about your character


 
I don't even have a problem with the money I make now and it isn't even close to that. My point is about fairness and no matter how much you make it isn't fair for the govt. to take such a high percentage from just one group.


----------



## Vergil (Aug 3, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> Because it was once at that doesn't change the absurdity of it. Taxing someone for the majority of their money is simply ridiculous no matter how much they make.
> 
> 
> 
> Never really compared their wages. Simply saying if you are demanding someone else pay 75% of their money you should be more than willing to do the same yourself. Otherwise you are basically just a hypocrite and an asshole.



So by that logic everyone, including the lowest earners in the country should all be paying the same taxes? No, that simply doesn't work and it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite for thinking that. For someone earning $40/day and another person earning $1million/day you just cannot charge the same rate of tax, otherwise a) the poor get screwed with a higher rate of tax or b) the country goes into massive debt.

Those that are earning more should pay more taxes. Remember that taxes are tiered - you do not get charged the higher rate on the entirity of your income. If it states that those earning over $200,000 get taxed 50% (I'm making these numbers up as I don't know the figures), and you are earning $200,001 it does not mean that the govt get half your entire money - they get half of the $1, the rest is charged at a lower rate. It's completely fair.

You essentially have 1% of the population with around 90% of the wealth. You may say they have earned it and I'd agree with you. However for a country to run, everyone needs to put in their fair share and currently the rich are just not doing that. They are trying to worm their way out of their responsibility to their country - and the fact remains is that it is really expensive to run a country.

I'd consider putting a much higher rate of tax on the finest things in life. expensive cars, properties over $500,000, planes, boats, dining at expensive restaurants. All of that should have a higher VAT. Currently there are only 3 tiers (well in the UK anyway I'm not sure on the US); none, half and full. Currently our VAT is at 20% and the US govt really should consider bumping up the VAT  and creating a new higher tier of say 30% on extreme luxury items. 

However I'd also stop the Bush era tax cuts. I wouldn't raise taxes on the rich - simply reinstate the taxes as they were before. My folks own a business - I know that trickle down is supposed to work, in theory. Yes if we had more money then I would give the staff a wage increase - but honestly, and I'm sure this is true to the majority of the popultion; we'd keep the majority of it for ourselves.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 3, 2011)

Vergil said:


> So by that logic everyone, including the lowest earners in the country should all be paying the same taxes? No, that simply doesn't work and it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite for thinking that.



Honestly I don't have a problem with tiered taxes as long as it isn't taken too far (like say 75%). My problem is with people unfairly targeting specific groups and not willing to do more on your own.

As I have said numerous times if you are a person who thinks people should pay more taxes than you should be the first in line to pay more taxes out of your own pocket regardless of what you make. 

I would honestly never expect the poor to pay 75% of their money or look at that in a positive light but I also would do the same for the rich. It is a ludicrous amount. You are literally taking over half of someones money. Would you give up half of your house to someone? Would you give up half of your family's food?

I know the rich aren't going to suffer and will still have plenty of money but that doesn't make it right. Just because they have more of it doesn't mean it is okay to take it.



> Those that are earning more should pay more taxes.



I mostly agree but it needs to be reasonable and IMO should never go beyond 50%. Highest EVER should maybe be 45 but I find even that high. Nearly taking half of what someone has gotten.....SMH.



> Remember that taxes are tiered - you do not get charged the higher rate on the entirity of your income. If it states that those earning over $200,000 get taxed 50% (I'm making these numbers up as I don't know the figures), and you are earning $200,001 it does not mean that the govt get half your entire money - they get half of the $1, the rest is charged at a lower rate. It's completely fair.



This is a fair enough point when we are speaking of the minimum but when you are getting up in higher amounts it is A LOT of money. As I said above their are limits we need to not go past.



> You essentially have 1% of the population with around 90% of the wealth. You may say they have earned it and I'd agree with you. However for a country to run, everyone needs to put in their fair share and currently the rich are just not doing that.



Aren't the rich paying the majority of the taxes the govt. is taking in already? I would say that is doin their part if they are a miniscule % of the population and yet paying the majority of it back. 

I don't know the exact numbers of what they pay but if it is true they are paying the majority I am not sure I can agree with you. I agree that they should do their part but where does the line get drawn?



> and the fact remains is that it is really expensive to run a country.



No doubt. Again though, lines need to be drawn. There is a lot of waste and unnecessary handouts and programs that need revamped, cut or scaled back. 

Instead of doing that everyone just wants to keep taking more money and adding to the problem. The govt. runs like a bunch of crackheads. Spend to get your fix, rob someone and then spend some more. 



> I'd consider putting a much higher rate of tax on the finest things in life. expensive cars, properties over $500,000, planes, boats, dining at expensive restaurants. All of that should have a higher VAT.



This is something I wouldn't have a problem with but again, it would need to be reasonable. Most of what I see and hear people wanting to do seems a bit outlandish. 



> Yes if we had more money then I would give the staff a wage increase - but honestly, and I'm sure this is true to the majority of the popultion; *we'd keep the majority of it for ourselves*.



And there is absolutely nothing wrong with the bold. You (and your family) have put yourself in the position to do that and assuming you did everything legally or within reason (however some want to word it) then it is all fine. 

A lot of people want to cry out and call people like you and your family greedy but I don't see it. You are providing jobs for people and money for them so people have no right to question your wealth. If you remove yourself from the equation all of those people you aren't paying enough (based on what some will say) would be making exactly $0 without you there.


----------



## Vergil (Aug 3, 2011)

Cyphon said:


> And there is absolutely nothing wrong with the bold. You (and your family) have put yourself in the position to do that and assuming you did everything legally or within reason (however some want to word it) then it is all fine.
> 
> A lot of people want to cry out and call people like you and your family greedy but I don't see it. You are providing jobs for people and money for them so people have no right to question your wealth. If you remove yourself from the equation all of those people you aren't paying enough (based on what some will say) would be making exactly $0 without you there.



I can more or less agree with you on everything but this part. I understamd the rich should not be utterly taxed to the hilt - or else what really is the point of working if you can simply leech off the more successul. 

However when a government incentive is taken so that those less fortunate are taken care of better by their employers - and when it is not happening the way it should, then it is totally wrong.

Basic greed takes over. The govt made these tax cuts so that the employees would get some benefit. It is clear that they are not getting much benefit at all because the people at the top are merely taking more. It's not supposed to work like that.

To put it another way, the employers have been given money they otherwise would not have had to distribute to the masses. They did not do that and kept it for themselves. Its wrong and I'd condemn my family if they did that - but everyone would do that, so that strategy doesn't work. Therefore the tax cuts have to taken away and another way needs to be looked at to stimulate jobs/ wage increases.

For this point solely I'd reinstate the taxes to the rich.


----------



## Cyphon (Aug 3, 2011)

Vergil said:


> To put it another way, the employers have been given money they otherwise would not have had to distribute to the masses. They did not do that and kept it for themselves. Its wrong and I'd condemn my family if they did that - but everyone would do that, so that strategy doesn't work. Therefore the tax cuts have to taken away and another way needs to be looked at to stimulate jobs/ wage increases.



I agree with you on this actually. If the govt. is specifically giving the business breaks for that purpose then the money should be used for that or the breaks should be taken away.

I am referring (in my above response) to just the money the rich have earned through their business and work or other means, not the money they are "saving" through tax breaks and such.

For example say a rich person played the lottery and won another 5 mil. I don't think they should feel it necessary to hand that out to others. It would be a wonderful thing for them to do and certainly praiseworthy though. I myself would hand it out but again, I don't think it should be demanded or expected of someone.


----------



## muishot (Aug 3, 2011)

For a smart guy President Obama can be very dumb.  I am all for compromise and all that because that is the type of person I am.  However, President Obama is not smart enough to recognize that he is not dealing with the same type of Republicans we have in decades past.  This is the new generation of Republicans who move so far to the Right.  They are are extremists if you will.  They will not listen to reasons and facts.  They will not compromise no matter how much you try to accommodate them.  When you are dealing with these people, accommodation will do you no good.  You have to use hardline tactic.  You have to get tough on them and make them kneel before you.  The President should hire PR firms and have them go out and spin the hell out of the issue 24/7.  But he didn't do that.  He kept silence all this time and allow the Republicans win in the media.  

I don't think I can support him in his reelection bid.  Maybe I should vote for Romney this time.





Don't go on TV without these two graphs.  Let the rest of the country know what makes this debt so huge.  Don't expect everyone especially the dumb ones to click onto the Whitehouse website and search for the data.


----------



## Mael (Aug 3, 2011)

^To complement, I turn to my good Vancouver buddy JJ McCullough for reinforcement:




> Barack Obama may be an enormously relevant figure of history, and may even prove to be one of the more successful US presidents, in terms of his ability to be win election and re-election with minimal effort. He may also be a very good man, and a very moral and thoughtful human being.
> 
> But it’s becoming increasingly evident that he is neither a very skilled nor wise politician, and a thoroughly inept leader of both his political party and the larger ideological movement which it purports to represent.
> 
> ...



And that's really the sad truth.  He's a pragmatic president either too beaten down, too cowardly, or too naive to realize that he's up against a beast.  The GOP never wanted to compromise...not since the questionably racist and dooming Tea Party grew in popularity.  I should've seen this when boos were heard whenever John McCain announced Obama's name.  We're dealing with morons and schemers, where slightly more decent men and women have been hushed.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 3, 2011)

muishot said:


> For a smart guy President Obama can be very dumb.  I am all for compromise and all that because that is the type of person I am.  However, President Obama is not smart enough to recognize that he is not dealing with the same type of Republicans we have in decades past.  This is the new generation of Republicans who move so far to the Right.  They are are extremists if you will.  They will not listen to reasons and facts.  They will not compromise no matter how much you try to accommodate them.  When you are dealing with these people, accommodation will do you no good.  You have to use hardline tactic.  You have to get tough on them and make them kneel before you.  The President should hire PR firms and have them go out and spin the hell out of the issue 24/7.  But he didn't do that.  He kept silence all this time and allow the Republicans win in the media.
> 
> I don't think I can support him in his reelection bid.  Maybe I should vote for Romney this time.
> 
> ...



that's stupid.  because the left doesn't have a suicidal extreme wing means to counter lunatic repubs, u'll vote repub?

i know we say stupid things we don't mean when we're mad, so i'll chalk it up to that.  

there still is a place to move from here, strategically speaking.  it's just up to dems to make it happen and not be idiots.


----------



## Perseverance (Aug 3, 2011)

I hope the American economy busts, would be funny to see redknecks panic.


----------



## Mael (Aug 3, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> I hope the American economy busts, would be funny to see redknecks panic.



I know, right?  What'll be even funnier is when the rest of the global economy craps out too.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Aug 3, 2011)




----------



## muishot (Aug 3, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> that's stupid.  because the left doesn't have a suicidal extreme wing means to counter lunatic repubs, u'll vote repub?
> 
> i know we say stupid things we don't mean when we're mad, so i'll chalk it up to that.
> 
> there still is a place to move from here, strategically speaking.  it's just up to dems to make it happen and not be idiots.



Mitt Romney is not a bad alternative.  After all he pass that healthcare legislation here in Massachusetts.  So to speak he is more of a moderate to conservative as oppose to being extreme right conservative.  If he is elected, I would love to see him clash with this right wing nut cases in Congress.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 3, 2011)

muishot said:


> Mitt Romney is not a bad alternative.  After all he pass that healthcare legislation here in Massachusetts.  So to speak he is more of a moderate to conservative as oppose to being extreme right conservative.  If he is elected, I would love to see him clash with this right wing nut cases in Congress.



Romney's much further right then obama, and it's still not as far right as the whackos currently screwing the country.  why would he have better luck with healthcare than obama (aside from the obvious superficial reasons).


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 4, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]JNDQ5MSgayY[/YOUTUBE]


He's wild now, and called that shit like it is.


Romney, Bachmann, Obama, Palin... and so on. They're all the same, they all listen to the same puppet master. I fear special interests groups have hijacked the country with the intent of stealing everything and doing anything until they can flee and leave the people in turmoil.


----------



## Sunrider (Aug 4, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> there still is a place to move from here, strategically speaking.  it's just up to dems to make it happen and not be idiots.


The thing is, they're not idiots. It's often the intelligent that are second-guessing their actions for being able to imagine multiple means to an end. The Republican party (or the Tea Party to be more precise), is full idiots, which are always cocksure and stubborn.

Rather than idiotic, the problem with the Dems is that their weak-willed. Sometimes there _aren't_ alternatives. You simply have to dig in and stand your ground. They aren't doing that.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> Romney's much further right then obama, and it's still not as far right as the whackos currently screwing the country.  why would he have better luck with healthcare than obama (aside from the obvious superficial reasons).



Romney turned MA's health care system into an actual model for other states.  Mitt Romney may not be the best guy on an interpersonal level and certainly not the most compassionate of folks, but damn it all he knows his economics.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 4, 2011)

Sunrider said:


> The thing is, they're not idiots. It's often the intelligent that are second-guessing their actions for being able to imagine multiple means to an end. The Republican party (or the Tea Party to be more precise), is full idiots, which are always cocksure and stubborn.
> 
> Rather than idiotic, the problem with the Dems is that their weak-willed. Sometimes there _aren't_ alternatives. You simply have to dig in and stand your ground. They aren't doing that.



well, as muishot expressed, he's gonna change buses already.  he's the progressive progressives don't need on their side.



Mael said:


> Romney turned MA's health care system into an actual model for other states.  Mitt Romney may not be the best guy on an interpersonal level and certainly not the most compassionate of folks, but damn it all he knows his economics.



it's all gonna mean jack squat with how far to the right repubs are now


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Romney turned MA's health care system into an actual model for other states.  Mitt Romney may not be the best guy on an interpersonal level and certainly not the most compassionate of folks, *but damn it all he knows his economics.*



Considering that during his time as governor Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation I'm not sure I agree with that.


----------



## Toby (Aug 4, 2011)

It would help if more Americans actually voted, and punished people who vote the wrong way. Take their lunch money.

I hear complaints that Americans have themselves to blame, and that is part of the cause, but the main problem is lacklustre. If more Americans voted, this would change a Hell of a lot in the political landscape. . As it stands, countries with very high electoral turnout tend to have multiple party-systems, so the number of alternatives may have an effect on this. Another aspect is that multi-party systems are generally parliamentary democracies - which are more stable. If this is a result of the high voter turnout, a need to cooperate with other parties, or both - as reinforcing factors, is uncertain. But I think that it would help a lot for the Democratic party to just keep rallying their base and try to discover new ways of bringing more voters into the political game. Despite some comments about the 2008 election, there wasn't a radical increase in the number of people who voted, and by rights there should have been considering what was at stake.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 4, 2011)

Problem is that most people here vote for someone for stupid reasons like he looks like them or he has a nice hat.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Romney turned MA's health care system into an actual model for other states.  Mitt Romney may not be the best guy on an interpersonal level and certainly not the most compassionate of folks, but damn it all he knows his economics.



right, the "obamney" care. Romney is a goddamned scumbag.
Trash like all the others


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> right, the "obamney" care. Romney is a goddamned scumbag.
> Trash like all the others



Seeing how I've lived in MA not only as a student but as an actual resident for a good total of 7.5-8 years and have been affected by his terms, I think I know what the fuck I'm talking about.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Toby said:


> It would help if more Americans actually voted, and punished people who vote the wrong way. Take their lunch money.
> 
> I hear complaints that Americans have themselves to blame, and that is part of the cause, but the main problem is lacklustre. If more Americans voted, this would change a Hell of a lot in the political landscape. . As it stands, countries with very high electoral turnout tend to have multiple party-systems, so the number of alternatives may have an effect on this. Another aspect is that multi-party systems are generally parliamentary democracies - which are more stable. If this is a result of the high voter turnout, a need to cooperate with other parties, or both - as reinforcing factors, is uncertain. But I think that it would help a lot for the Democratic party to just keep rallying their base and try to discover new ways of bringing more voters into the political game. Despite some comments about the 2008 election, there wasn't a radical increase in the number of people who voted, and by rights there should have been considering what was at stake.



Its been a long term strategy of the republicans to dissuade people from voting.  It was laid out in the 80s by Paul Weyrich " our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down".

When your constant message is "government doesn't work" and you do everything in your power to make it more difficult to vote (like the myriad of voter ID laws and voting rule changes they're currently trying to pass and voting machines with very publicly known flaws) its understandable that many feel it pointless to vote.

That doesn't excuse people who choose not to vote, I'm just saying its somewhat understandable.

I spend a lot of time trying to convince people to vote and the most common excuse I get is "whats the point".


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Seeing how I've lived in MA not only as a student but as an actual resident for a good total of 7.5-8 years and have been affected by his terms, I think I know what the fuck I'm talking about.



How do I put this

He is trash.
He goes around with already unnervingly scummy conservative plans, that are pretty much the same as obama's but then sells out and acts like a douchebag at the first hint that any democrats may god forbid want to work with him
So he goes "first thing I'd do is to get rid of obama plan. And then go ahead and put mine"

That makes me not like him much. But hey, it's countered by the fact Limbaugh bashes him.

He's asked about global warming and he goes
"oh I don't know, I don't speak for the scientists, I do believe the world is getting warmer and that humans have something to do with it"
"well are you gonna do something about it?"
"We don't call it american warming, we call it global warming"

asked about dodd frank finacial reform bill:
"It's too long. With 1000 pages there could be something good, but I guess it's sooooo long companies are scawed and they don't lend any mo'. Can't have it"
"but what about it is wrong? why?
I don't know. I can't read it. Too long
You must have read some of it
Too long!"

Romney speaks to unemployed:
Oh gee, maybe I should tell my story, I'm also unemployed! Hahahahahaha!  "

Romney sure knows his business. His company made lots of money buying other companies.
sometimes they did good? Most of the times? Massive layoffs.

"what about gay rights?"
"I'll always been in favor of preventing discrimination

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

At the same time I believe marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman"

except

"but then you're not in favor of all gay rights right? then you're not in favor of gay rights"
"What? No, I've met gay leaders and talked about our efforts. Problems is I didn't change my position, gay people changed their position "
"what gay rights are you in favor of?"
"equal rights in emplployment, I had members in my team that were gay and even appointed judges that I later found out they were gay "
"does your faith means you view homos as a sin"
"I separate matters of faith from what one views as leadership of choices"
"but what is the mormon position of your church?"
"take it with the Church"
"but don't you know?"
"take it with the church?"
"but I'm asking you"
"take it with the church"
"well, do YOU think it's a sin?"
"nice try"
"well it's a valid question"
"it is, and my answer is, nice try "

But don't get him wrong. The fact he doesn't wrap himself in God is because he's a mormon and one third of republicans state they would never vote for a mormon


Need it to go on in the many ways he's a douchebag?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 4, 2011)

but ban hammer, he's from MA, just like scott brown the tea party moron.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> but ban hammer, he's from MA, just like scott brown the tea party moron.



I'm actually from CT.

But I've met Mitt not once but twice.  He's not a great guy socially but he's fantastic with economics.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> I'm actually from CT.
> 
> But I've met Mitt not once but twice.  He's not a great guy socially but he's fantastic with economics.



Again, during his time as governor Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job growth.  How exactly is he "fantastic with economics"?

He _personally_ outsourced thousands of jobs with companies he owned.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Again, during his time as governor Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job growth.  How exactly is he "fantastic with economics"?
> 
> He _personally_ outsourced thousands of jobs with companies he owned.



Where was he ranked 47th?

In 2004 he turned a $3B deficit into a $700M surplus along with a $500M in 2005.

How is that terrible?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Where was he ranked 47th?
> 
> In 2004 he turned a $3B deficit into a $700M surplus along with a $500M in 2005.
> 
> How is that terrible?



Something that appears to have been lost in the recent debt "debate" is that the _deficit_ and the_ economy_ are two _very_ different things.  Cutting spending to balance a budget can actually _slow_ an economy.

An accurate measure of economic growth is not whether or not you're running a deficit, a better measure is how many jobs you're economy is adding and by that measure Massachusetts was 47th out of 50.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Something that appears to have been lost in the recent debt "debate" is that the _deficit_ and the_ economy_ are two _very_ different things.  Cutting spending to balance a budget can actually _slow_ an economy.
> 
> An accurate measure of economic growth is not whether or not you're running a deficit, a better measure is how many jobs you're economy is adding and by that measure Massachusetts was 47th out of 50.



Yet what blows my mind is that during and after his tenure MA still had a lower unemployment rate than the national average.  Yeah I know population can be a factor but MA is not small in number.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Yet what blows my mind is that during and after his tenure MA still had a lower unemployment rate than the national average.  Yeah I know population can be a factor but MA is not small in number.



Lower than the national average still doesn't mean _good_, it just means that other states are hurting more.  Right now they're ranked 18th, which means 17 states are still doing better.

When you're job growth rate is 47th out of 50 its a good indicator that your economic policies suck.  If he was so fantastic then they should be towards the top of the list.


----------



## Raging Bird (Aug 4, 2011)

Simple and to the point Tsukiyomi.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Lower than the national average still doesn't mean _good_, it just means that other states are hurting more.  Right now they're ranked 18th, which means 17 states are still doing better.
> 
> When you're job growth rate is 47th out of 50 its a good indicator that your economic policies suck.  If he was so fantastic then they should be towards the top of the list.



Sometimes to look better, everyone else has to be looking worse.

Maybe I'm just personally in agreement with his policies against the bailouts and towards GM/Chrysler.

I dunno, when 49% of Massachusetts thinks Romney did a better job than Deval Patrick who scored 33% of favor.  The only really big reasons his popularity took a dip was because he was against MA's gay marriage stance and his closeness to the GOP (see social douche comment).

And where is this link stating he was #47?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Maybe I'm just personally in agreement with his policies against the bailouts and towards GM/Chrysler.



Not sure what that has to do with economic growth in Massachusetts.



Mael said:


> Sometimes to look better, everyone else has to be looking worse.





Mael said:


> I dunno, when 49% of Massachusetts thinks Romney did a better job than Deval Patrick who scored 33% of favor.  The only really big reasons his popularity took a dip was because he was against MA's gay marriage stance and his closeness to the GOP (see social douche comment).



Again _better_ doesn't mean GOOD.



Mael said:


> And where is this link stating he was #47?





The study ranking it 47th was by the US Department of Labor.

The 3 states in came in ahead of were Michigan, Ohio and Louisiana at the time was still suffering from the effects of Katrina which makes it hard to add jobs to the economy.



This study actually ranked the state at 49th out of 50.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The study ranking it 47th was by the US Department of Labor.
> 
> The 3 states in came in ahead of were Michigan, Ohio and Louisiana at the time was still suffering from the effects of Katrina which makes it hard to add jobs to the economy.
> 
> ...





> Massachusetts lags all but one other state in job creation and is shifting toward a "boutique" economy that rewards those with education and skills but leaves others behind, according to a report released yesterday by a non-partisan research organization.



Boutique economy?

Ok, skills and education are rewarded better in Massachusetts.  Sorry if I'm not being sympathetic since I've seen more municipal jobs be wasted within the States.  Working with Guardsmen means working with high and low-rung workers and that also means learning just how much clean-up was required since 2003.

I'm still failing to see how reversing a $3B budget to $700M surplus could've been accomplished by other means outside of fuckhueg taxation.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Boutique economy?
> 
> Ok, skills and education are rewarded better in Massachusetts.  Sorry if I'm not being sympathetic since I've seen more municipal jobs be wasted within the States.  Working with Guardsmen means working with high and low-rung workers and that also means learning just how much clean-up was required since 2003.



How does any of that change the horrible job growth under his tenure as governor?



Mael said:


> I'm still failing to see how reversing a $3B budget to $700M surplus could've been accomplished by other means outside of fuckhueg taxation.



Again what the hell does that have to do with the state economy?  The deficit and economy are two different things.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Again what the hell does that have to do with the state economy?  The deficit and economy are two different things.



Fiscal and economic policies help determine deficit and surplus, do they not?

He slashed inefficient jobs that I've reviewed myself when working with the state.  Sorry but I'm not buying.

He's an asshole but he's not a moron in economics.


----------



## The Awesome Geert Wilders (Aug 4, 2011)

Arent you guys bankrupt yet?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Fiscal and economic policies help determine deficit and surplus, do they not?



The influence it but you're trying to directly and completely tie one to the other and you can't do that.  You could slash government spending indiscriminately and tank the economy but still have cut enough to run a surplus.

By that same token you could be running a deficit but still have a very vibrant and healthy economy.



Mael said:


> He slashed inefficient jobs that I've reviewed myself when working with the state.  Sorry but I'm not buying.
> 
> He's an asshole but he's not a moron in economics.



Cut "inefficient jobs".  Ok, and?  That didn't seem to help job growth in Massachusetts at all.


----------



## The Awesome Geert Wilders (Aug 4, 2011)

Either you people raise your taxes or watch your country fall apart. 

America is now being destroyed by the very thing it was founded upon, "Democracy"...


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

The Awesome Geert Wilders said:


> Either you people raise your taxes or watch your country fall apart.
> 
> America is now being destroyed by the very thing it was founded upon, "Democracy"...



except you know, the people's will is toward the raising of the taxes for the top one percent incomes 
Democracy works, except when you don't use it


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> Where was he ranked 47th?
> 
> In 2004 he turned a $3B deficit into a $700M surplus along with a $500M in 2005.
> 
> How is that terrible?



Not
sure
if 
serious


"hey guys, I was in financial trouble three years ago but I cut wasteful spending on my cancer medication and dropped out of college and now I'm like a billionaire! Yay!"


----------



## Rukia (Aug 4, 2011)

I would have voted against this agreement.  It doesn't cut spending nearly enough.  Spending is still projected to be at an all time level.  The debt still will balloon from what... 13 trillion to 24 trillion during that period?  Thanks but no thanks.

I'm waiting for the FED to print more money to fix this problem.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> I would have voted against this agreement.  It doesn't cut spending nearly enough.  Spending is still projected to be at an all time level.  The debt still will balloon from what... 13 trillion to 24 trillion during that period?  Thanks but no thanks.
> 
> I'm waiting for the FED to print more money to fix this problem.



It cuts spending too much.  You don't massively gut domestic spending during economic down periods.  You just slow the economy down more.

During recessions/depressions is when you WANT deficit spending (focused domestically) to mitigate those effects.

Deficits and debt are long term problems that are best solved by growing your economy and thus increasing revenue.

We should be pouring crazy amounts of money into infrastructure and job training programs while cutting non-stimulative spending like military spending and reforming the tax code to make it more punitive towards those who outsource jobs.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> I would have voted against this agreement.  It doesn't cut spending nearly enough.  Spending is still projected to be at an all time level.




Spending is at the lowest it's been since eisenhower
And you know what happened after? A great depression


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> It cuts spending too much.  You don't massively gut domestic spending during economic down periods.  You just slow the economy down more.
> 
> During recessions/depressions is when you WANT deficit spending (focused domestically) to mitigate those effects.
> 
> ...



Common sense? I say thee nay.


----------



## Rukia (Aug 4, 2011)

The economy is cyclical.  There are up periods and down periods.  The worst thing you can do is introduce radical legislature (like the health care plan).  That just ensures that the down period will last longer.

We should cut spending in the following areas:

-Federal Healthcare/Medicaid
-Military Spending
-Foreign Stability Payments (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)
-NASA (already underway)

Social Security needs to be tinkered with in a big way.  First off, Social Security is a black hole.  People that are putting money into it today may never see any return.  People are living too long.  The life expectancy has shot up dramatically.  When this fund was created... the government never anticipated that the life expectancy rate would increase to this extent.

I don't trust the media at all.  For the most part... I don't know what to believe.

I can only believe what I see first hand.  I was in the Air Force for 4 years.  So I got to see wasteful military spending first hand.  The military would build some base housing for example.  Orders would come down from the Department of Defense that the base is going to be shut down.  But the military would finish building those houses and they would sit there abandoned.  Never used.  Just another example.  A parade field gets built even though a perfectly good one already exists on the base.  The military loves investing in wasteful exploratory contracts.  Lockheed Martin spent a billion dollars on something that doesn't work.  Thanks a lot!

Now that I am out of the military... I work in Healthcare.  A family of 10 is at the hospital having another baby.  The father's profession?  He's a painter.  The mother is unemployed.  A family with less than $5K to their name is somehow able to provide their daughter with over $100K worth or healthcare treatment?  Someone has to pay for that.  Where is the logic?

Sorry.  This broke down and became more of a rant than an actually discussion.  The point is that I don't trust either political party.  But I hate the media more than anything because of their excessive fear mongering.

The job report comes out tomorrow.  I expect it to be abysmal.


----------



## Mael (Aug 4, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Spending is at the lowest it's been since eisenhower
> And you know what happened after? A great depression



Um, no.

The Great Depression which I'm feeling is what you're referring to was during Herbert Hoover's tenure.

GDP Growth:


----------



## Rukia (Aug 4, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Spending is at the lowest it's been since eisenhower
> And you know what happened after? A great depression


Spending was higher in the 1920's than it is now?  Where did you come up with that?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 4, 2011)

You raise taxes when your revenue stream is low. You cut wasteful spending in conjunction with that. Wasteful spending btw is not domestic infrostracture. Its actual waste. Mitt romney 'balanced' his budget on the backs of his people while raising income property taxes on low to middle income areas. Now he says never raised taxes to get the conservative vote while leaving his state with a projected deficit of 2 billion dollars. In short, the man is an idiot at economics.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> The economy is cyclical.  There are up periods and down periods.  The worst thing you can do is introduce radical legislature (like the health care plan).  That just ensures that the down period will last longer.



The worst thing you can do is cutting spending everywhere.  All you do is lower the amount of money flowing into the economy.



Rukia said:


> We should cut spending in the following areas:
> 
> -Federal Healthcare/Medicaid



You are aware that one of the main reasons health care costs are so high is because we DON'T cover everyone right?  We let poor people who can't afford healthcare get sicker and sicker until its an emergency and we have to treat them and at that point medical care is at its most expensive.



Rukia said:


> I don't trust the media at all.  For the most part... I don't know what to believe.
> 
> I can only believe what I see first hand.



You can only believe what you see first hand?  What a tremendously narrow view of the world you must have.



Rukia said:


> I was in the Air Force for 4 years.  So I got to see wasteful military spending first hand.  The military would build some base housing for example.  Orders would come down from the Department of Defense that the base is going to be shut down.  But the military would finish building those houses and they would sit there abandoned.  Never used.  Just another example.  A parade field gets built even though a perfectly good one already exists on the base.  The military loves investing in wasteful exploratory contracts.  Lockheed Martin spent a billion dollars on something that doesn't work.  Thanks a lot!



Agreed, I'd like to see the majority of the military budget cut.



Rukia said:


> Now that I am out of the military... I work in Healthcare.  A family of 10 is at the hospital having another baby.  The father's profession?  He's a painter.  The mother is unemployed.  A family with less than $5K to their name is somehow able to provide their daughter with over $100K worth or healthcare treatment?  Someone has to pay for that.  Where is the logic?



So the correct thing to do is to let the little girl die because of the actions of her parents?  I'm not seeing the logic there either.

If you want to punish the parents punish the parents but if someone needs health care treatments its in everyones best interest to treat it as soon as possible before it gets more and more expensive to treat and in the worst case spreads to other people.


----------



## Rukia (Aug 4, 2011)

Foxnews, MSNBC, CNN.  The major news networks in this country are biased.  Every story is slanted.  Don't take my words too literally.  I don't trust those networks.  Neither should anyone else.  They drive this country with their fear mongering ways.

The economy shouldn't focus on the bottom 10%.  It should focus on the middle 80%.  Yes.  Sometimes people should be denied healthcare.  There.  Someone said it.

Mitt Romney is just another flip flopper.  A man without integrity.  I still find it hysterical how he tries to distance himself from the healthcare plan.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> The economy is cyclical.  There are up periods and down periods.  The worst thing you can do is introduce radical legislature (like the health care plan).  That just ensures that the down period will last longer.


The health care plan was ridiculously weak. It doesn't people negotiate abusive medical care and mandates everyone to get insurance.
Spending is billions over top because citizens aren't taken care of preventively, only when they're at death's gates.
And that happens why?
Because we rather cut spending here, so we can blow it out of our asses there.


> We should cut spending in the following areas:


here we go





> -Federal Healthcare/Medicaid


No. People need those things to live. LIVE.





> -Military Spending


Our soldiers need that money. The mercenaries and trainers we hire though, don't. Nor do the war industry workers. But hey, those get more tax cuts





> -Foreign Stability Payments (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)


We have investments on those countries. If they fuck up we pay for it in petroleum.
Any idea that isn't terrible?





> -NASA (already underway)


Who cares about Nasa? How much per cent are they taking in anyway?


> Social Security needs to be tinkered with in a big way.  First off, Social Security is a black hole.  People that are putting money into it today may never see any return.  People are living too long.  The life expectancy has shot up dramatically.  When this fund was created... the government never anticipated that the life expectancy rate would increase to this extent.


BULLSHIT
Social Security has a SURPLUS 
Social security does not add a single penny to our debt
In thirty to fourty years all that MAY happen is that it only pays for SEVENTY FIVE PER CENT

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT





> I don't trust the media at all.  For the most part... I don't know what to believe.


Stop believing retarded bullshit propaganda from Fox News.
They're not news.


> I can only believe what I see first hand.  I was in the Air Force for 4 years.  So I got to see wasteful military spending first hand.  The military would build some base housing for example.  Orders would come down from the Department of Defense that the base is going to be shut down.  But the military would finish building those houses and they would sit there abandoned.  Never used.  Just another example.  A parade field gets built even though a perfectly good one already exists on the base.  The military loves investing in wasteful exploratory contracts.  Lockheed Martin spent a billion dollars on something that doesn't work.  Thanks a lot!



Thank the conservatives for those. If we cut spending on military we'll be cutting it out of our soldier's body armor first.
What we need to do is pull them out


> Now that I am out of the military... I work in Healthcare.  A family of 10 is at the hospital having another baby.  The father's profession?  He's a painter.  The mother is unemployed.  A family with less than $5K to their name is somehow able to provide their daughter with over $100K worth or healthcare treatment?  Someone has to pay for that.  Where is the logic?


Hey, those are eight more people in our workforce in a few years. Invest in them so they can give the money back in taxes during their life.
But I get it. You wanna cut spending on children. Let them live on in sickness and maybe death.


> The job report comes out tomorrow.  I expect it to be abysmal.



Of course it will be. We cut spending, so we cut jobs.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> The economy shouldn't focus on the bottom 10%.  It should focus on the middle 80%.  Yes.  Sometimes people should be denied healthcare.  There.  Someone said it.
> 
> Mitt Romney is just another flip flopper.  A man without integrity.  I still find it hysterical how he tries to distance himself from the healthcare plan.



I think your first point is pure idiocy and wish you'd stop it. I can agree with your second half though


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> The economy shouldn't focus on the bottom 10%.  It should focus on the middle 80%.  Yes.  Sometimes people should be denied healthcare.  There.  Someone said it.


Someone says stupid shit sometimes. Deny preventive health and then pay for fortunes worth of emergency care


> Mitt Romney is just another flip flopper.  A man without integrity.  I still find it hysterical how he tries to distance himself from the healthcare plan.



Someone that changes his mind in accordance to new information that he gets is not a man without integrity.
He is a fuckass. But it's not the fact that he's not always the same fuckass that makes him bad

But typical politics. People don't stand for those who have the better ideas, just the ones who stand by their ideas the hardest, regardless of how utterly stupid they are


----------



## Rukia (Aug 4, 2011)

I'm not that upset with the job Obama has done really.  I think he was put into a no-win situation.

I am upset with his foreign policy handling.  I wish someone would ignore the fucking generals and just bring us back from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bring us back from Qatar, Djibouti, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Germany, South Korea, and Japan while they are at it.  Unrelated I suppose, but Banhammer mentioned something that got me started down this path.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> Foxnews, MSNBC, CNN.  The major news networks in this country are biased.  Every story is slanted.  Don't take my words too literally.  I don't trust those networks.  Neither should anyone else.  They drive this country with their fear mongering ways.



You know that those three networks aren't the only source of news right?  There are more unbiased news sources out there.



Rukia said:


> The economy shouldn't focus on the bottom 10%.  It should focus on the middle 80%.  Yes.  Sometimes people should be denied healthcare.  There.  Someone said it.



Who is saying the the economy should _focus_ on the bottom 10%?  I've NEVER heard anyone in power advocate that.

As for denying people healthcare and letting them die what _exactly_ would your criteria for that be?  In your example it seemed like you were going to let a child die for the actions of her parent.



Rukia said:


> Mitt Romney is just another flip flopper.  A man without integrity.  I still find it hysterical how he tries to distance himself from the healthcare plan.



The republicans are good at moving in lock step and they've all chosen to act like Obama's plan came from Lucifer himself.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

I think his foreign policy has been a mixed bag of great moments with terrible general attitude
He got binladen
he ran a more effective occupation
He did that to the Somalian pirates
I don't remember how he responded to syria, but I don't remember being angry about it
Etc etc

He did fuck up the withrawls though, and that's kind of the big thing about it


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

Also, MSNBC is biased for the most part except for the more senior contributors like Maddow and Rattinger I think. Although these two may be subject to personal opinion.
Cenk Uygir was amazing but he left. Al Jazeera is also a very respectable news source


CNN is feckless. If the world is on fire they'll report about a new ice cream flavor at ben and jerrys


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 4, 2011)

lol, ali veshi on cnn when the market is down 450 pts today : " there's a struggle right now between buyers and sellers"  

No ali, i think the sellers clearly have the upper hand 

worst financial commentary


----------



## muishot (Aug 4, 2011)

Rukia said:


> The economy is cyclical.  There are up periods and down periods.  The worst thing you can do is introduce radical legislature (like the health care plan).  That just ensures that the down period will last longer.
> 
> We should cut spending in the following areas:
> 
> ...



Pay careful attention to what this guy has to say everyone.  He knows what he is talking about after learning Economics 101.


----------



## Mizura (Aug 4, 2011)

Actually, it makes sense to cut down on healthcare, but the real issue is that it's being spent inefficiently. The U.S. has among the highest health expenditures in the world, but they don't exactly live longer or better than other developed countries that don't spend as much (the United Nations ranks it as 36th in the world in life expectancy. Right behind Cuba).

Where the money is spent is a huge deal. As far as I can tell, the U.S. does nearly no preventive or alternative treatment. Several studies have shown that massages and yoga can be as much or even more beneficial to many people with back pains than medication or surgery. How do the doctors in the U.S. react? "Well, if medication and surgery doesn't work for you, maybe Then you can try massages or yoga!"

It's got the whole thing upside down. In China, the First thing you do when you have a back pain is go to the massage, and it solves the problem 90% of the time. It's not Chinese pride speaking: many of the other foreigners I see coming here comment on how their decades-old back issues are solved, and whine that they don't know how they'll cope once they go back to their countries where such treatments are unavailable. Both my parents solved their back issues after coming back to China. "Dad, do you take pills for back pain?" Dad: "lol"

But of course, Big Pharma in the U.S. would Never allow that.

Another thing: cancer. I once read an article written about a person whose relative died of cancer. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent fighting cancer, most of which was paid by medicaire. The author notes that if they had to do it again, they'd do it again, but she can't help but notice that 90% of the expenses were spent in the last month of treatment, i.e. to prolong his life just one more month. Is that one extra month spent in pain in bed really worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers? Couldn't the same amount have done much, much more in some other field? Even campaigns on healthier eating, to bring down obesity rates? (but of course, big companies will throw a fit if you ban soft drinks and fatty food from schools for example) Sometimes, terminal means terminal. Do you have the right to demand taxpayers to spend that much money just to prolong a person's life by a little bit? Sometimes one should know when to let go. I find it ironic that a highly religious place like the U.S. is still so afraid of death. :|

... did I mention the silly doctors who refuse to adopt uniform electronic medical file systems? Competition can be good, except standards are often better. You wouldn't want each state to have their own forms for electrical sockets, or for each computer manufacturer to have different USB standards, do you? Well medical records concern your life. When you have problems, it's in your interest to have doctors no matter where you are be able to look up your medical history as easily as possible. Obscurity never helped anyone.

Now, another area of high expenses is military. The problem there is that suppliers set the price. For so-called security reasons, military often buys local, so the domestic suppliers face no competition from abroad. Also, if what I've seen elsewhere is indicative, the military will often have a few favourite big suppliers that they use all the time. And since it's government money, they just charge nearly whatever they want.


----------



## Banhammer (Aug 4, 2011)

> Another thing: cancer. I once read an article written about a person whose relative died of cancer. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent fighting cancer, most of which was paid by medicaire. The author notes that if they had to do it again, they'd do it again, but she can't help but notice that 90% of the expenses were spent in the last month of treatment, i.e. to prolong his life just one more month. Is that one extra month spent in pain in bed really worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers? Couldn't the same amount have done much, much more in some other field? Even campaigns on healthier eating, to bring down obesity rates? (but of course, big companies will throw a fit if you ban soft drinks and fatty food from schools for example) Sometimes, terminal means terminal. Do you have the right to demand taxpayers to spend that much money just to prolong a person's life by a little bit? Sometimes one should know when to let go. I find it ironic that a highly religious place like the U.S. is still so afraid of death. :|



Noooooo. That is not cool bro.
Only the insurance companies have the right to do that.


----------

