Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I'm pretty sure no one wants to continue raising the debt ceiling and digging an even deeper hole -even the President has echoed this sentiment today during his press conference. Under his watch, I think the national debt has increased by about 4T, and if the debt ceiling is increased without major cuts to programs (at all levels), then we're going to amass more debt. What's the big deal about that? Look at Greece.

Currently, the government needs to increase the debt ceiling but the Republicans aren't willing to do that unless major cuts are made to the budget (that didn't really exist to begin with). Shockingly, the President isn't playing his normal partisan hardball and he's trying to come to the table to make concessions with the Republicans. The Democrats and the President have hinted to 1.7T in cuts but the magic number being floated around is 2.4T needed (over the next ten years, I believe). I think the Democrats intend to make up the difference with increased revenues (taxes) but the Republicans are against that idea since they (and at one point, the President) think raising taxes during this recession is a horrible idea that is going to stifle any chance at economic growth. Currently, it looks like the government is at impasse; the democrats are trying to reason with the Republicans by saying, "Look, we're going to cut a lot of programs but you guys need to raise taxes", and the Republicans are responding with a big, "Eh, or we should just cut the things we clearly can't afford and not raise taxes."

It's said that if the government were to default (by not raising the debt ceiling) that world markets would be shaken and it'd really hit the global economy. The Republicans are likely to hold strong on their points since they were elected in 2010 for this very reason - to control spending and to reduce the debt.

What do you guys think is going to happen? Have you guys heard of any solid proposals to control spending and get us in position to start paying down the debt? (Most of these cuts are savings over the next decade, so they're not going to erase the yearly deficits we've been carrying.)

Obama just paid down the obligations forwarded by other presidents (read: Iraq War, corporate bailouts, and propping up a moribund economy).

America has problems but America is not Greece. Greece is a country with no hope and no future, because they have have a deeply ingrained culture of corruption and entitlement in a way America does not. Yes, you can say we have those things in this country - every country does - but Greece is in an entirely different class.

Taxes are ridiculously low for the wealthiest Americans, lower than at any point since the income tax was introduced, at a time when the wealthiest have never been more numerous or more well-off. If these Republicans want to talk about people loving their country or making sacrifices they should lead by example.

We can definitely afford more or less what we have now, it merely requires a bit of efficiency and adjustment. Part of that is that the wealthiest need to contribute more to the prosperity of the country whose largesse they have enjoyed, and part of that is doing more with less - cutting the military and ending the culture of entitlement that Social Security has produced in some quarters.

What is going to happen? Probably some sort of last-minute compromise that will put off macroeconomic Armageddon for another day. Then again maybe not.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The idea of a debt ceiling is dumb. If the government passes a budget that involves accumulating a certain amount of debt, why is there another law that prevents taking on that debt?

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

How much money have we borrowed to pay back money that we've borrowed?

We can't keep spending what we're spending. Everyone keeps on with the "rich people can pay more," but that shit always ends up on top of 'the little guy.' If it is time to 'sacrifice,' let Washington do the sacrificing. Congress can cut the earmark bullshit, cut down on the entitlement bullshit, cut a good amount of defense spending, and here's an idea: stop with the fucking "WAR ON DRUGS," which costs an assload of money and accomplishes nothing, and legalize some of that shit so we can tax the fuck out of it. Quit with the corporate welfare and subsidies. It's not rocket science, but look at the retards we send to run things. One guy has a spray tan that the Jersey Shore morons would be embarrassed by and his counterpart across the aisle has had so many face-lifts that she always looks surprised. It's 530-ish oddball, half-wit freaks running the show, it's no wonder it's a fucking circus.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I don't get why Republicans aren't budging (for now) on closing tax loopholes. That's really not the same as raising taxes...

Aestu pretty much nailed what I believe the rich in this country should do and the reason for my belief - this country made them rich, in one way or another, and now they should show some gratitude. I'm also all for cutting some entitlements, programs, earmarks, w/e. EVERYONE needs to contribute, and that contribution should be based on what you can afford. EVERYONE needs to take a hit here. EVERYONE needs to be able to say "look, we fought for what we believed, but in the end, we CAME TO OUR SENSES and realized that the country isn't worth sacrificing for our ridiculous ideologies!" Just get something done, ffs.

Dems: Okay let's get shit done.
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: Uhh, okay... how about we start with taxes?
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: Cutting stuff like entitlements but also raising taxes?
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: But it's a middle ground here, and...
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: Look, we're trying to be reasonable...
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: Okay, how about what House Speaker Boehner...
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: What about closing some loopholes...
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: But they aren't...
Repubs: Nop.
Dems: But they are taking advantage of...
Repubs: Nop.

Rinse repeat. This is what I've been hearing. I don't understand.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Because "we were elected to keep the budget within our means"

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

Well, that, and republicans have a long history of getting burned on "deals," either because it has cost them in elections because voters saw their 'compromise' as having sold out or because the other side didn't hold up their end of the bargain. That is what is creating this issue, and that's not going away.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Dvergar /
Quisling

bloody fabulous

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Is it ironic to complain about people thinking simplistically then following up by linking that? He goes back to Clinton and says "we had a surplus" as if that were only the result of raising taxes, when that tax increase was accompanied by money saving reforms in...entitlement programs, namely welfare. He goes back to the last Bush and says "we cut taxes and lost a buttload of money," again as if that were the whole story, when those tax cuts spurred economic recovery after the attacks on 9/11, but weren't offset by cuts in spending because we were pouring money into a war on several fronts and...new entitlements, like the prescription drug benefit. So applying Mr. Maher's simplistic thinking, which doesn't account for any factors save the one he's interested in, one could easily argue that it's entitlement spending that's creating the problem.

Arguing that "closing loopholes" doesn't count as raising taxes is sophistry.
Arguing that people are "voting against their own interests," then rattling off a list of entitlements that those same people see as part of the problem and labeling them as "for the little guy" (the people in question) misses the point when you're arguing that 'everyone needs to sacrifice.' Most of the people saying that don't mean 'everyone,' they mean 'the people I don't think are voting for me,' by which they mean "the rich," or as they call them during election season, "campaign donors."

I don't know how any of you can take Bill Maher's circus act seriously when he's that chummy with Ann Coulter.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Raising taxes in a recession, by just about every economic school, is a bad thing. Even Keynesians feel taxes cut consumption and consumption is paramount to them.

So, raising taxes and cutting spending isn't much of a compromise.

We could just raise it on the rich though huh, course anybody that becomes unemployed due to that is tax revenue lost and probably money doled out. So then not only are we as stagnant as before, but less productive and in a long run, losing money.

We don't need higher taxes, we need more people paying them. And I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on the premise that we have a revenue problem, which we don't.

As well, republican's aren't going to (or shouldn't) bend on these things. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government will simply prioritize, like almost every family in this country. They shave a little from everything, pay off our foreign creditors, and shut down parts of the government temporarily.

And when it's not only not a disaster, but a good thing, it'll be mud on the faces of those dems screaming it would be complete ruin. If you don't believe me, look at how bad Minnesota isn't doing.

The tax cuts didn't spur recovery, and tax cuts in general never have.

Clinton rode the unsustainable dot-com boom, and Bush did basically nothing to avert the decline in the American economy.



Whether or not you want to characterize "closing loopholes" as "raising taxes", it is nothing but reasonable expect certain individuals and interests to do what their peers are currently engaged in doing.

It is also good for the economy because it removes the competitive advantage that some nonviable industries (such as corn farming and Wal-Mart) enjoy.



The rich have the money and the power to hawk propaganda aimed at getting others to vote against their own interest and in favor of theirs. The poor don't. It's not a two-way street.



Objection sustained.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Not true. I eagerly subscribe to Henry George economics and I think that's exactly what this country needs.



Trickle-down economics doesn't work any more than it worked in the days of Marie Antoinette or Julius Caesar. If the rich were investing their funds in real enterprise, we wouldn't be in this "jobless recovery" in the first place.

If we have lower taxes for these people than ever before and no job growth to speak of, what is our basis for believing that lower taxes will correlate to their creating more jobs?



When we are talking about "the rich" we are talking about a basically invisible .1% of the population. The middle class is drained dry.

The rich have never enjoyed greater prosperity in either absolute or relative terms, and at this time are a greater expense to the government in the form of bailouts and services than ever before. How is it unfair to expect them to contribute more?



It's not that simple. Yes, life will go on, but it makes the US look like a banana republic and that will damage our interests. It also will cost money because the obligations are already set in stone and what will happen is a bunch of litigation and high-interest short-term IOUs.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's been mentioned in this thread a few times that the more wealthy people should pay more taxes. That is all well and good until they do exactly what they will......let it trickle down the line to the guy on the bottom.

Rich guy loses money he makes cuts. So maybe each big company loses 100 employees because all of the heads just took a $10000 a year cut or however much. Or lets say it isn't a 100 it just 10, that is still 10 people that lose their jobs. It would obviously be on a lot larger scale than that.

The point is that the rich get to the top generally by stepping over the people under them. I agree with budget cutting but it needs to be in the right places.

For instance in 2009 the government allocated 47.7 billion dollars for aid to foreign countries when our national debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49 in September for 2008.

Why are we lending money or 'giving' money that we don't have. Why not instead pull that money out and re invest it in our country. I understand the need to keep some countries from collapsing due to us relying on them for one reason or another but I doubt all of that 47 billion is absolutely necessary.

I don't pretend that this would be the ultimate solution but every little bit helps.

****Edit for spelling

85 Mage Bleeding Hollow Bored with game so I let sub expire......
85 LOLKnight Bleeding Hollow Bored with game so I let sub expire......
85 Shaman Bleeding Hollow Bored with game so I let sub expire......

No, he just takes a bit more from the pile.

If this were true we'd be at full employment. Since taxes for the rich are very low and we are having a jobless recovery as the rich prosper, clearly this doesn't work.

The wealthy don't live a hand-to-mouth existence.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.