this debt shit is embarassing.

Usdk · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:43 pm

Keep in mind there's about 4-5 times as many indians as americans. they have more honor students than some countries have people.

Didn't the last president who used surplus to pay down the debt put us in a bit of a recession? My memory on that issue is foggy and I'm not bothering to look it up.

Weena · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:49 pm

More money spent on education does not translate into better education. At some point the educational benefit falls off.

Minnesota spends 12k a year per pupil in public schools. They are given this much money because Minnesota is full of people who think if we pump a fortune into education, we'll end up with a legion of geniuses.

So Minnesota schools get this 12k, but it turns out they could really get by with 6k a year (which is what I paid a year in college taking 16 credits). Do they not spend the left over 6k? Fuck no. They make sure they spend it on something, because if they don't, they won't get 12k per pupil next year.

I could go into a myriad of reasons there should be a large dynamic shift towards private schooling, but it would probably be wasted typing.

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:56 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

How don't the rich (who benefited most) not pay their share?

They've never been doing better when the country has never been doing worse.

Eturnalshift wrote:

I'm simply saying that (as you point out) everyone in this country has benefited in some way; everyone should contribute a small portion to help get it out of debt. I'm willing to make that concession since this is a dire circumstance we've found ourselves in. We all got ourselves in this mess and we all need to get ourselves out.

There's tens of millions of people in the Rust Belt who would beg to differ.

Eturnalshift wrote:

The progressive tax is stupidly biased towards the rich, too, but you don't cry about that. Currently, capital gains is applied to nearly all returns on investments and, as you point out, the super wealthy are most into investing (because they have the expendable income). As Jubber mentioned before, being a high earner and being wealthy aren't the same. The wealthy can take money and make more money with little work. That return is a form of income but payroll taxes don't apply. That means Soc. Sec. and Medicare (and all other payroll taxes) aren't levied on that income, and it should, if we're trying to be fair. According to the liberal train of thought, the Rich can absorb all these increases, so why not get them on one of their greatest revenue streams?

Because capital gains taxes only hit if you're realizing a huge windfall - when investment becomes a form of (grossly lucrative) income. So if the goal is to tax the super-rich, capital gains are the way to go - and that's why right-wing media wants them abolished in favor of a tax on investment.

By contrast, sitting on an investment is good sense for anyone looking to sock away for a rainy day. How is it fair to be taxed on your piggy bank?

Eturnalshift wrote:

I doubt scaling back departments which could be handled by the individual states is going to plunge us into China (a country who is quickly becoming the worlds economic super-power with rapid growth.)

That growth comes at a huge cost civilized people do not and should not be willing to pay.

Do you want smog so thick you have to wear a mask whenever you go outside? Water that you can't even shower in because it has so much lead in it? Buildings that randomly catch fire or collapse? To be evicted from your home without compensation because some business decides they want the land?

When right-wing media says "let the states handle it" what they really mean is "make the laws unenforceable by delegating them to states, so businesses can pit states against each other in the drive towards the low-ball".

This is something that happens in China and it's a serious problem. China has states too, and they have a very weak federal government. Businesses regularly bribe, manipulate and abuse local governments and the federal government is too weak to stop them. You can probably Google "China provincial government police abuse" or something and read about a zillion separate incidents.

The reason the feds are handling this...is because before they took up the mantle...it didn't get done.

Eturnalshift wrote:

I'm not saying all people will be able to make it in all places and at all times nor am I saying life is fair. I'm saying we're dependant on the government and we shouldn't be.

Then what would be the point of government? lol.

Eturnalshift wrote:

Clinton never paid down the debt. Although he had a surplus, last I checked the number, the debt continued to rise during that period.

Edit: Clinton did pay down the debt, but he also accrued more debt than he paid, so he didn't pay down anything. It's more of a pay up

It rose much more slowly than inflation so it shrunk in real terms.

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:58 pm

Weena wrote:

I could go into a myriad of reasons there should be a large dynamic shift towards private schooling, but it would probably be wasted typing.

Public education is one of the hallmarks of civilized society.

If you want to know what private schooling looks like, go look at the Middle Ages.

Bismarck wasn't a liberal but he understood the need for public education for a damn good reason.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:07 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

I'm simply saying that (as you point out) everyone in this country has benefited in some way; everyone should contribute a small portion to help get it out of debt. I'm willing to make that concession since this is a dire circumstance we've found ourselves in. We all got ourselves in this mess and we all need to get ourselves out

Careful there buster, you're starting to sound like a democrat with all that teamwork and tax hike talk! ;-P

Eturnalshift wrote:

I don't think I said we should eliminate the Dept. of Education, did I, smart guy?

And I don't think I accused you of advocating the elimination of the Dept. of Education, did I, smart guy?

<3

But seriously, just as you can't stand the thought of something like abortion, I can't stand the thought of more dumb people filling our society. I place high value in education because I have seen what it can do and I feel that nobody should be deprived of a quality education simply because they cannot afford it, or their local schools were shitty, etc etc. Who knows? That one person could have been the one to cure cancer. But nope, we're stuck with the emperor of all maladies because that person with tons of potential couldn't afford to go to school/school was shitty/teachers were shitty/insert reason why the education system in this country is less than ideal here.

Weena · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:17 pm

I didn't say completely eliminate public schooling, I'd be very opposed to that. Obviously there are kids who are held hostage by their parents lack of prosperity - highly likely brought on by said parents bad decisions - and I don't like the idea of kids missing education because of their parents decisions.

But I think the burden of educating someone else's children should be as small as possible. You do that by making public education solely for those who cannot pay, and give a huge amount (maybe all of it) of the taxes collected for education back to the people who would be able to take that money and pay for private school. This would eliminate a number of problems (like the creationism vs evolution shit, or people suing teachers because an oddball kid was picked on), and would create competition among schools that opposes the 'one size fits all' approach of teaching and subjects.

Mns · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:34 pm

Instead of taxing billionairs, let's cut funds to teachers.

Do you people believe what you're saying or are you simply kneejerking to the opposite of what Obama wants?

Usdk · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:46 pm

Personally I'd rather they get the money out of the military, social security and other things that are so bloated but have too much of a lobby to actually get any cuts from.

I heard that if we cut spending by 1 or 2% across the board, it would bring us in line in a decade or two. Is that true?

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:09 pm

Weena wrote:

I didn't say completely eliminate public schooling, I'd be very opposed to that. Obviously there are kids who are held hostage by their parents lack of prosperity - highly likely brought on by said parents bad decisions - and I don't like the idea of kids missing education because of their parents decisions.

But I think the burden of educating someone else's children should be as small as possible. You do that by making public education solely for those who cannot pay, and give a huge amount (maybe all of it) of the taxes collected for education back to the people who would be able to take that money and pay for private school. This would eliminate a number of problems (like the creationism vs evolution shit, or people suing teachers because an oddball kid was picked on), and would create competition among schools that opposes the 'one size fits all' approach of teaching and subjects.

Ok, where should that line be drawn?

Usdk wrote:

Personally I'd rather they get the money out of the military, social security and other things that are so bloated but have too much of a lobby to actually get any cuts from.

I heard that if we cut spending by 1 or 2% across the board, it would bring us in line in a decade or two. Is that true?

No. Not even close. The deficit is like 35% of spending.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:58 pm

Mns wrote:

Instead of taxing billionairs, let's cut funds to teachers.

Do you people believe what you're saying or are you simply kneejerking to the opposite of what Obama wants?

A lot of the money we pour into education never makes it to a teacher. Education is a nebulous catch-all phrase where the federal government is concerned. I'm all for funding education, but do we really need to funnel money into things like "women's studies" programs when those funds would be better spent bringing inner city students up to the same level as everyone else? How much of the money the federal government spends on 'education' is spent on administrative costs? There is a lot of money being tossed at education, and since the inception of the DoE, the results have been increasingly abysmal year-after-year.

A rational person would realize these are some of the problems people have with the way we spend money on education. It's the knee-jerker that yells, "you want to cut funds to teachers."

Since you brought it up, though, given the track record over the last three or so years, going any direction but the one President Obama picks is probably a great idea.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:10 am

I agree with Jubber conceptually but as a budget fix it's so marginal its not even worth the congressional debate. It's a piss in the ocean.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:52 pm

From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... rialPage_h

William McGurn wrote:

When it comes to Murphy's Law—the idea that anything that can go wrong, will—we Irish have our corollary: Murphy was an optimist.

Even from this sunny perspective, it's hard to look at the debt-ceiling compromise and see it as anything but a conservative victory. It's not just that Speaker of the House John Boehner succeeded in imposing some conditions in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. It's that the deal has Democrats, including the president, essentially signing on to the Republican framework for defining the Beltway's budget problem: spending that is too high rather than taxes that are too low.

For the moment, the press focus remains on the intra-conservative spat between Republicans who favor Mr. Boehner's deal and tea partiers who largely oppose it. These disagreements will fade, however. And come the 2012 elections this deal will help force the debate that all conservatives have wanted all along—about the size, scope, and proper mission of our federal government.

That's a striking achievement, especially if you remember how this year started. We began the debt-ceiling debate on Democratic terms, with President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner insisting on a "clean bill" that had no conditions attached. Then came threats about grandma not getting her Social Security check if Republicans didn't do as the president demanded, and folks likening Republicans and tea partiers to terrorists.

At the Economic Club of New York in May, Mr. Boehner calmly laid down his marker about what he called "the arrogant habits of Washington":

"[L]et me be as clear as I can be. Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. . . .

"And with the exception of tax hikes—which will destroy jobs—everything is on the table."

By this measure, Mr. Boehner comes away with most of what he wanted. He comes away with even more once you recognize that these negotiations typically are less about balancing the budget than about getting Republicans to agree to discredit themselves on taxes, usually in exchange for promises of spending restraint that never materialize. Ask George H.W. Bush.

This time the Democrats miscalculated. One mistake was thinking they were forcing the GOP into a rerun of 1995-96, when a Republican House overplayed its hand and ended up being blamed for shutting down the government. This time Republicans showed they had learned their lesson.

First, Mr. Boehner said he was against a shutdown, and put forth different solutions that would raise the debt ceiling without raising taxes. Second, by rejecting everyone else's plan while offering no plan of his own, the president effectively took himself out of the game. This curious exercise of presidential "leadership" transformed Mr. Obama into the Newt Gingrich of this debate, while Mr. Boehner looked serious and reasonable.

That seems to be the liberal reading as well. The New York Times appears to be reeling. Maureen Dowd quotes a Democrat as saying we're watching President Obama "turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes." The headline over Paul Krugman's column declares, "The President Surrenders." Equally gloomy is the editorial: "To Escape Chaos, a Terrible Deal."

How long have I been making that comparison? And now a liberal columnist is agreeing with me? That's good stuff.

William McGurn wrote:

Over at the New Republic, Jonathan Chait asks, "Did Obama Get Rolled?" Peter Beinhart at the Daily Beast answers the question with a piece headlined "How the Tea Party Won the Deal." Most argue that the president should have stood his liberal ground.

The problem with this view is that the more people see the president, the less they seem to like what he's selling. That's particularly true for the people he will need to win re-election. A new Gallup poll shows that only one of three independents now approves of how Mr. Obama is doing his job.

As for the right wing, at least for the moment the wounds on both sides of the debt-ceiling divide remain raw. Some who see the deal as another Republican sellout will fight down to the wire. Others rightly point out that the gains here are neither guaranteed nor all that substantive.

In this, the liberals are closer to the truth. Yes, Mr. Obama got a deal that takes him past next year's election, and can play himself up as the greater compromiser. The price, however, was high. Effectively he has surrendered to the Republican framework for debate on taxes and spending.

That puts 2012 on terms much friendlier to the argument that Republicans need to make to the American people. It runs like this: If you are want a government in Washington that spends less, that taxes less, and encourages our private sector to grow, you need a Republican in the White House.

Even Murphy might find the glass half-full.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:09 pm

You don't grasp the analogy. Neither Carter nor Obama were responsible for the economic problems that coincided with their watch, and neither really had the power to do anything about it. The electorate blamed them because people are stupid and assume that the president has power of absolute fiat over the economy.

Carter inherited an economy in shambles because of the legacy of the Vietnam War and decades of social neglect.

He got blamed, and then we got Reagan, who smiled at the cameras and made everything even worse. But because the electorate is stupid they think Reagan actually "put us in the black."

Obama inherited an economy in shambles because of the legacy of the Iraq War and decades of social neglect.

He got blamed, and we might yet get Palin, who smiles at the cameras and makes everything even worse. But because the electorate is stupid they think Palin personifies Alaska as a land of free, independent people who eke out a living without the heavy hand of the government.

The entire point of that article, which you don't grasp, is that the Democrats have never been the ones putting this country into the red in the first place. Who made the biggest contributions to our running deficit? Reagan. Bush/Bush II. On whose watch did the deficit stagnate or contract? Clinton.

As to taxes and jobs:

We have the lowest taxes in the civilized world. We also have the lowest rate of employment.
EU has way higher taxes and more cumbersome government. Employment is better there.

Taxes on the rich have never been lower.
Employment has never been lower.

So what's the basis for the claim that higher taxes on the wealthy and corps = less jobs?

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:48 pm

Just running a quick google, it looks like EU and USA have near equal unemployment based on numbers from the last couple months, with the US being lower than that of the Union.

Sourced from Wikipedia:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/ta ... 1&plugin=1
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Quote:

Taxes on the rich have never been lower.
Employment has never been lower.

Taxes on the rich have been higher (Carter) and so has unemployment (Carter)...

Am I helping make your point or...?

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:16 pm

Aestu wrote:

You don't grasp the analogy. Neither Carter nor Obama were responsible for the economic problems that coincided with their watch, and neither really had the power to do anything about it. The electorate blamed them because people are stupid and assume that the president has power of absolute fiat over the economy.

Carter inherited an economy in shambles because of the legacy of the Vietnam War and decades of social neglect.

He got blamed, and then we got Reagan, who smiled at the cameras and made everything even worse. But because the electorate is stupid they think Reagan actually "put us in the black."

Whatever Carter or Obama inherited, nothing either did fixed their situation, which is telling given that BOTH OF THEM had the advantage of their party controlling congress...though I guess technically Obama is worse than Carter, because Carter didn't lose a wing of congress during his mid-term.

As someone who was born in the 70s and grew up in the 80s, I can tell you that you don't know shit from shinola. Reagan's presidency was pure fucking gold, which is probably why he's still popular despite the revisionist history into which you're buying.

Aestu wrote:

Obama inherited an economy in shambles because of the legacy of the Iraq War and decades of social neglect.

He got blamed, and we might yet get Palin, who smiles at the cameras and makes everything even worse. But because the electorate is stupid they think Palin personifies Alaska as a land of free, independent people who eke out a living without the heavy hand of the government.

It's been THREE FUCKING YEARS. When is Obama going to put on his big-boy pants and take responsibility for things instead of blaming his predecessors? Are we still going to be hearing about what he "inherited" if he gets a second term?

You know, it's funny how some of you asshats keep going back to Palin. No experience, can't talk without making a gaffe, and only popular because of appearance and assumptions...which makes her the same thing as Barack Obama, if you take away his teleprompter. You'd think you guys humping his leg would be excited that his kid sister might get to take a turn.

Aestu wrote:

The entire point of that article, which you don't grasp, is that the Democrats have never been the ones putting this country into the red in the first place. Who made the biggest contributions to our running deficit? Reagan. Bush/Bush II. On whose watch did the deficit stagnate or contract? Clinton.

Again, I wonder at what you were reading, because, as usual, what was written and what you derived from it are completely antithetical to one another. The entire point of that article was that conservatives got a win on their scorecard here by avoiding past mistakes and by virtue of Obama believing his own hype. Both parties have contributed to the deficit, whether it's republicans with military spending or democrats with entitlement programs. Unless someone with a "D" beside their name was paying that shit down when we weren't looking (which it wasn't despite all the talk of surpluses), this is everyone's mess to clean up.

Aestu wrote:

As to taxes and jobs:

We have the lowest taxes in the civilized world. We also have the lowest rate of employment.
EU has way higher taxes and more cumbersome government. Employment is better there.

I'm just going to assume "this isn't a court of law," and that you're talking out of your ass, since I know that we have one of the highest corporate tax rates of any industrialized nation (you know, that pesky stuff that has all our businesses moving jobs and facilities out of the country?).

Aestu wrote:

Taxes on the rich have never been lower.
Employment has never been lower.

So what's the basis for the claim that higher taxes on the wealthy and corps = less jobs?

Correlation does not equal causation. As Eternal points out, Carter had both high taxes and high unemployment...obviously one is not an indicator of the other.

A lot of businesses would be hiring now, but find it difficult to plan because they can't estimate their labor costs. You know why?

OBAMACARE

Businesses have no idea what their per-employee obligation is going to be when all that shit hits the fan (and if that shit hitting the fan is so great, why was implementation put off until after elections instead of going into effect immediately?), and many aren't even replacing employees who have quit, retired, or been fired because of that.

Your Pal,
Jubber

EDIT:Just found a list of corporate tax rates...for 2010 we're #2 with a 39.2% rate behind Japan at #1 with a 39.5% rate and ahead of France at #3 with a 34.4% rate according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

this debt shit is embarassing.

Who is online