Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Obviously we all agree that we can't keep raising the debt ceiling. Eturnal...i think Obama doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling, and wants to get shit done...which is why he is threatening to withold Social Security checks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Nothing is getting done because of politics and a refusal by BOTH sides to compromise.

Citizens need to tell both sides to cut the bull shit and work it out...or our country is going to be in a world of hurt.



Honestly though...I know what will happen, because it's what always happens in this age of the "now." We will raise the debt ceiling and let our children worry about the mess. Just like our parents let us worry about the social security mess, etc. etc.

We should rename America "The United States of Passing the Buck"

If he takes more from the pile, that makes the pile for the rest smaller. So instead of losing their jobs they just lose money? Either way the effect is still on the guy on the bottom.

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......

I've never really bought into the trickle-down effect 100%.

I just know from personal experience. If I get more money, do i want to pass it on to others? No...I want to stuff it in my bank account.

However, with more money, will I buy more services/products/etc.? Possibly, so I suppose their could be a trickle down effect...but you have to look at it from an amount standpoint.

When the Bush Tax cuts happened...my parents got about 400-500 bucks. Woopdy-shit. Millionaires though got quite a bit more.

The rich will always get richer, so I fail to see how cutting their taxes will help the economy.

If Obama could raise the debt ceiling he would; the man is addicted to spending money. If this was about him wanting to get something done and if raising taxes are the magical cure to this problem, then he should've done something about it when he had both the House and the Senate in his pocket. The economy was just as bad then as it is now (maybe even worse) but that didn't spur him into action.
Why? Too busy pushing health care -- something that didn't help the economy? Maybe he's thinking about the 2012 election? I guess because he thought he had bottomless pockets and he's now seeing he doesn't.

The reason they wouldn't get their checks is because we wouldn't have any means of paying them. Obama has to raise the debt ceiling if he wants to continue these programs. Congress is saying they won't raise it unless there is a plan in place to help control the deficit, which is why we have the debate over raising taxes and/or cutting spending; either or a mix of the two approaches are in need if we want to control spending.

What do you think these people are spending it on? Do you really believe the super-rich invest or spend every dollar that comes in the door? Again, if that's so, where's the jobs?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Substantiate this. After all, weren't most of the obligations from the Bush era? What has he done?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Obama has almost incurred as much debt as Bush has in only a quarter of the time. He had the chance to change those 'obligations', especially with a democratically controlled government. He made little effort to change the course of the wars (and instead he entered into a third), he made little effort to change the taxes structure (effectively rolling back the bush-era tax cuts and/or closing those nasty loopholes), and since he's been in office he's penned one massive chunk of legislation (Obamacare), which last I read, the CBO said wasn't going to save any money. Furthermore, Obama doubled down on Bush's stimulus package, throwing a large sum of money at the economy in hopes it would save jobs and the housing market... to which it didn't save either.

If he weren't addicted to spending money then a lot of things in that top paragraph would've changed or he'd have been willing to make more spending cuts when the Republicans were working with the Democrats while drafting continuing resolutions (for a budget that was never created).

Many people who complain about "tax hikes/end to bush-era tax cuts" don't even understand how the income tax system works. There are plenty of people who try so hard to drop their taxable income from 251K to 249K without understanding how stupid that is.

So in other words, it was all Bush's fault, Obama deserves blame though for not undoing all that Bush did?

Obama can't just wave a wand and end the Iraq War (and remove all lingering non-military commitments) nor undo the handouts that were done. Besides, the GOP has blocked any and all efforts to undo Bush's policy. Would you expect otherwise?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

In the beginning of Obama's term, especially with the healthcare reform, I saw the Democrats constantly take one step to the right to meet the Republicans, only to have the Republicans quickly erasing the line they were meeting at and moving it two steps closer to them while complaining that the Dems weren't meeting them at said line.

It isn't a compromise if one party has to bend over backwards to meet the other party's demands, only to have said demands increase as soon as they meet the previous set.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Hence the "By just about" part.


So people who invested and continue to invest in any company aren't employing people? The people who invest in Google, Apple, Pepsi, etc are paying payroll and expansion. People don't invest for no return, and often not even for small return, especially when taxes threaten chances of getting a return. Greater risks have to be met with greater rewards, and the taxes on corporations (unless you're GE or other green energies) cuts into investors returns.


Our corporate tax rate is higher than most other equally developed countries. Which also causes another thing that cuts into employment - outsourcing.


1 - We aren't an anarchy. The purpose of our government is to protect minorities from the majority. It doesn't matter if there is 1 guy with 70% of all capital in the country. It doesn't give the rest of us the right to soak him.
2 - Taking every cent the rich have still won't pay off much of our deficit. The top 10% of earners are already paying 71% of income tax.


The poor have never enjoyed greater prosperity either. How many poor people in the US go without running water, electricity, some food and a roof over their head? Only in America do the 'poor' have tendency to be overweight.

Maybe that is because the tide that raised the rich people also raised the poor? Why do think Mexican's rush over here? I mean besides the entitlements we like giving illegal aliens? Because their poor wash their clothes on river rocks.

The government should not have bailed out anybody. That was a gross abomination of free markets. The companies should have been left to fail. They would have sold their assets, many employees would have been absorbed by competitors and the market would have been stronger for it.


How would the US getting it's financial house in order damage our interests? What obligations are set in stone? Entitlements? The things that are going to go are, well... shimp on treadmills.

By the same token, cutting spending in a recession also hurts the economy. Both parties are missing the mark on this subject; the question shouldn't be how to cut the deficit, but whether the deficit really needs to be cut immediately. Interest rates for government borrowing are near historic lows, unemployment is devastatingly high, and the world economy as a whole is suffering. The US isn't Greece; getting a bit more debt over the short term isn't going to cause people to freak out and stop loaning you money. Nor is it Canada in the 1990s; the economy isn't strong enough that conditions will improve regardless of government austerity.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

You're a smart guy Eturnal - but your hate for Obama blinds you.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect, or a savior, or even a really good president...but you cannot blame the current Debt situation on him alone...which is what many in the GOP are trying to do. And yes, I echo what Aestu said about the wars...did you expect him to get in office and just say "okay, we're done in Iraq and Afghanistan"....I'm sure that would have gone over really well. Don't forget about the people who put us in their in the first place.

Also, it doesn't matter who was President...when the Libya situation went down, America was going to have to spend money. We're the world's police dog no matter if there's Obama, Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney in office.

Political posturing...it's what plagues Washington. Too many people are concerned about their elections and what their opponents might say about them...so no one is working to solve the issues....just name calling, shit-slinging, and blame-passing.

It's disgusting.

Unfortunately this seems to be true. This is one of those things that the status-quo of meddling with the world seems to be universal, and each party is just one foot in the pair that is stomping all over us.


I agree that Congress should have limits to the number of terms an individual can serve. Because then one tends to pay a little less heed to what will get them elected next time and more to what they were elected to do this time.



We've been getting a lot more debt over a short time though. Spending has gone up by leaps and bounds for 10 years, to the point where we're going to be swamped by it in a not-so-distant future. Some argue that some debt is good, I don't know enough about that particularly to say.

But let's say that the debt we normally ran was 5, what the 5 is doesn't matter, it's just a number.

Now our debt is 15, I find it hard believe that we couldn't cut it by 7 and have nothing but good come of it fiscal wise. There also lies a reasonable compromise, as we're still incurring more debt that normal.

Sounds good, doesn't work.

Has the effect of strengthening elements of the system that DON'T have term limits, i.e., the special interest groups. Also, veteran politicians vary greatly in their views, but they know the system and most truly wish to serve their country.

Lame ducks have no incentive whatsoever to do anything except help those who will be getting them their next job. Go look at the presidency. Lame duck presidents get nothing done.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.