US Debt Disaster

[Skylar1]

so... yup. can't believe nobody made a thread about this yet.

(note, there's about a billion different articles on this thing, so I'll just summarize myself the key points)

like 2 days left until the US is unable to pay it's obligations and we risk default. Worse, yet, even if a deal is reached in time, the chances that credit rating agencies will downgrade the US's AAA credit status is pretty much inevitable at this point.

Nothing's been done of any real progress at this point, the republican party is close to imploding (even senator McCain made a remake "the Tea Party hobbits need to go back to middle earth). The bill that barely passed the house with the majority votes of the republicans is going to be set to the side by a table measure by the senate meaning they're not even going to vote on it; the House is planning on doing the same with the Reid bill.

The tea party advocates who were elected on the basis that they won't raise the debt ceiling or increase government revenues (which even letting the bush tax cuts expire is seen as that) or they risk losing their jobs- brilliant.

At this point the only way that the debt ceiling can be raised in time is if Obama risks impeachment and evokes a section of the 14th amendment that allows him to prioritize the national debt as paramount to all else, and use an executive order to bypass congress and raise it himself.

The Dow has fallen about 400 points in the past week, the Treasury and States are preparing to decide which bills will be paid out come the 2nd, and who will the get the short end of this stick.

Now the only thing we can really do, is just sit back and watch events unfold in the next 2-3 days.

[Eris]

[S]enator McCain made a remake "the Tea Party hobbits need to go back to middle earth["]

Hahahahaha. Sorry. I know this is a serious matter. But. Hahahahhahahahahahaha. My respect for him just increased by a lot.

[nrL]

Good, good. The US will fall...and the fat, idiot americans will no longer be able to keep going how powerful and awesome their pathetic nation is.

No longer will they have any excuse to treat the USA as a centre of the universe nor consider themselves better then Europe, China, Japan, Russia or any other great nation/culture they previously despised and labelled as inferior.

[Skylar1]

Good, good. The US will fall...and the fat, idiot americans will no longer be able to keep going how powerful and awesome their pathetic nation is.

No longer will they have any excuse to treat the USA as a centre of the universe nor consider themselves better then Europe, China, Japan, Russia or any other great nation/culture they previously despised and labelled as inferior.
hey now, don't paint all of us with the same brush.

I've been saying for years now that the US is far behind the rest of the 1st world nations in just about all ways.


Edit: here's one article that sticks out pretty good though from Fareed Zakaria


The Damage is already done!
I know you have all heard so much about the debt ceiling that you're probably exhausted. But I think it's important to point out a few facts because this matter has been so clouded by rhetoric.

Did you know that there is only one other country in the world that even has a debt ceiling? That's Denmark, a strange anomaly, and its debt ceiling is deliberately kept very high so that it will never need to be raised.

Why does no one else have a debt ceiling?

Because when a legislature votes to authorize spending at a certain level but authorizes tax revenues at a lower level, it is assumed that the government will have to borrow the difference.

The vote to have higher expenditures than tax revenues is - in effect - a vote to borrow money to cover the difference.

And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.

The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.

To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."

That's not how it works. First you pay the bill, then you can change your spending habits.

So why do we have a debt ceiling?

Ironically, it was put in place during World War I so that Congress didn't have to authorize every new issue of debt. It was assumed that it would be a formality to raise it. Since 1960, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times.

My basic point is that this is a crisis that we have manufactured out of whole cloth. We have created a circumstance in which the world doubts our credibility, rating agencies are thinking of downgrading our debt and the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency could be jeopardized.

Please understand that none of these things are happening because the United States is running deficits. There was no indication - by any metric - that the United States was having difficulty borrowing money one month ago. In fact, the world has been lending money to the United States more cheaply than ever before.


We face downgrades and investor panic not because of our deficits but because we are behaving like deadbeats, refusing to pay our bills, pouting while the bill collector waits at the door.

We do have a large deficit and debt and we do need to get it under control. That the Tea Party has raised awareness about this is admirable. And I agree with their view that the current set of entitlements - Medicare especially - have to be reformed dramatically to get our fiscal house in order. But that is not an excuse to endanger the good standing of the United States.

First you pay the bills and then you figure out how to change your spending habits.

The tragedy here is that the damage may already have been done.

From now on, every time the debt ceiling needs to be raised, the world will wonder: Will the U.S. stand by its promises or will it break them?

article: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/28/the-damage-is-already-done/

[Eris]

This global economic crisis boils down to the oil prices, and the fact that the oil resources can no longer meet the demands (we're rapidly approaching the point--not where it runs out--but where it costs more energy to produce oil than you get from burning it). This probably isn't going to be the end of civilization (unless we handle it exceptionally poorly), but it's rather the harbinger of a change in how we live.

The reason the US is hit harder than other places by this is that it's economy is built up around capitalizing off a series of lucky breaks it's had throughout the 20th century (coming out of WWII unscathed, having oil resources, and so forth) that are long lost. This has lead to some seriously poor decision making in infrastructure as well as in the way the overall economy works.

[DOOM!]

Hahahahaha. Sorry. I know this is a serious matter. But. Hahahahhahahahahahaha. My respect for him just increased by a lot.
I told y'all I'd pick McCain over Obama, not that it would have made any difference; the US would have been in the exact same sum of debt at this particular time.
Question to you liberal demofags: Where's your Obama now?

[GameGeeks]

Ericgamer1 The actual date is August 15th. The Treasury has enough money to at least pay interest till then. I hope Obama does grow a pair and actually do something for once. So far he has shown he can't lead. Using that order would show some backbone at the least.

lil' McDoom In a corner wearing a tutu.

[Skylar1]

Ericgamer1 The actual date is August 15th. The Treasury has enough money to at least pay interest till then. I hope Obama does grow a pair and actually do something for once. So far he has shown he can't lead. Using that order would show some backbone at the least.

uh, no. It's august 2nd, because that is the start of the august recess which means that everyone in congress goes home for the month.

[-akichan-]

Good, good. The US will fall...and the fat, idiot americans will no longer be able to keep going how powerful and awesome their pathetic nation is.

Hehe...good thing I'm the thinnest of the thinnest and I do work hard for living XD


Well back to the article, does that mean there will be more budget cutting? I wouldn't be qualify for student loan...?!?! Nooo I have two more years of university and I need money =(

[GameGeeks]

uh, no. It's august 2nd, because that is the start of the august recess which means that everyone in congress goes home for the month.
Considering the situation, I doubt that'll happen. Not to mention not everyone goes home. That'd be like sending all doctors home for a weekend. And I doubt in this day and age, the treasury simply writes a check. So they could continue paying interest till the 15th. But it doesn't matter as it's more then likely impossible to pay off the debt anyways. The following is from last year but considering the debt has only increased since then it's even more so.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt

[Skylar1]

Considering the situation, I doubt that'll happen. Not to mention not everyone goes home. That'd be like sending all doctors home for a weekend. And I doubt in this day and age, the treasury simply writes a check. So they could continue paying interest till the 15th. But it doesn't matter as it's more then likely impossible to pay off the debt anyways. The following is from last year but considering the debt has only increased since then it's even more so.
the problem here is that even if they do prioritize to pay the interest rates, Standards and Poor has already threatened that they would still downgrade the country because (while still meeting debt obligations) it's no way to run a country, and therefore makes for a greater risk.

A week ago, a downgrade seemed avoidable, now, it looks like it's going to happen.

[GameGeeks]

the problem here is that even if they do prioritize to pay the interest rates, Standards and Poor has already threatened that they would still downgrade the country because (while still meeting debt obligations) it's no way to run a country, and therefore makes for a greater risk.

A week ago, a downgrade seems avoidable, now, it looks like it's going to happen.
At this point, I say let the country default. The Federal Government has seized too much power over the years and needs to be trimmed. Even if the Federal Government defaults the country, while taking a massive blow, would still continue on. The State Governments would still be around to enforce local laws, companies would still provide services. It'd be a struggle but we'd still be able to survive. It's not like anarchy will ensue.

[Skylar1]

A flat out default would be an automatic downgrade, and at that point, it might be lowered even passed AA to possibly C, or D



Well back to the article, does that mean there will be more budget cutting? I wouldn't be qualify for student loan...?!?! Nooo I have two more years of university and I need money =(

you may still qualify, but you can expect to pay a lot more on interest.

[Videogamer555]

If Shigeru Miyamoto (of Nintendo fame) were the US, president, everything would be better.

[DOOM!]

If Shigeru Miyamoto (of Nintendo fame) were the US, president, everything would be better.
LOL,wut? U retartet?

[Videogamer555]

Nintendo is a very well off company. Whoever is running it is doing a good job, and any high up employees like Mr. Miyamoto are probably deserving of a lot of the credit so would maybe run a country well too.

[Skylar1]

Less than 36 hours left now until the deadline. They -say- they're close to some sort of compromise, but hasty decisions make for bad outcomes.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday there was no agreement yet on raising the federal debt ceiling, but "we are cautiously optimistic."
Reid made his comments after his counterpart -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Democrats and Republicans are "very close" to reaching a deal on $3 trillion in spending cuts that would raise the debt limit.



"We had a very good day yesterday," the Kentucky Republican said, adding that the two sides "made dramatic progress."
With the deadline to reach a debt ceiling agreement just two days away, congressional leaders and the White House are mulling parts of a tentative deal that would extend the debt limit through next year.
A Republican source close to the negotiations told CNN the goal is $3 trillion in savings, and that the deal would include a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.
Just hours before, two sources familiar with the negotiations told CNN that the framework of a tentative deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling calls for up to $2.8 trillion in total deficit reduction over the next decade.
The agreement, still being negotiated by the White House and bipartisan congressional leaders, would allow the debt ceiling to be raised by enough to last at least through the end of 2012.


The debt limit would be increased in two stages, both of which would occur automatically -- a key Democratic demand that would prevent a repeat of the current crisis before the next election.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, told "State of the Union" that the mood on Capitol Hill is "relief that we won't default."
While nothing is definite yet because there is no final agreement, "default is a lot less of a possibility now than it was a day ago," he said, adding that "leaders are talking in a constructive way."
The agreement includes upfront spending cuts in the range of roughly $1 trillion, the sources said. A special congressional committee would recommend additional spending reductions of up to $1.8 trillion no later than Thanksgiving. If Congress fails to approve the recommended cuts by late December, automatic, across-the-board cuts -- including both defense and Medicare -- would take effect.
News of a possible deal came shortly after the Senate delayed consideration of Majority Leader Harry Reid's debt ceiling proposal late Saturday night, pushing back a key procedural vote by 12 hours.
The vote to stop debate and end a GOP filibuster on the plan will now be held at 1 p.m. ET on Sunday, as opposed to 1 a.m.
Reid, D-Nevada, said he was asking for a delay to provide additional time for negotiations underway at the White House.
There are "many elements to be finalized" and still "a distance to go," Reid said. "We should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work."

full article:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/31/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deal/

[Skilero]

Reid's proposal does not measure savings correctly. He counts the savings from cuts already established in the past, and he also counts the savings from pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq earlier than a practical date.

Do the math and tell me how this is fixed without touching welfare, or the 99-week unemployment benefits, or government entities such as the national Dept. Of Education that a considerable number of congresspeople have actually refused to cut, and others have shown through votes that they have no interest in cutting them.

I've been watching the House and Senate for awhile now. As far as I can tell, many Republicans won't "compromise" because doing so wouldn't let them pass legislation they believe can actually fix the problem and may even hurt it.

CSPAN2 reports that House Republicans are meeting up to fromulate a bill that includes a rise in the debt ceiling.

Question: What's the problem with a balanced budget amendment if it allows for extra spending in matters of domestic security?

I'd love to see Biden in some of this - he's disappeared I think. Pres. Obama's plan is nonexistent at the same time.

[Skilero]

Double post is justified.

President Obama has just given an address saying there's a framework that's been agreed upon by 'both sides' that is going to invite a 'bipartisan committee to meet in November' selected by both parties in each chamber of Congress. He said it was not the deal he would have preferred, and that Republicans get '98%' of what they want out of it. Speaker Boehner expresses optimism for the deal - developments on the deal's context are expected by myself to surface from the media in the following days.

The committee will serve as the main body whose sole responsibility is to maintain the government debt.

An apparent flaw in the committee reportedly mandates that one of two 'safeguards' be launched in the event of the committee's being incapable of producing any plans for the national debt within a certain amount of time or in the event of the national debt's reaching a certain closeness to the debt ceiling. According to newscasts, one of these safeguards cuts $540 billion dollars to the defense budget - a surmisable, and potentially detramental, figure to strip out of the defense.

[Skylar1]

there still needs to be a vote on it. they can go "woohoo, we did it", but uh, what happens when they actually go to vote on it, it fails because of the hardline tea party conservatives, and we end up with a second bank bailout scenario when the Dow lost a record 700+ points in one day.

I'm not convinced until there is actually passage

[Skilero]

The Tea Party isn't the only group that has the potential ability to shut this legislation down, If this really does serve anything near "98%" of what Republicans want for a debt solution, hyou can expect many Democrats to shut this bill down as well.

[Skylar1]

The Tea Party isn't the only group that has the potential ability to shut this legislation down, If this really does serve anything near "98%" of what Republicans want for a debt solution, hyou can expect many Democrats to shut this bill down as well.
The last thing that you want (as a country) is that on the LAST DAY of the deadline, to not have everything wrapped up- because that is when you send everyone into panic.

This was political move to pacify investors. (note: they only say this FIVE MINUTES before the Asian markets opened).

Like I said, this isn't over until it's over.

[Skilero]

Did I disagree with you, Eric? ('_') Also, I'd like it to be acknowledged that my posts will lack a degree of context because of a fault on my end in only being able to type with a cellular phone keypad.

[Light Buster]

Last day before the default hits us. Obama better think of something before tomorrow.

[Capitán]

So both parties in both chambers decided to raise the debt ceiling. Okay....
So programs will be cut and higher taxes for all until it's met. For some reason, I don't like to pay 5 bucks on a liter of soda.
I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Ranshiin]

So both parties in both chambers decided to raise the debt ceiling. Okay....
So programs will be cut and higher taxes for all until it's met. For some reason, I don't like to pay 5 bucks on a liter of soda.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
I just started paying what is evidently double the amount of money for the same amount of electric on my electric meter.. I think paying five dollars for a bottle of soda is the least of our worries. >_>

[I A]

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.

[Skylar1]

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.

[Meteorkeeper]

*Crosses fingers* Let's all hope they can put there foolish differences aside long enof to do what is best for the country.

[aether]

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

[Meteorkeeper]

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

Sigh to true but there really ought to be a limit to even there greed and corruption.

[aether]

Sigh to true but there really ought to be a limit to even there greed and corruption.

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

[Videogamer555]

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.

[Skilero]

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?).

[Datenshi]

You think you have problems...
48331

[Wio]

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.

[Skilero]

The proposed bill has passed the House by a considerably large margin, moving on to be voted on Tuesday.

[Skylar1]

The proposed bill has passed the House by a considerably large margin, moving on to be voted on Tuesday.
they didn't make the deadline.

who knows what's going to happen now.

[Capitán]

I just started paying what is evidently double the amount of money for the same amount of electric on my electric meter.. I think paying five dollars for a bottle of soda is the least of our worries. >_>

High food prices isn't all that bothersome, but it can be a problem in the long run if one considers other factors.

And, I can't see the future but I have a feeling the Senate will vote yea on the compromise.

[Gauntlgrym]

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.

[Wio]

this whole problem is coming from stubborn tea partiers not wanting the "super rich" to be taxed any more.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.

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).

[Gauntlgrym]

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.

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"


The Democrats would be no less responsible for a default since they could have given in to tea party demands at any time.

i disagree. the people making the unreasonable demands should be at fault.
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???


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.

sorry i guess i wasn't clear.
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.


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.

yes, there is a need.
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.


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).

i agree with you to a degree. democrats donate and/or lobby as well.
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.

[Skilero]

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"
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.



i disagree. the people making the unreasonable demands should be at fault.
obama is being reasonable, the tea party is not.
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.



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???
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.




sorry i guess i wasn't clear.
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.

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.



yes, there is a need.
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.
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.



i agree with you to a degree. democrats donate and/or lobby as well.
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.

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.

[Skylar1]

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.

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.

[Gauntlgrym]

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.

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.


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.

he's only spent alot because he needed to avoid a second depression. he HAD to do the bailout, any president would have.
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.


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 never refused to do these cuts. in fact, now that this has passed, i believe some of the things you mentioned have been cut.
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.


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?

no, Mr. take everything literal.
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.


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.

of course, the government shouldn't be in debt, and it should do what it can to fix it.
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.


President Obama = Make Government Smaller?

i never said this. i said "he IS willing to do spending cuts and make government a little smaller".
if you think that means obama EQUALS make government smaller..........then you and i will never see eye to eye.


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.

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.

[Skilero]

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).

http://www.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-1.gif

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).

http://www.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-2.gif

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
------

[Wio]

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.

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.



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.
What exactly is so terrible about this?

[Gauntlgrym]

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).

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/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_employment_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.

[Wio]

it's terrible because many suffer while few prosper.
needs of many>needs of few........at least imho.
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.


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.

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.

[Eris]

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).

http://www.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-1.gif

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).

http://www.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-2.gif

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
------


Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation does not imply causation.


The economic growth in the '20s is strongly affected by the recent end of the world war, as well as the ridiculous and broken '20s bubble economy.

[Skylar1]

Correlation does not imply causation.

not to mention the fact that that particular economic data was riding off of a credit bubble, (eerily similar to what happened right before the housing market bubble crashed in 2008).

[Eris]

Yeah, I just made a ninja edit to my post to point that out.

[Gero50]

Honestly at the rate the US is going this did not surprise me in the slightest. On the contrary I would have thought they'd put it higher than they did.

[Cobra Commander]

Nothing has been solved and disaster has not been averted. They just kicked the can down the road for a bit so they can make it through their next election.

Typical.

This sort of thing is why I advocate that my state secede. If Rick Perry and the state legislature pulled this crap, Texas would hang them all.

[Haoie]

Yeah you guys are screwed.

Good time to stockpile $USDs though

[Aizmov]

Yesterday I sold my Yen reserves, I made a nice profit on them. With the new deal I'm certain the Yen will start to drop against the US dollar. I personally, didn't want the deal to pass and wished the US dollars dropped further.

[Gauntlgrym]

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.

imo, i feel the latter does imply the former.
everyone always says they want the "american dream."
well, when only 2% of people are living it, and the other 98% are wishing they had it...... that sounds like many suffer while few prosper to me.

look at stuff like this: http://economicrot.blogspot.com/2010/09/77-of-americans-now-living-paycheck-to.html

according to the article - 77% of Americans now living paycheck-to-paycheck!!!
yes, thats right!
This means in our nation of 310 million citizens, 239 million Americans are one setback away from economic ruin.


The wealthy didn't take anything from the poor.

by being greedy i feel like they do take things....in a roundabout way.
if the ceos or "top dogs" of big companies would be happy with only 1 super-car, or 1 lake-house, or 1 boat, or not be spending money on stuff like this:http://consumerist.com/2010/12/gold-pill-makes-you-poop-gold.html (these are pills that make the rich poop golden turds, because everyone knows you aren't really rich until your poop sparkles with gold)
then maybe they could pay thier employees a little more.

bottom line......
the greed of the rich keeps others down, and imo, greed is wrong (it's also a sin if you are religious)


All wealth that they legally acquired was gained through consensual transactions.

lol if you think all the business deals the wealthy do are 100% legal OR consensual. ever heard the term "bending the rules" or "strong arming someone"???


They don't force anyone to work either.

sweat shops anyone???


People choose to work, because they wish to acquire their own wealth to satisfy their own desires.

or maybe rather then "special desires", they are just trying to eat and have shelter.
nobody "chooses" to work. it is something you have to do or you will either starve, or become homeless, or both.
if the choice is "work or starve" i wouldn't call working a choice.


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.

and if said people didn't work for the wealthy, they wouldn't be wealthy.


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.

i agree with you about the government, but i feel the wealthy have that power too. IF they wanted to use it.
money=power
if a billionaire hated me (for whatever reason) he could REALLY make my life a living hell, or even pay someone to kill me, if he so wanted.

[Skylar1]

Well, it looks like the stocks are tanking, FAST. the Dow has already lost 300+ just today. wow


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- U.S. stocks plunged more than 2% Thursday, as investors remain on edge about the global economy.
The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=INDU&source=story_quote_link)) dropped 240 points, or 2%, with Alcoa (AA (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=AA&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/15.html?source=story_f500_link)), Caterpillar (CAT (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=CAT&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/81.html?source=story_f500_link)) and Bank of America (BAC (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=BAC&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/2580.html?source=story_f500_link)) among the biggest drags on the blue chip index.

The S&P 500 (SPX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=SPX&source=story_quote_link)) dropped 30 points, or 2.4% and the Nasdaq (COMP (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=COMP&source=story_quote_link)) lost 71 points, or 2.7%.
All the three major indexes are down at least 8% from their recent July peak, nearing official "correction" territory (losses of 10% or more from recent highs).
Those losses came as European stocks also plunged. Britain's FTSE 100 (UKX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=UKX&source=story_quote_link)) tumbled 3%, Germany's DAX (DAX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=DAX&source=story_quote_link)) lost 3.1% and France's CAC 40 (CAC40 (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=CAC40&source=story_quote_link)) fell about 2.5%.
Fears about a global economic slowdown are at the forefront of investors minds amid recent weak economic data.
Early Thursday, the latest reading on jobless claims showed a large number of Americans remain unemployed. But economic woes weren't contained just to the United States.
Taking dramatic steps to shore up their financial markets, Japan's government stepped in to weaken the yen, and the European Central Bank decided to re-enter the European bond market.
"It's true that we are in a period of a high level of uncertainty, not only in euro area but at the global level," ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet said in a press conference Thursday.
The market's fear gauge -- the VIX (VIX (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=VIX&source=story_quote_link)) -- rose 11% to a reading of 26. That's still just shy of 30 -- the level that signals a high degree of fear. With the VIX up 41% from the start of the year, it's clear that fear has been on the rise.
It should come as no surprise that investors flocked to assets perceived as low-risk, including U.S. bonds (http://money.cnn.com/data/bonds/) and gold.
Treasury prices rose, pushing the yield on the 10-year note down to 2.58% from 2.6% late Wednesday, and gold futures (http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/) for December delivery rose $13.50 to $1,679.80an ounce. Earlier in the session, gold hit a record high of $1,684.70 an ounce.


full article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm

except for yesterday, this is the 10th day that stocks have fallen.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

If Shigeru Miyamoto (of Nintendo fame) were the US, president, everything would be better.

Yes, I want the person who invented Mario to lead the world's last remaining super power. Let's see if we can get Steve Jobs to be vice president, and then we can start selling 100 dollar U.S. bonds to hipsters for 350 dollars and get out of this crisis by next week.

[Wio]

imo, i feel the latter does imply the former.
everyone always says they want the "american dream."
well, when only 2% of people are living it, and the other 98% are wishing they had it...... that sounds like many suffer while few prosper to me.

look at stuff like this: http://economicrot.blogspot.com/2010/09/77-of-americans-now-living-paycheck-to.html

according to the article - 77% of Americans now living paycheck-to-paycheck!!!
yes, thats right!
This means in our nation of 310 million citizens, 239 million Americans are one setback away from economic ruin.
Then 77% of Americans are living beyond their means and shouldn't buy so much useless crap? Still, this is a matter of wealth acquisition and little to do with wealth distribution. I don't live amongst the wealthiest 27%, so the people around me apparently live paycheck to paycheck. Yet I still see people waste food. I still see people go to overpriced movies. I still see people scoff at frugality. Very few Americans are actually starving and homeless. We've defined poverty in such a way that the poor have basic cable, which is a luxury which my family didn't buy.


by being greedy i feel like they do take things....in a roundabout way.
if the ceos or "top dogs" of big companies would be happy with only 1 super-car, or 1 lake-house, or 1 boat, or not be spending money on stuff like this:http://consumerist.com/2010/12/gold-pill-makes-you-poop-gold.html (these are pills that make the rich poop golden turds, because everyone knows you aren't really rich until your poop sparkles with gold)
then maybe they could pay thier employees a little more.

bottom line......
the greed of the rich keeps others down, and imo, greed is wrong (it's also a sin if you are religious)
First of all, greed is a good thing. It is good that people are compelled to pursue their own interest. No one else understands your desires and circumstances better than your own self.

Second of all, the employees make a consensual decision to work at the wages they receive. Those wages are perceived as a net gain. Why should they be paid more than what they are willing to accept?

If anything, to pay them more would be a poor allocation of resources--a bad thing. Have you ever considered why certain jobs have low wages? It's because the job is not highly desired by society. For example, janitor's aren't payed a lot because there are many people willing to work that job and have the skills to do it. Doctors are paid a lot because few people are able to study hard and meet the qualifications.

By allowing the wages to be set by the market, people are given incentive to go into other fields of labor which have a higher demand because the market will set those jobs at higher wages.


lol if you think all the business deals the wealthy do are 100% legal OR consensual. ever heard the term "bending the rules" or "strong arming someone"???

sweat shops anyone???
But if they do something illegal, then there are laws and penalties to deter them from engaging in such an activity. People still commit homicide and yet you don't see any politicians getting up in arms about it. Why do you think that is? There's little more the government can do to prevent homicide without taking away everyone's rights.


or maybe rather then "special desires", they are just trying to eat and have shelter.
nobody "chooses" to work. it is something you have to do or you will either starve, or become homeless, or both.
if the choice is "work or starve" i wouldn't call working a choice.
I would call it a choice. You're choosing to survive rather than starve to death. It's a damn good choice in my opinion. It's to no ones benefit that you give up an die.


and if said people didn't work for the wealthy, they wouldn't be wealthy.
The worker survives and the employer profits. It's a win-win. Cool.

[Gauntlgrym]

Then 77% of Americans are living beyond their means and shouldn't buy so much useless crap? Still, this is a matter of wealth acquisition and little to do with wealth distribution. I don't live amongst the wealthiest 27%, so the people around me apparently live paycheck to paycheck. Yet I still see people waste food. I still see people go to overpriced movies. I still see people scoff at frugality. Very few Americans are actually starving and homeless. We've defined poverty in such a way that the poor have basic cable, which is a luxury which my family didn't buy.

just because you live paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you are living above your means.
heck, I used to live paycheck to paycheck, and i didn't buy anything i didn't need. the money went to rent, food, and insurance....that was about it.


First of all, greed is a good thing.

sorry, you just lost me.
if you really believe that, then there is no way we could ever see eye to eye. no matter how much we debate.

[Cobra Commander]

I live check to check. I work two jobs to do it and at the end of the month I barely have anything left. When I want stuff I save up what I have and get it, or I use a credit card and pay it back ASAP. The only things I'm willing to put on a card are things of value - mainly guns, or necessities like food. If I want a new PS3 game I wait till I have the money for it. I used to live way above my means and found out just how evil credit cards can be.

I wouldn't call myself poor. I have food and a decent place to live, I have internet and video games, and other toys. I also have a car that I bought new, which has a warranty. So while I don't have a lot of money, I have a lot of stuff and most of that stuff could also be sold for money if I needed to.

I do not, however, pay for cable television or iphones.

[Gauntlgrym]

Wio
just wanted to add some stats real quick in response to you saying "Very few Americans are actually starving and homeless"

744,000 homeless in the U.S. in 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564208/ns/us_news-life/t/study-homeless-people-us/
and that's 2005.....it's probably over 1,000,000 now.

and from another article:
"More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid" - so 50 million people can't afford basic medical care
"More than 40 million people get food stamps" - so 40 million people can't afford to eat
"Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance" - so 10 million people have lost thier jobs
"More than 4.4 million people are on welfare" - so 4.4 million people WOULD be homeless, if not for govenment aid

source:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm

40 million people depend on food stamps to eat...........i wouldn't say that is "very few"

[Anoleis]

Wio
just wanted to add some stats real quick in response to you saying "Very few Americans are actually starving and homeless"

744,000 homeless in the U.S. in 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564208/ns/us_news-life/t/study-homeless-people-us/
and that's 2005.....it's probably over 1,000,000 now.

and from another article:
"More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid" - so 50 million people can't afford basic medical care
"More than 40 million people get food stamps" - so 40 million people can't afford to eat
"Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance" - so 10 million people have lost thier jobs
"More than 4.4 million people are on welfare" - so 4.4 million people WOULD be homeless, if not for govenment aid

source:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm

40 million people depend on food stamps to eat...........i wouldn't say that is "very few"

And none of that shows that any of those people are starving and homeless.

[Skylar1]

And none of that shows that any of those people are starving and homeless.
I believe he is trying to make the point that the wealth of the nation is so unequally distributed that even those that DO have a job, still require government support to survive.

[Anoleis]

I believe he is trying to make the point that the wealth of the nation is so unequally distributed that even those that DO have a job, still require government support to survive.

No, I'm fairly certain he was trying to rebuke Wio's statement. It's very clear in the last sentence, or, more correctly put, last line of text.

[Eris]

I don't really understand the point. Those people aren't starving and homeless -because- they get food stamps and medicaid and whatnot. That's the very purpose of welfare. The people who are homeless regardless even though welfare is offered, in general, tends to suffer from drug addictions and/or mental illness.

[Gauntlgrym]

And none of that shows that any of those people are starving and homeless.

the second line i wrote says "744,000 homeless in the U.S. in 2005" (and thats back in 05) so........they are homeless. how do you not see that??

*edit* here's a more recent number too: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301929
as of 2011 it's up to about 1.5 million

also, where do you think these 40 million people would get their food without the aid?? hence, starvation.
well, it's possible that rather than starving to death, they would commit crime to get the money they need to eat.......but that isn't really exceptable either.

in addition, both you and ericgamer1 are right. i was trying to do both with my statement.
rebuke wio, and further show how unequal and things are.

[Anoleis]

did you not read my post before you decided to jump in to the conversation??
Do you realize that this is a public forum and anyone can reply to anything? However, it's quite obvious that you didn't read Wio's statement correctly. "Very few Americans are actually starving and homeless."


the second line i wrote says "744,000 homeless in the U.S. in 2005" (and thats back in 05) so........they are homeless. how do you not see that??
Being homeless does not mean one is starving. Oh, and that's only about .003% of the US population(in 2005). That doesn't seem to be an excitingly large percentage. More people were diagnosed with cancer in 2005.


also, where do you think these 40 million people would get their food without the aid?? hence, starvation.
Getting food stamps does not mean they are not starving, nor does them not getting food stamps automatically imply that they would starve. Many people would not need to get food stamps if they were not spending some asinine amount of Cell phone bills, cable television, and/or other frivolous things.

[Roux]

It's been the same routine for years, it'll never change. Make a huge collapse, poor get poorer richer get richer and all jerk each other off in one big circle. It's a big club and you're not in it.

Divide and conquer divide and conquer. When're people going to realize how false and unfounded this idea of 'economy' truly is?

[Gauntlgrym]

Do you realize that this is a public forum and anyone can reply to anything? However, it's quite obvious that you didn't read Wio's statement correctly. "Very few Americans are actually starving and homeless."

Being homeless does not mean one is starving.

oh gimmie a break. *rolls eyes*
do you really think that homeless people are eating well???


Oh, and that's only about .003% of the US population(in 2005). That doesn't seem to be an excitingly large percentage. More people were diagnosed with cancer in 2005.

go tell people that are dying of cancer that it's not a big deal, because they are and insignifagant percentage....see what they think.
also 1.5 million are now homeless in 2011 (it's in my edit of the other post). i know that may not be a huge overall amount...but 40 million not being able to afford food is a big deal.


Getting food stamps does not mean they are not starving, nor does them not getting food stamps automatically imply that they would starve. Many people would not need to get food stamps if they were not spending some asinine amount of Cell phone bills, cable television, and/or other frivolous things.

most people getting food stamps are not exactly living like a rock-star and buying many frivolous things.
you must live a sheltered life. have you ever even been to a ghetto or really bad neighborhood???

trust me, people don't have many "frivolous things" in the ghetto.

[Anoleis]

Oh, gimmie give me a break. *rolls eyes*
Do you really think that homeless people are eating well???
I can assume that they are eating, as "eating well" has a couple different interpretations, and if they are not eating at all, they're probably dead.


Go tell people that are dying of cancer that it's not a big deal , because they are and an insignifagant insignificant percentage.... See what they think about that.
And now you're sticking words in my mouth, kudos.


Also, 1.5 million are now homeless in 2011 (it's in my edit of the other post). I know that may not be a huge overall amount, ...but 40 million people not being able to afford food is a big deal.
Yeah, I looked at your source and it says nothing about current homeless numbers.

And again, you seem to think that everyone one of the people on food stamps are incapable of surviving without them and can only afford food because of them. I think the larger problem is how many people are abusing the system.


Most people getting food stamps are not exactly living like a rock-star and or buying many frivolous things.
You must live a sheltered life. Have you ever even been to a ghetto or really bad neighborhood???

Trust me, they don't have many "frivolous things" in the ghetto.
My parents were $40,000 in credit card debt when I was born. My mom lost her job when I was eight years old, and my dad lost his when I was twelve and again when I was fifteen. Neither of them were able to get food stamps or unemployment. Try harder, sweetie.

Oh, and not everyone who gets food stamps lives in a ghetto. I've seen people buy food at the store my mom works at with food stamps. She works at a gourmet grocer, where they sell things like cherry flavored cheese. It's quite obvious that people are buying frivolous things and using food stamps.

[Wio]

Gauntlgrym
What does wealth distribution have to do with wealth acquisition?
The rich aren't getting richer by stealing from anyone else. They are getting richer by creating more wealth for themselves. The poor aren't remaining poor due to rich people oppressing them. They remain poor by creating very little wealth for themselves. So where is the link between acquisition and distribution? There is none.

You only know to blame the rich. You don't even understand how wealth is created or why some jobs have low wages. How can you help the poor like that? All you've really demonstrated is how decades of welfare have made people even more dependent on the state and to an unsustainable extent.

[Gauntlgrym]

I can assume that they are eating, as "eating well" has a couple different interpretations, and if they are not eating at all, they're probably dead.

i'm not going to waste time trying to debate the specifics of "eating well."
my point was simply that most homeless people don't get very much food. you are just being argumentative now, i shouldn't have to spell that out for ya.


And now you're sticking words in my mouth, kudos.

no, i told you to go ask someone a question. never said you said anything.


Yeah, I looked at your source and it says nothing about current homeless numbers.

2011 not current enough for ya?? (i bolded the edit in my other post because i guess you missed it)

also, the numbers get worse with time. especially with the current state of the economy.
if i'm using numbers from a few years ago to prove a point. you can bet your butt that current numbers will only prove my point more.


And again, you seem to think that everyone one of the people on food stamps are incapable of surviving without them and can only afford food because of them.

and again, you seem to think that everyone of the people on food stamps are CAPABLE of surviving without them and have many other ways of getting food on the table.


I think the larger problem is how many people are abusing the system.

even if 25% of everyone on food stamps is abusing the system, and personally i think 25% is too high of a number, but i'm saying a high number for sake of debate.
so that's still 30 million that need the stamps to eat.

are you telling me that 10 million abusing the system is more of a problem for our nation than 30 million that don't have enough money for food??


My parents were $40,000 in credit card debt when I was born. My mom lost her job when I was eight years old, and my dad lost his when I was twelve and again when I was fifteen. Neither of them were able to get food stamps or unemployment. Try harder, sweetie.

ok, so i'm curious.
how were you able to survive with no money or jobs??


Oh, and not everyone who gets food stamps lives in a ghetto.

yeah, most do. granted there are exceptions to every rule, but i'd be willing to bet that 9 outta 10 people that use food stamps come from the ghetto, or VERY poor neighborhood.


I've seen people buy food at the store my mom works at with food stamps. She works at a gourmet grocer, where they sell things like cherry flavored cheese. It's quite obvious that people are buying frivolous things and using food stamps.

so what if they want to buy cherry flavored cheese, they are using them for food. that's what FOOD stamps are for.

[Anoleis]

i'm not going to waste time trying to debate the specifics of "eating well."
my point was simply that most homeless people don't get very much food. you are just being argumentative now, i shouldn't have to spell that out for ya.
I never asked you to debate the specifics of eating well. As such, being homeless and starving are not mutually exclusive.


no, i told you to go ask someone a question. never said you said anything.
You implied that I thought that the number of people suffering from cancer was insignificant, even though I made no such implications.


2011 not current enough for ya?? (i bolded the edit in my other post because i guess you missed it)

also, the numbers get worse with time. especially with the current state of the economy.
if i'm using numbers from a few years ago to prove a point. you can bet your butt that current numbers will only prove my point more.
I didn't miss it, you twit. You edited it in AFTER I posted. As such, the 1.5 million includes everyone one who is uses shelters on a temporary basis.


and again, you seem to think that everyone of the people on food stamps are CAPABLE of surviving without them and have many other ways of getting food on the table.
Oh, how cute. I can truthfully say that not everyone who receives food stamps needs them. Oh snap, you can't prove that wrong, while simply sitting at a Liquor store proves me right.


even if 25% of everyone on food stamps is abusing the system, and personally i think 25% is too high of a number, but i'm saying a high number for sake of debate.
so that's still 30 million that need the stamps to eat.

are you telling me that 10 million abusing the system is more of a problem for our nation than 30 million that don't have enough money for food??
Are you saying that 10 million people abusing the system is acceptable simply because there are people who are using the system correctly?

I'm saying that those 10 million people are taking money from those who truly need it.


ok, so i'm curious.
how were you able to survive with no money or jobs??
They got new jobs, I should think that would be fairly obvious.


yeah, most do. granted there are exceptions to every rule, but i'd be willing to bet that 9 outta 10 people that use food stamps come from the ghetto, or VERY poor neighborhood.
Yeah, I sincerely doubt that.


so what if they want to buy cherry flavored cheese, they are using them for food. that's what FOOD stamps are for.
Cherry flavored cheese is about $20 a pound. I'm guessing they are so poor that spending $20 on cheese is perfectly frugal. Maybe they should buy bags of Ghirardelli Chocolate, because that's totally how you act when you're pinching pennies.

[Gauntlgrym]

I never asked you to debate the specifics of eating well. As such, being homeless and starving are not mutually exclusive.

i never said they they were.
i'm just saying that homeless people are hungry more often than not.


I didn't miss it, you twit. You edited it in AFTER I posted.

no, i made the word *EDIT* bold. that is why the edit time says it was after you already posted. i made it bold so you wouldn't miss it twice.
the original info was already in the post.

maybe you should know what the heck you are talking about before you start calling people names.


As such, the 1.5 million includes everyone one who is uses shelters on a temporary basis.

so??? you're point???
do you not except someone as homeless unless they meet your strict homeless criteria??
is someone not really homeless to you, until they have been homeless for a year or something??

tell me o wise one. how many days does a person need to be homeless, before they are truly homeless??


Oh, how cute. I can truthfully say that not everyone who receives food stamps needs them. Oh snap, you can't prove that wrong, while simply sitting at a Liquor store proves me right.

i never said that EVERYONE needs them. however the vast majority do.


Are you saying that 10 million people abusing the system is acceptable simply because there are people who are using the system correctly?

no i'm saying that 10 million people abusing the system is less important than the fact that 30 million people can't afford food.
you said:"I think the larger problem is how many people are abusing the system."

the larger problem is that we even need the system. everyone should be able to afford to eat in america.
the fact that they can't, while the rich wipe there butts with hundred dollar bills is the "larger problem"


They got new jobs, I should think that would be fairly obvious.

oh, well i guess it wasn't that rough for ya then, since they managed to find new jobs so easily .


Yeah, I sincerely doubt that.

believe what ya want.


Cherry flavored cheese is about $20 a pound. I'm guessing they are so poor that spending $20 on cheese is perfectly frugal. Maybe they should buy bags of Ghirardelli Chocolate, because that's totally how you act when you're pinching pennies.

maybe they are just getting more stamps then they need, but that's a whole different debate.

people abusing the system to get free food, and the government just giving more than they should are different issues.

[Skilero]

@1920s:

WWI ended in late 1918, and the roaring 20s were stirred up by the bubble with overconfidence - morale inevitably came from the war's end. The growing consumer confidence that fueled the bubble's growth behind the 'Roaring' economy of the 1920s can also be attributed to the economic policy (or lack thereof) forged by Harding and Coolidge's administrations. The war ended in late 1918, but it's improbable that the consumer confidence rise from '23 to '29 had anything to do with the war; and it's more likely that the rise had everything to do with the business-friendly governments the two Presidents would serve in office. I can agree that taxes are only one component in the relationship between government and business that should to be changed in the United States to solve the debt crisis and economic woes, but it must be questioned how productive a limited-government approach to business is for each of these components, because the roaring 20s's consumer confidence ratings were propelled by something other than the war.

On the other hand, you can further tax the wealthy and more fortunate classes of the United States, further enticing them move to more prosperous and cheaper-to-live areas outside the nation, making it even harder for the expanding poor to be successful themselves. Taken a step further, you can examine governmental intervention and regulation of the markets, and may ask yourself how those growingly accepted and increasingly employed policies in government have gotten us thus far.
---
The fact that the United States has taken itself from an economy of agglomeration into a suburban one (heck, it even told people to leave cities and get housing for themselves because it was their right (double thanks for Fannie & Freddie)) is actually one of the main reasons why it's going to be so hard to move away from our economic issues.

[Anoleis]

i never said they they were.
i'm just saying that homeless people are hungry more often than not.
And how exactly do you justify blaming the rich for this?


no, i made the word *EDIT* bold. that is why the edit time says it was after you already posted. i made it bold so you wouldn't miss it twice.
the original info was already in the post.

maybe you should know what the heck you are talking about before you start calling people names.
I was actually looking at your original post with the original source of the 744,000 number. Clearly your organizational habits are as paltry as your typing skills.


so??? you're point???
do you not except someone as homeless unless they meet your strict homeless criteria??
is someone not really homeless to you, until they have been homeless for a year or something??
My point is that someone who is simply sleeping in their car for the night because their paycheck was late isn't truly homeless. It's estimated that on 18%-22% of those counted are chronically homeless, and that 35%-45% are only without a home for around three weeks.

No set numbers because they are all different.


tell me o wise one. how many days does a person need to be homeless, before they are truly homeless??
Depends on how you define homeless, it's different for each of the studies. There is no truly accurate count on the number of homeless in the U.S. It says that in nearly every story, surly you must have read it once or twice?


no i'm saying that 10 million people abusing the system is less important than the fact that 30 million people can't afford food.
There have always been those who can't afford to feed themselves. However, many of them don't need cell phones or cable TV. As Wio said, we've defined poverty as something completely above what it should be. Are there people that need food-stamps, yes. However, some of them should think about what is an actual need, and what is frivolous puffery.


the larger problem is that we even need the system. everyone should be able to afford to eat in america.
the fact that they can't, while the rich wipe there butts with hundred dollar bills is the "larger problem"
Oh, the sheer naivety. There will always be people who need the system. The poor will always exist, and hoping for some utopian society to come along and save them is childish.

However, the rich can do whatever they please with their money because they've earned it. You can't say that Billionaire Bob stole his fortune from Beggar Brandon. You can't blame Billionaire Bob for Beggar Brandon's need for booze. How can you villianize a class of people simple because someone made poor choices or drew the bad hand of cards?


oh, well i guess it wasn't that rough for ya then, since they managed to find new jobs so easily .
Your pretentiousness knows no bounds.


maybe they are just getting more stamps then they need, but that's a whole different debate.

people abusing the system to get free food, and the government just giving more than they should are different issues.
And the government giving more than they should is clearly the fault of the rich, and we must punish those dastardly rich because they don't pucker up and let the government take what they've earned.

[Skylar1]

@1920s:

WWI ended in late 1918, and the roaring 20s were stirred up by the bubble with overconfidence - morale inevitably came from the war's end. The growing consumer confidence that fueled the bubble's growth behind the 'Roaring' economy of the 1920s can also be attributed to the economic policy (or lack thereof) forged by Harding and Coolidge's administrations. The war ended in late 1918, but it's improbable that the consumer confidence rise from '23 to '29 had anything to do with the war; and it's more likely that the rise had everything to do with the business-friendly governments the two Presidents would serve in office. I can agree that taxes are only one component in the relationship between government and business that should to be changed in the United States to solve the debt crisis and economic woes, but it must be questioned how productive a limited-government approach to business is for each of these components, because the roaring 20s's consumer confidence ratings were propelled by something other than the war.

On the other hand, you can further tax the wealthy and more fortunate classes of the United States, further enticing them move to more prosperous and cheaper-to-live areas outside the nation, making it even harder for the expanding poor to be successful themselves. Taken a step further, you can examine governmental intervention and regulation of the markets, and may ask yourself how those growingly accepted and increasingly employed policies in government have gotten us thus far.
---
The fact that the United States has taken itself from an economy of agglomeration into a suburban one (heck, it even told people to leave cities and get housing for themselves because it was their right (double thanks for Fannie & Freddie)) is actually one of the main reasons why it's going to be so hard to move away from our economic issues.

The main issue with this is that rapid growth and over-consumption can not be sustained. There's simply no way to stop the 'give and take' of the markets, and when you removed regulation and government involvement, there's nothing to stop a trough from spiraling into bottomless pit.

Sure the economy does great and party's hard, but when the next day comes and the hangover sets in, it's pretty gnarly.

I suppose.. if you're fine with super high economic peaks, coupled with miserable economic troughs... but personally, I prefer my economy to not have bi-polar disorder.

Will we have to go through this garbage again in the year 2060?- I sure hope not. maybe by then we'll finally learn that this trickle-down method just doesn't work.

[Assiduous✡Aristocrat]

Good, good. The US will fall...and the fat, idiot americans will no longer be able to keep going how powerful and awesome their pathetic nation is.

No longer will they have any excuse to treat the USA as a centre of the universe nor consider themselves better then Europe, China, Japan, Russia or any other great nation/culture they previously despised and labelled as inferior.

I like how ignorant you are. It's cute.

You sound... Jelly.

And Videogamer555: Running a counrty is different from running a company.

[nrL]

I like how ignorant you are. It's cute.

You sound... Jelly.



Jelly? Not really. If anything, somewhat butthurt.


I like how ignorant you are. It's cute.

Will you take me home?

[miniPhil]

Will you take me home?
Is that going to be a thing now? Some Nigerian family will adopt Madonna.

[nrL]

Is that going to be a thing now? Some Nigerian family will adopt Madonna.

I bet they find her kawaii

[Skilero]

The main issue with this is that rapid growth and over-consumption can not be sustained. There's simply no way to stop the 'give and take' of the markets, and when you removed regulation and government involvement, there's nothing to stop a trough from spiraling into bottomless pit.

Sure the economy does great and party's hard, but when the next day comes and the hangover sets in, it's pretty gnarly.

I suppose.. if you're fine with super high economic peaks, coupled with miserable economic troughs... but personally, I prefer my economy to not have bi-polar disorder.

Will we have to go through this garbage again in the year 2060?- I sure hope not. maybe by then we'll finally learn that this trickle-down method just doesn't work.

Consumer confidence obviously gained from the policies. Consumers of today are under-confident, and even an increase in their expenditures will induce economic growth and perhaps lead business owners to hire more than they are now. And I think there are forms of government regulation and restrictions that can be limited. A quick Google of government regulations brings me to the White House page for 'Energy, Climate Change, and Our Environment' (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy). And at the top of the 'At a Glance' section of the website from the front page, I find a quote from President Obama:


As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs - but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment.

For me, accelerating the transition from the energy we use now to the clean energy the President speaks of can only mean government intervention. The transition probably does have the potential to lower costs for companies, but the government is not in a position to enforce such things for the time being; this quote and website can represent over-regulation by the government.

It's actually been proven that moving to cities greatly increases energy efficiency per capita because everything is in a close vicinity, and housing is stacked; in contrast to suburban developments. Off-topic, but I'd love to point out again the Fannie and Freddie ordeal, and that actually hurt the environment more than any oil-drilling endeavor could. Which brings up another point of government overregulation: We have many reserves of oil, but refuse to drill them for environmental reasons kept up by the government. If the country's in shambles and the future doesn't look all too bright for us, why don't we drill for oil? It'd only be one thing to fix the problem, but lower gas prices should prove helpful to people domestically and it's obvious that gas prices affect consumer confidence ratings.

[Gauntlgrym]

Aeschylus
ya know, most people say that as soon as you start yelling and throwing insults around, then you have already lost the debate.

if all you wanna do is:
1) call me a twit
2) rag on my organization
3) rag on my typing
4) call me naive
5) call me childish
6) leave me bad rep just because i have a different view than yours (even though I have remained civil)

well, then i guess we are done for now.
maybe next time we talk we can have a "grown up" debate, and you can leave the silly name calling and uncalled for insults out of it.

[Eris]

Gauntlgrym, Aeschylus

Quote sniping kills meaningful discussion. Cut it out or I'll close the thread.

[Anoleis]

Consumers of today are under-confident,All I've seen from the local news is doom and gloom about the debt and economy. It doesn't help consumer confidence to feed them the same moldy news everyday.

I really think consumers today need to rethink their priorities. If you're struggling to pay your car or house payment, do you really need that new cell phone? Might just be me, but I'd rather eat than talk to people.

@Aeschylus (http://www.animeforum.com/member.php?u=238244)
ya know, most people say that as soon as you start yelling and throwing insults around, then you have already lost the debate.

if all you wanna do is:
1) call me a twit
2) rag on my organization
3) rag on my typing
4) call me naive
5) call me childish
6) leave me bad rep just because i have a different view than yours (even though I have remained civil)

well, then i guess we are done for now.
maybe next time we talk we can have a "grown up" debate, and you can leave the silly name calling and uncalled for insults out of it.
1.Yes, I did didn't I?
2. & 3. Spot on; however, I did not try to contradict your arguments with that.
4. That's because the idea of a society without the poor is naive.
5. I called the idea of a Utopian society childish.
6. I left you a bad rep because you were pretentious in trying to say my life has been sheltered and naive in thinking that increasing taxes will eliminate poverty, not because I disagree with you.
And it's "self" not "sefl"

I love how you say I lost the debate, but you did not contradict any of my points, it's cute.

[Wio]

The main issue with this is that rapid growth and over-consumption can not be sustained. There's simply no way to stop the 'give and take' of the markets, and when you removed regulation and government involvement, there's nothing to stop a trough from spiraling into bottomless pit.

Sure the economy does great and party's hard, but when the next day comes and the hangover sets in, it's pretty gnarly.

I suppose.. if you're fine with super high economic peaks, coupled with miserable economic troughs... but personally, I prefer my economy to not have bi-polar disorder.

Will we have to go through this garbage again in the year 2060?- I sure hope not. maybe by then we'll finally learn that this trickle-down method just doesn't work.

The government is good at promising the impossible. It can't stop the cyclical nature of the economy. Ironically, they make cycles more severe than otherwise possible by enabling behavior which isn't economically viable. Because the government is powerful and takes wealth for granted, it can both create bubbles as well as forestall market corrections. However those corrections to happen eventually and the longer you stall them, the more disastrous they are.

[Robin Sena]

The only Americans that wll keep their money and pull through unscathed will be the celebrites and politician.
Perhaps they should learn from the book of Luke, on the rich man and the beggar.

[Gauntlgrym]

The main issue with this is that rapid growth and over-consumption can not be sustained. There's simply no way to stop the 'give and take' of the markets, and when you removed regulation and government involvement, there's nothing to stop a trough from spiraling into bottomless pit.

Sure the economy does great and party's hard, but when the next day comes and the hangover sets in, it's pretty gnarly.

I suppose.. if you're fine with super high economic peaks, coupled with miserable economic troughs... but personally, I prefer my economy to not have bi-polar disorder.

Will we have to go through this garbage again in the year 2060?- I sure hope not. maybe by then we'll finally learn that this trickle-down method just doesn't work.

i agree, trickle-down does not work!
because of this, we can make things better with a simple move. more taxes for the rich.

it's funny how most of our economic problems can be solved, just by taxing 2% of the population more, but for some reason we don't do it.
guess the rich can afford to pay awesome lobbyists, but can't afford more taxes :P

also, the percentage we tax the rich, is at one of the lowest points it's ever been at. why is that?? why are we taxing them less than ever, when we need the money more than ever??
look at the 1930-1980 chart in wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
(it's about 1/8 down the page)

the chart shows that throughout most of the last hundred years, the rich (250k+) have been taxed over 60%, and as high as 92%
we need to get back to the way things used to be in america!

another thing that needs fixed imho......is the tax bracket.
you can find the 2011 irs tax bracket here:http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

according the current bracket, someone making $174,400 per year, pays 33% tax.
however someone making $10,000,000 per year, pays 35% tax.

why is it that someone who makes over 50 times what another does, only pays 2% more in tax???

this tax bracket needs to be extended. it can't just be $379,150+
it needs be changed so that people making 10,20,50,100, or even a 1000 times what others do, are not only 1 bracket higher.

[Skylar1]

They're almost finished making the "super congress"


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Washington has a compromise problem. And now, lawmakers face a seemingly impossible task -- find a way to institute reforms that have eluded policymakers, all while markets and rating agencies watch with rapt attention.
After risking default, the nation's lawmakers agreed last week on a plan to raise the debt ceiling.


The deal (http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_breakdown_of_deal/) slashed spending. But it included no tax hikes and no entitlement reforms -- items that virtually every budget expert says are needed.
Those tough choices were kicked down (http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/news/economy/debt_ceiling/index.htm) to a 12-member bipartisan super committee tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in budget savings.
"What we need to do now is combine those spending cuts with two additional steps: tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare," President Obama said this week.
That sounds easy enough -- but it will actually require mountains of political will and lawmakers who are willing to risk their jobs.
"There is no question about the political backlash they will face," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical."
The first three (http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/09/news/economy/reid_committee_murray/index.htm?iid=HP_LN) lucky lawmakers to be appointed were Democratic Sens. Patty Murray, Max Baucus and John Kerry.
Republicans announced their choices on Wednesday. Reps. Jeb Hensarling, Dave Camp and Fred Upton garnered appointments from the House. And Jon Kyl, Pat Toomey and Rob Portman will represent Senate Republicans.


full article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/debt_super_committee/index.htm

(Side note: these were really the best pictures they could find of the lawmakers?)