AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
: The Game. You just lost it. :
My signature was so old it broke. RIP signature.
As much as I hate my country, if this happens, it will affect EVERYONE else. We owe China billions of dollars and if they don't get that money back they could be the next to fall. Countries who buy our products will be affected heavily as well. Europe is doing almost as bad as us. But it does just seem inevitable at this point.
The real problem the USA is having right now is NO ONE IS COOPERATING AT ALL! I specifically mean the republicans, but us democrats are doing our fair share of stupid things as well.
Sing from the soul
Musician | Otaku | Fujoshi | Gamer
Groups:
The League of Legends Coalition
RPGs:
Legends of Sakura
---
Come join me in League of Legends
12 hours left. Let's see how the voting goes.
This is the moment of truth, if they mess up even a little, it'll be too late. there's just no time left to compromise any more at this point.
The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow
*Crosses fingers* Let's all hope they can put there foolish differences aside long enof to do what is best for the country.
The proud owner of the FIRST EVER self-perpetual neko gyroscope!
MK you are talking about politicians here no matter which country you'll go to you'll find corrupt self centred fools who have only their own interests at heart rather than the country they have been voted in to serve for
One would think that but lets face it power corrupts and people corrupt power after all you would have thought by now after 2 major world wars there would be everlasting world peace but that isn't the case as some person gets into a position of power and thinks they can conquer what he /she can see before them
Debt ceiling is an artificial number that the government itself created. It is not put there by anyone the US owes money to (such as China). It is just a meaningless number that if it exceeded by government spending, only means that the government violated its own rule. It won't punish itself for breaking its own rule. Nothing will happen, and the country will go on just as if everything was ok. The real problem is REGARDLESS of what the debt ceiling is set at, other countries that we owe money to will want their money back. You can say you'll raise the debt ceiling to 100trillion if you want, but that won't make money lenders any more happy with the US, just because now we magically are way under our own debt limit. It's just a meaningless number, and has no effect on the actual economy.
Defaulting on the debt is what happens when the Government (with the President having the most influence in the decision, respectively) decides to end all funding on government debts. Well, well over 50% of the U.S. debt is owed domestically (to its people) - trillions are still owed to foreign countries (like the oft-mentioned China), and can always be paid off with money within the U.S. government, or the money generated in a temporary abandoning of our responsibilities to some domestic government debtholders.
The lamestream media are the ones telling you otherwise about the debt ceiling and possible default situation.
The new debt deal reportedly doesn't raise taxes, but the 12-person "bipartisan" committee to be appointed to it has the potential to.
A house vote on this committee-forming bill will commence (today?).
Treasury bonds don't work like credit card debt. You can't pay them early or late, and there isn't any minimum payment. Coupons are paid when they're due, the bonds are bought back when they mature. Also, holding bonds doesn't give you any equity, so why do people bring this up? It doesn't matter if Jesus or Barney is holding your debt really. The only difference is who gets screwed in the case you do default.
The Tea Party politicians ran on cutting government spending, but really don't have the power to pass a bill and override a veto. They only have the power to block a bill they don't like. So, they're using this as leverage. They're trying to show that they're serious.
The proposed bill has passed the House by a considerably large margin, moving on to be voted on Tuesday.
Last edited by Capitán; 08-01-2011 at 11:36 PM.
....
this whole problem is coming from stubborn tea partiers not wanting the "super rich" to be taxed any more.
thats all this is about!!!
they want cuts only, no new taxes for the rich. heck, forget NEW taxes. they don't even wanna let go of the special "tax cuts" that W. gave them.
why do i say this??? BECAUSE raising the debt ceiling shouldn't even be an issue?? it's happened ALL throughout history, and republicans like doing it more than dem's.
Past increases of debt ceiling since Kennedy:
Kennedy raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 5%.
Johnson raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 18%.
Nixon raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 36%.
Ford raised the debt ceiling 5 times for a total increase of 41%.
Carter raised the debt ceiling 9 times for total increase of 59%.
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%.
George H.W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 48%.
Clinton raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 44%.
George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 90%.
Obama has raised the debt ceiling 3 times for a total increase of 26%.
the only REAL thing that was ever in the debate, is taxes for the super rich.
obama feels that those who have mansions/yachts/supercars/and multiple homes around the world, should pay a little more to help with the economy.
the tea party people feel that taxing the super rich a little more is not an option. (why?? because the super rich got them elected)
this is really the only thing that both sides can't agree on.
Last edited by Gauntlgrym; 08-02-2011 at 10:18 AM.
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia."
This whole problem is coming from stubborn tea partiers wanting to decrease the size of government as promised to their constituents, and stubborn liberals not wanting do so. The Democrats would be no less responsible for a default since they could have given in to tea party demands at any time.
It hasn't happened all throughout history. We didn't even have deficits until the 20th century, so for most of our existence we had balanced budgets. Even if the debt had always existed, it becomes an issue when a good chunck of congress representing their constituents make an issue of it.thats all this is about!!!
they want cuts only, no new taxes for the rich. heck, forget NEW taxes. they don't even wanna let go of the special "tax cuts" that W. gave them.
why do i say this??? BECAUSE raising the debt ceiling shouldn't even be an issue?? it's happened ALL throughout history, and republicans like doing it more than dem's.
No, the real issue is the role of government. Democrats want a huge federal government, and tea partiers want a smaller one. There is no need to raise taxes if the federal government is reduced. There is a need to raise taxes and incur more debt if you want to finance a bloated federal government.the only REAL thing that was ever in the debate, is taxes for the super rich.
obama feels that those who have mansions/yachts/supercars/and multiple homes around the world, should pay a little more to help with the economy.
the tea party people feel that taxing the super rich a little more is not an option. (why?? because the super rich got them elected)
this is really the only thing that both sides can't agree on.
For every rich person donating money to Republicans to lower taxes, there's a rich person donating money to a Democrat to regulate their competitors (e.g. ban incandescent light bulbs).
Last edited by Wio; 08-02-2011 at 03:25 PM.
i agree that BOTH are being stubborn.
however, i believe that obama has shown that he is the one willing to negotiate, and making reasonable demands.
the tea partiers are like "my way or the highway"
i disagree. the people making the unreasonable demands should be at fault.The Democrats would be no less responsible for a default since they could have given in to tea party demands at any time.
obama is being reasonable, the tea party is not.
it's like if i tell you "shoot yourself in the head or i'm gonna kill a little kid"
well, if you don't shoot yourself...would you consider the kids death to be YOUR fault???
sorry i guess i wasn't clear.It hasn't happened all throughout history. We didn't even have deficits until the 20th century, so for most of our existence we had balanced budgets. Even if the debt had always existed, it becomes an issue when a good chunk of congress representing their constituents make an issue of it.
i was not talking about since the start of time, thats why i listed the increases only since kennedy.
the only point i was trying to make is that its been done MANY times in the past, and shouldn't be a big issue if it happens again.
the debt limit has been raised 72 times since kennedy. why is it such a big deal all of the sudden??
oh that's right! it's only a big deal now because the partiers refuse to vote for it, unless they get thier way.
yes, there is a need.No, the real issue is the role of government. Democrats want a huge federal government, and tea partiers want a smaller one. There is no need to raise taxes if the federal government is reduced. There is a need to raise taxes and incur more debt if you want to finance a bloated federal government.
we are sooooo far gone, that we cannot rely on cuts in spending alone.....we need more revenue too.
thats why i say that obama is the one being reasonable.
he IS willing to do spending cuts and make goernment a little smaller, but the tea partiers are unwilling to do ANY extra taxes.
i agree with you to a degree. democrats donate and/or lobby as well.For every rich person donating money to Republicans to lower taxes, there's a rich person donating money to a Democrat to regulate their competitors (e.g. ban incandescent light bulbs).
however since most rich people tend to be republicans, it's illogical to assume that there is the SAME amount of bribe money coming from both sides.
Last edited by Gauntlgrym; 08-02-2011 at 11:41 PM.
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia."
Please cite Mr. Obama's "reasonable demands" in the situation. If you had it your way, the problem wouldn't be resolved by the President and the debt ceiling would rise without any measures put in place to halt the government's needless spending. The Democrats had full control of the House and Senate, along with the Presidency, for two years in a row at 2008-2010 and in that time the Obama administration has already spent more than any other administration in a term than anyone else in a term in the history of the United States.
If refusing to reform or cut Social Security, Medicare, Government Pensions, Welfare and other government entitlements, Disability, the Education System, and Unions isn't unreasonable - especially when simple discussions are being thrown off the table - I'd love to see what is from the side of the aisle you're siding with.
Republicans presenting debt bills to Congress, while the President of the United States narrates the situation from the sidelines, is like holding a gun to someone's head? If the Republicans weren't as strong about their opinions on this debt crisis, I hope you realize, the President would have done nothing more than raise taxes and make it even less likely for the economy to grow. You can say all you want about small businesses holding reserves of cash from hiring people, but at the end of the day it all goes back to consumer confidence and how business owners are holding that money because they expect to need it for spending on higher government taxes.
You ask why raising the debt ceiling is a big deal 'all of a sudden', and then you go on to agree hat there is a need to fix the government's debt. I want not only you to acknowledge this, but for all who are reading to acknowledge, that the Tea Party movement is not a Republican movement, and is only found in the Republican party because the movement found that integrating itself into one of the two main political parties would give it much more opportunity for political office than it would being an independent one. The fact of the matter is, no Tea Party presidents were ever elected to be President before, so none of those numbers necessarily mean anything about the Tea Party's philosophy on debt ceilings in the first place.
President Obama = Make Government Smaller? I don't know about that one - he's one of the most Liberal Presidents we've ever had. He's willing to make spending cuts, but the only things he's ever publicly endorsed as spending cuts cut from things like the defense budget - things unrelated to government regulation and government 'size' and intervention in the economy.
Yes, you are correct in saying wealthier citizens have a tendency to fall under the Republican party. This is only because they want to keep their money, and not have significant amounts taken from them through tax hikes on the Democratic side. You can call it evil, you can call it wrong, but they simply want to protect their assets. Furthermore, many people came into wealth from poorer classes, and know they could have or did benefit from lower taxes on their money as they worked towards higher classes. The 'rich' come from a generation that didn't get handouts and government assistance nearly as much as people do today, and they only got rich because once they broke that barrier of middle-class living, they went on to amass considerable fortunes. That's the American Dream - growing, moving forward, and living happily - the Pursuit of Happiness.
Also, many, many more Democrats voted against the newest debt bill than did Republicans. If any one party is 'open' to compromise here, then it's the Republicans; President Obama endorsed this bill, and yet many more Democrats than Republicans went against it. I'm suffering from a horrible connection and can't get you the raw numbers, but I highly suggest you look them up and see for yourself how it went.
This is a strawman fabricated by the right. Raising taxes on the wealthy does nothing for the economy; as does lowering them. That's because the rich are already well off, they just take extra money they get and invest it- something which has zero effect on the economy. Consumer spending accounts for a large part of what actually drives the economy, which is why raising taxes on the lower income of society is far more damaging than anything.
The entire notion that if you raise taxes on the super rich, somehow that will make them less inclined to create jobs is total garbage really, since personal income isn't the same thing as a corporate income.
The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow
what???
are you not reading what i post OR watching the news???
obama WAS going to be doing cuts and stopping some needless spending. he just wanted some extra revenue too, because we are too far gone to rely on cuts alone.
he's only spent alot because he needed to avoid a second depression. he HAD to do the bailout, any president would have.The Democrats had full control of the House and Senate, along with the Presidency, for two years in a row at 2008-2010 and in that time the Obama administration has already spent more than any other administration in a term than anyone else in a term in the history of the United States.
it annoys me that he gets a bad rep for spending, even though he just did what any other president would do in that position.
oh, and he's also been having to pay for wars, that HE didn't start.
he never refused to do these cuts. in fact, now that this has passed, i believe some of the things you mentioned have been cut.If refusing to reform or cut Social Security, Medicare, Government Pensions, Welfare and other government entitlements, Disability, the Education System, and Unions isn't unreasonable - especially when simple discussions are being thrown off the table - I'd love to see what is from the side of the aisle you're siding with.
he only expects tit-for-tat. if he's gonna do these cuts that he's not really for, then he wants some new taxes for the super rich.
like i said, HE is willing to negotiate and trade, the partiers are not. they just want what they want, period.
no, Mr. take everything literal.Republicans presenting debt bills to Congress, while the President of the United States narrates the situation from the sidelines, is like holding a gun to someone's head?
the simple point i was trying to make, is that the person or group making unreasonable demands should be held at fault. the guy with the gun was simply the unreasonable demand guy.
of course, the government shouldn't be in debt, and it should do what it can to fix it.You ask why raising the debt ceiling is a big deal 'all of a sudden', and then you go on to agree hat there is a need to fix the government's debt.
although if the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to avoid a DISASTER, then so be it!
at least, that's the way it's been the past 72 times its been raised. i'm just saying what makes this time so different from the past 72?? other than the stubborn tea partiers of course.
i never said this. i said "he IS willing to do spending cuts and make government a little smaller".President Obama = Make Government Smaller?
if you think that means obama EQUALS make government smaller..........then you and i will never see eye to eye.
the wealthiest 2% of people in america, control 90% of the money in america. i'm sure that's NOT what our founding fathers wanted. heck, sounds like a cash dictatorship to me.Yes, you are correct in saying wealthier citizens have a tendency to fall under the Republican party. This is only because they want to keep their money, and not have significant amounts taken from them through tax hikes on the Democratic side. You can call it evil, you can call it wrong, but they simply want to protect their assets.
Last edited by Gauntlgrym; 08-03-2011 at 11:06 AM.
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia."
Gaunt: Please tell me when and how the President was going to cut government spending before he went into talks with congressional leaders about the issue (talks not started by him).
-
The total cost of wars to the United States since 2001 has been 1.25 trilliom dollars, respectively; I do not see how this matters when you look at the other forms of government debt that've amassed much more money than this in debt since 2001.
-
I agree with you two when you say the highest classes can afford taxes. It must be acknowledged, though, that taxes are keeping 'rich' business owners from gaining confidence to hire and spend into the economy. Those who make over $250k a year in personal income can afford taxes, yes; however, taxes for the lower classes certainly have not lowered in past years, and as Eric says, taxing the low and middle-low/middle-average classes can be detramental to the economy. If taxes only ever rose for the past thirty or so years (albeit the Bush cuts, which I believe may have contributed to small business' situations of holding money from the economy), why should consumer confidence take hold for American markets? Foreign businesses are incentivized, while domestic ones haven't ever been to the foreign markets' degree.
----------
I really want to put all of that aside for the moment. What we're really getting into are social issues rather than political ones; I would rather like to provide the framework for the argument in favor of lower taxes...
The 1920s tax rate cuts by the Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon under Presidents Harding and Coolidge are what I'd like to look at here...
Instead of doing all of this research myself, I'm going to quote a cited and sourced report by the CATO Institute on tax cuts using the 20s revenue acts for models.
1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues
by Veronique de Rugy
This article appeared on cato.org on March 4, 2003.
The Bush administration has proposed that the phased-in income tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 become fully effective this year. Individual tax rates of 27, 30, 35, and 38.6 percent would be immediately reduced to 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. To understand the possible revenue and economic effects of the proposed cuts, it merits examining the effects of the 1920s tax rate cuts engineered by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared (see Figure 1).
The Mellon Tax Cuts
When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (income over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (income over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.
Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."
The Effects of the Mellon Tax Cuts
It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).
The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.
The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell.
The decade of the 1920s had started with very high tax rates and an economic recession. Tax rates were massively increased in 1917 at all income levels. Rates were increased again in 1918. Real GNP fell in 1919, 1920, and 1921 with a total three-year fall of 16 percent. (Deflation between 1920 and 1922 may also help explain the drop in tax revenues in those years, evident in Table 1).
As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut.
Conclusion
The tax cuts of the 1920s were the first federal experiment with supply-side income tax rate cuts. Data for the period show an initial decline in federal revenues as tax rates were cut, but revenues grew strongly during the subsequent economic expansion. After the cuts, total tax payments and the share of total taxes paid by the top income earners soared. President Bush's current proposal to make phased-in rate cuts effective immediately also promises to expand the tax base. Indeed, Congress should consider further rate cuts to stimulate even larger gains in incomes and economic growth.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015
------
Last edited by Skilero; 08-03-2011 at 01:00 PM.
This is so obviously false. First of all, corporations, or any company for that matter, have to match income taxes--not that that really matters because taxes always are shared between transactors regardless of who technically pays them. Thus income taxes take away funds from corporations, which is then taken away from customers and employees.
When a rich person invests in a company, that company uses the money to hire people and produce actual stuff. This is a lot more helpful to the economy, because the sustainability and quality of life are determined by how much you produce, not how much you consume. Saying consumer spending is more important than producer investing is ridiculous.
What exactly is so terrible about this?Originally Posted by Gauntlgrym
Last edited by Wio; 08-03-2011 at 01:45 PM.
i never said he WAS going to. it wasn't his original plan..... i would imagine.
however when the tea people said "we want cuts!" obama said "OK, i can do that, but work with me, and let me tax the rich a little more too."
the tea people said "nope, its cuts only, we are not gonna budge. it's our way or america could suffer."
as for the rest of what you said, i'm not gonna get into it. there are WAAAAAAAY to many factors to debate it.
you can't just say "look, the wealthy got lower taxes in at one point in history, and unemployment went down"
so conclusion is taxes for rich are not good.
unemployment and the economy are not solely dependent on how much we tax the rich. it's not taht simple. there are too many factors to make a proper judgment.
it's impossible to pinpoint the exact reasons as to why (in the past) unemployment and economic growth has gone up or down.
*edit* just another example of why it's hard to say for sure what the EXACT reasons are
this article shows why ....well, it's in the title of the article.
title is: Rich People’s Taxes Have Little to Do with Job Creation - Conservative Arguments that Higher Income Taxes for the Wealthy Hurt Employment Don’t Hold Up to Scrutiny
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...charticle.html
@Wio
it's terrible because many suffer while few prosper.
needs of many>needs of few........at least imho.
what's the difference between the way it is now, and the way that nobility had all the money and power in the past.
in todays society, the rich are simply the new nobility. everyone else is just thier peon working in the field.
it wasn't right to do back then, and its not right to do now.
granted the nobility of today can't do stuff like kill us because we looked at them wrong, but i hope you see the similarity.
Last edited by Gauntlgrym; 08-03-2011 at 05:37 PM.
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia."
You didn't state that many suffer and few prosper, you stated that a %2 own 90% of the wealth. The later does not imply the former.
The wealthy didn't take anything from the poor. All wealth that they legally acquired was gained through consensual transactions. They don't force anyone to work either. People choose to work, because they wish to acquire their own wealth to satisfy their own desires. The wealthy did not impose a desire of food, shelter, etc. on anyone. Nature has imposed these desires. If the wealthy did not employ said people, they'd be worse off.
If there is a nobility, it is the government. They actually have the power to take your money and imprison you. The wealthy at most can trick you into a raw deal, but you still have to consent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks