Support NeoGAF

[Enron]

lol I am listening to Mark Levin and wow lol Apparently Obama hates capitalism lol

Mark Levin, lol

 

[Cyan]

The banksters will hold you by the balls as long as you let them. Unfortunately, our government is run by them, so that will never happen.

Do you really think that if the government defaulted on all its debt--if it said "screw you we're not paying any of this ever"--nothing would happen?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So Boehner just confirmed what cute CNN girl said earlier - the President had agreed to x amount in revenue increase, then came back a day later and changed his demands?

CNN Girl got that information from Boehner

 

[polyh3dron]

the difference is democrats disown these types of people. Republicans--they have a few holding office and having the same views.

Kosmo knows this, he's just trolling (I hope)

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Good article from Ezra:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...to-prevent-it/2011/07/11/gIQAjRWEUI_blog.html

Earlier today, I spoke with David Beers, director of Standard Poor’s sovereign debt department. He explained that it wasn’t economic factors that had put America’s credit rating at risk, nor world events. It was credit-rating agency’s increasing fears that our political system was no longer up to the challenges that face it. “What we’re saying now,” said Beers, “is we question whether despite all the discussions and intense negotiations, if they can’t reach this agreement, will they be able to reach it after the election?”

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'd love to hear as to why (from a different viewpoint than my own) as to why we need raises in taxes.... anyone care to give their opinion?

edit:

So you're saying we should come full circle then? Great.

NET SURPLUS/DEFICIT = REVENUES - SPENDING.

You tell me why we've been lowering taxes the last 30 years (decreasing revenues) and how that won't cause a problem.

The decrease in tax revenues over the last 3 years exceed the increase in spending. The increase in spending trails the growth in GDP. in other words, government has gotten smaller over the last several years. Yet even if you put a spendign freeze on the absolute dollar amount for spending in the budget, despite inflation and cost of living changes and the value of the dollar plumetting, you know what? The deficit would still be closer to what it is today than what it was back in 2007.

What the fuck needs to be done to get it through your and the 150 million other morons' thick skulls in this country to get you to see taxe shave to go up?

All you do when you cut taxes is make the existing debt an even bigger number in comparison to the government budget. You make the debt bigger and harder to pay off regardless of whatever else the fuck you do with spending cuts and what not.

I was appalled when, in college, we spent 75 fucking minutes going over y=mx+b in microeconomics, but it's pretty clear even that's way above the heads of most people, people who elect retards like themselves into government and don't even know what the fuck it means to have two aspects to cash flows.

 

[scorcho]

Really?

So you are fine with not having a program that helps insure children of families who otherwise can't afford the amounts charged by insurance companies?

this may be due to the delicious Chimay i'm downing now, but i'm forever fascinated in why middle-class/poor individuals defend a privileged economic group that has disproportionally reaped economic gain over the last decade (as evidenced by ever rising income inequality) over, well, themsleves. effective tax rates for the top earners are at historic lows, yet there's a glutton of lower and middle class who think they should pay even less for some reason.

btw, when did Major Garret move to the National Journal? did he get fired by Fox?

 

[timetokill]

what the fuck. The founding fathers had fucking duels to the death. Don't talk to me about polarization when you're just spouting bullshit.

Actually, duels often weren't "to the death," and death often wasn't the point of them. Duels were about honor and respect. It was when duels became more deadly that they fell out of favor.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I mean fuck the bush tax cuts alone were estimated to add $4 trillion to our debt back when they were enacted, and that was before they were extended and the economy went to hell.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So according to Levin, Boehner had agreed to 800 bil in increased revenue over 10 years and at the meeting today Obama demanded another 300-400 bil. The source is lolz but I am curious if Obama changed his demands.

 

[Vanillalite]

this may be due to the delicious Chimay i'm downing now, but i'm forever fascinated in why middle-class/poor individuals defend a privileged economic group that has disproportionally reaped economic gain over the last decade (as evidenced by ever rising income inequality) over, well, themsleves. effective tax rates for the top earners are at historic lows, yet there's a glutton of lower and middle class who think they should pay even less for some reason.

btw, when did Major Garret move to the National Journal? did he get fired by Fox?

A long time ago and he left on his own accord...

 

[Pctx]

Why?!?! Because the Fed needs more revenue.. Because the bush Tax cuts have really hurt the ability to control the debt.. Because there are too many loopholes in the tax code for the fat cats.


Because right now.. the top 1% is making too much fucking money compared to the rest of america, while at the same time hardly INVESTING it in the country.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is the paradox of a capitalist system. With out a legit tax code reform or flat tax, its the best thing we got. I'm not saying that its not fair or isn't right but I know others probably would share my sentiment of walking into these conversations and talking plainly about what needs to be done. Again, I go back to my point on there can't be a conversation if people aren't willing to budge and compromise. In this day and age, there should be rage at both sides not just the prominent members of the parties.

In 2001, when we had a surplus Bush said that we should cut taxes because "the government is overcharging the american people".

We weren't underpending, we were overcharging.


After the massive tax cuts, we find ourselves in a place where we have a deficit.

Zack Morris time-out
Tax cuts happened because of the surplus which means that tax revenues went down. I'd conclude that spending stayed the same. If revenue goes down, spending stays the same or increases, that is why we were in a deficit.

Logic holds that we aren't overspending, we're undercharging.

Again, I refer to the above.

That holds true. Someone wants to link that cartoon/chart showing that as a percentage of GDP....we've never spent less on the good stuff?

Or lets use everybodys favorite

Spoiler

idiotic

small business example.

If a small business is losing money because the chicken costs $4 to buy, and you're selling it at $3.50 do you...

a) Raise the price
or
b) Stop serving chicken breast and start serving chicken feet, to hold the price steady

A small business owner would increase the cost to cover expenses and make a profit. However, the part of this example that you're leaving out is the fact that the owner is spending $100,000 a month buying new locations to open new operations. Bottom line, expanding without researching whether or not the company is profitable or not. Same goes for the government.

I'm sorry but I won't afford the courtesy to a reckless bunch of selfish individuals who want nothing more than the president to fall and the country to slip. Just because they have political clout does not mean whack.

Same could be said of us all, but again, those aren't the principles that get a deal done.

 

[Vestal]

So apparently bahner was the one who didn't dare call obama back before 5:30...

NO BALLS.. He didn't dare give Obama the chance to go on before 5 oclock and let the Fury of Wallstreet come down on Bahner.

 

[Oblivion]

btw, when did Major Garret move to the National Journal? did he get fired by Fox?

Don't think he got fired, pretty sure he quit. But yeah, he's been at the NJ for several months now.

 

[speculawyer]

You know what, we tell out debt holders "Hey, fuck you. You know all that policing we've been doing of the world for the last 60 years and the foreign aid we've provided? We're calling it even, thanks."

NOTHING is going to happen.

What? First of all, we owe most of that debt to ourselves. So we should tell ourselves to fuck ourselves?

And second . . . nothing is going to happen? Based on what? . . . what your am radio jock is telling you?


Boom goes the ban hammer.

 

[Vestal]

Tax cuts happened because of the surplus which means that tax revenues went down. I'd conclude that spending stayed the same. If revenue goes down, spending stays the same or increases, that is why we were in a deficit.

Iraq War says hello.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

NET SURPLUS/DEFICIT = REVENUES - SPENDING.

You tell me why we've been lowering taxes the last 30 years (decreasing revenues) and how that won't cause a problem.

The decrease in tax revenues over the last 3 years exceed the increase in spending. The increase in spending trails the growth in GDP. in other words, government has gotten smaller over the last several years. Yet even if you put a spendign freeze on the absolute dollar amount for spending in the budget, despite inflation and cost of living changes and the value of the dollar plumetting, you know what? The deficit would still be closer to what it is today than what it was back in 2007.

What the fuck needs to be done to get it through your and the 150 million other morons' thick skulls in this country to get you to see taxe shave to go up?

All you do when you cut taxes is make the existing debt an even bigger number in comparison to the government budget. You make the debt bigger and harder to pay off regardless of whatever else the fuck you do with spending cuts and what not.

I was appalled when, in college, we spent 75 fucking minutes going over y=mx+b in microeconomics, but it's pretty clear even that's way above the heads of most people, people who elect retards like themselves into government and don't even know what the fuck it means to have two aspects to cash flows.

Even I get it. I did awful in Economics because the teacher didn't know shit. To see people question it is frustrating as all hell.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

kosmo was banned? ok...

 

[Pctx]

Really?

So you are fine with not having a program that helps insure children of families who otherwise can't afford the amounts charged by insurance companies?

What part of the American dream is that listed under? Or better yet... does that fall under the line: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit"? Now you can twist what I've said against me (and I wouldn't be surprised) but the responsibility of taking care of children should be done by the citizens or a citizen entity, not the government.

 

[scorcho]

Iraq War says hello.

in addition to all the funky accounting the Bush Administration did to push the actual costs of the war off the books throughout their time in the WH.

 

[polyh3dron]

Boom goes the ban hammer.

Aww that's not fair. It's not his fault that the conservative talking points he regurgitates are disingenuous.

 

[BotoxAgent]

I'd conclude that spending stayed the same.

did u forget we invaded a country?

 

[Vanillalite]

Boom goes the ban hammer.

Oh snap I just noticed that too!

Iraq War says hello.

Yep that and Afghanistan... both meant spending obviously didn't stay the same...

 

[Crisis]

I'd love to hear as to why (from a different viewpoint than my own) as to why we need raises in taxes.... anyone care to give their opinion?

Hi. We've been paying for over a decade of Bush tax cuts with no increase in revenue to offset them. It's real simple. Those tax cuts are a handout to the richest people in this country. They are earning record profits, and unemployment has stuck at around 9.2%. The old argument that "taxes take away jobs" is no longer valid when the exact opposite is occurring. Secondly, if you believe in balancing a budget then this also makes sense. You cannot have it both ways.

What part of the American dream is that listed under? Or better yet... does that fall under the line: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit"? Now you can twist what I've said against me (and I wouldn't be surprised) but the responsibility of taking care of children should be done by the citizens or a citizen entity, not the government.

If I don't have health insurance because it's literally unaffordable otherwise, there exists the very real possibility that I could die from illness. Death is going to prove to be an unworkable compromise in the pursuit for life.

 

[Pctx]

Iraq War says hello.

Which the point stands of which (I think) most shared here (which I'm in agreement with), tax cuts during war time was a stupid idea.

 

[scorcho]

kosmo was banned? ok...

pretty sure that's because of his idiotic post in the Norway bombing thread about the 'failure of multiculturalism' when all evidence points to something different.

 

[polyh3dron]

did u forget we invaded a country?

bu bu but we only started spending money on that when Obama got elected, that's what the budget told me

 

[Oblivion]

The Bush tax cuts depeleted the revenue streams by almost $3 trillion. THAT'S why we need tax increases. It's not difficult.

 

[RustyNails]

Same could be said of us all, but again, those aren't the principles that get a deal done.

Option A: Default. The country's debt rating is reduced to junk and the world dominance of USA in global economy is swiftly curtailed. The markets go haywire, the seniors lose their benefits and the the medicare cow is slaughtered.

Option B: Debt ceiling is raised + measures to balance our budget are put in.

Now tell me how could the same be said of us all when we are the ones backing Option B while the teabaggers and people of lower intellect are screaming Option A?

 

[ChoklitReign]

Why do PoliGAFfers always get banned for comments on non-political news?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I mean, "Why would taxes need to be part of a solution to reduce the debt?" Is such a fucking retarded question I can't believe it's being seriously asked.

You might as well ask "Why would the government need money to reduce the debt?"

 

[scorcho]

Why do PoliGAFfers always get banned for comments on non-political news?

well, it fits Kosmo's MO to blindly talk shit about a topic he knows nothing about, no?

 

[kkaabboomm]

redstate got hacked?

 

[RustyNails]

kosmo was banned? ok...

These are troubled times. SomeDude's post is imminent.

 

[Jackson50]

You know who's more incompetent than the democrats?

Third parties.

Polls show everyone hates the GOP house.

Polls show people are unhappy with Obama.


There has never been a better time for a candidate to come out and say "Im not with them"

So whats the holdup?

While many third parties have been incompetent, there are significant structural, institutional, and social impediments preventing viable third parties.

A significant hindrance is our electoral system. A SMDP system facilitates a two-party system. Now, this can be overcome in certain instances; e.g., strong regional preferences in Canada. Otherwise, it is a fairly consistent occurrence. This occurrence is usually explained by two effects: the wasted-vote effect and the spoiler effect. Essentially, a voter does not want to support a candidate that has poor prospects; furthermore, voting for a third-party candidate may spoil the election and aid the least preferred candidate. These compel voters to view the system as binary.

Additionally, the elimination of fusion voting has facilitated the two-party system. Fusion voting allows two political parties to nominate the same candidate. This reduces the chance of a vote being wasted and spoiling the election. Thus, voters are more likely to support a third party. Fusion voting is responsible for New York's unique party system. Now, fusion voting is not a panacea. Yet it can reduce the stranglehold of the two dominant parties. Furthermore, the current two-party system has become normalized. It has been stable for nearly 150 years. It will be difficult to change the political culture that has been built upon the Republican/Democrat dichotomy.

There are a few other causes. But until we implement significant reform, the two-party system will persist.

 

[Amir0x]

this game of chicken is getting old

i just hope america blames the appropriate people if we cross the line and shit collapses on their heads.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Why do PoliGAFfers always get banned for comments on non-political news?

They get greedy and fly too close to the sun on wings of pastrami

 

[Vanillalite]

Which the point stands of which (I think) most shared here (which I'm in agreement with), tax cuts during war time was a stupid idea.

Still doesn't solve the fact that you specifically stated....

I'd conclude that spending stayed the same.

 

[jamesinclair]

Zack Morris time-out
Tax cuts happened because of the surplus which means that tax revenues went down. I'd conclude that spending stayed the same. If revenue goes down, spending stays the same or increases, that is why we were in a deficit.


A small business owner would increase the cost to cover expenses and make a profit. However, the part of this example that you're leaving out is the fact that the owner is spending $100,000 a month buying new locations to open new operations. Bottom line, expanding without researching whether or not the company is profitable or not. Same goes for the government.

.

Bush cut revenue but he didnt hold spending constant. He did this whole TWO GIANT FUCKING WARS thing.



Heres another problem with your train of thought. Discretionary government is smallest now than it's been in the last century.

But we have this thing called "progress" and "technology" that has caused government spending to go up.

This isnt a bad thing.


What do you think the FAA budget was in 1900? Oh right. We invented planes, plane travel became a thing, and the government had to grow to accommodate it.

Air traffic control, airports, customs agents etc etc.

Would we be better off if the government eliminated the FAA, and we go back to spending the same as we did in 1900?


What was the highway budget in 1900?

Oh right. We invented cars, car travel became a thing, and the government had to grow to accommodate it.

Highway construction, maintenance, signs, painting, snow plowing etc etc.

Would we be better off if the government eliminated the interstate system, and we go back to spending the same as we did in 1900?


I can do this over and over again.


Our quality of life has gone up. This isn't a bad thing. It costs money. This isnt a bad thing.

If you want to see what happens when a government spends money at a 1900 level, go to Somalia, Sudan. Sierra Leon, etc etc

Our government has grown, because it has made our life better.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

redstate got hacked?

lol yes

 

[Pctx]

Hi. We've been paying for over a decade of Bush tax cuts with no increase in revenue to offset them. It's real simple. Those tax cuts are a handout to the richest people in this country. They are earning record profits, and unemployment has stuck at around 9.2%. The old argument that "taxes take away jobs" is no longer valid when the exact opposite is occurring. Secondly, if you believe in balancing a budget then this also makes sense. You cannot have it both ways.

understood. I actually would love to see a surplus again but who knows, maybe that is unrealistic of me.

If I don't have health insurance because it's literally unaffordable otherwise, there exists the very real possibility that I could die from illness. Death is going to prove to be an unworkable compromise in the pursuit for life.

Problem with the market of which has been an issue forever. Besides, any person (child or adult) that enters an ER would get treated. Again, the system we've been given.

 

[kkaabboomm]

lol yes

looks like their twitter got hacked, too. basically Neil's password? and from there access to their (his) twitter account and their site?

"Right now, Verizon DSL intermittent outages are preventing me from fixing @redstate. Send them hate mail." -- http://twitter.com/#!/presjpolk/status/94555487307169792

might not be a hack, might be a major tech glitch. problem solved.

 

[teruterubozu]

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Republicans. Party first. "All other priorities rescinded."

 

[BotoxAgent]

I didn't mind having Kosmo around....he sounds just like my loony cousins....and spews the same dumb talking points, so I loved everyone's response to him which I, in turn, use over the dinner table usually resulting me owning them most of the time. Thanks PoliGAF.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

You know what, we tell out debt holders "Hey, fuck you. You know all that policing we've been doing of the world for the last 60 years and the foreign aid we've provided? We're calling it even, thanks."

There's some PoliGAFers with some dumbass ideas about things, but this is one of the dumbest. I'll just go with the most obvious part: 53% of the national debt is owed TO AMERICANS.

Seriously, you are banned and are probably too dumb to figure how to clear cookies and read this as a guess, but just in case: you are D-U-M-B. Remember that the next time you think you have an opinion. You don't. You have a neural malfunction disguised as a thought.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

understood. I actually would love to see a surplus again but who knows, maybe that is unrealistic of me.


Problem with the market of which has been an issue forever. Besides, any person (child or adult) that enters an ER would get treated. Again, the system we've been given.

Will they be treated? Sure. Will they receive a huge bill in the mail that they won't be able to pay, go into collections, STILL not be able to pay, possibly lose their home, credit ruined, and more? Sure. Will WE be responsible for the tab? YES. It is financially harmful to the rest of us when people are unable to pay their hospital bills. But guess what, health insurance companies are raking in billions every quarter. Congrats.

 

[Cyan]

well, it fits Kosmo's MO to blindly talk shit about a topic he knows nothing about, no?

Between the marginal tax rate thing and now apparently not knowing that more than half of our public debt is held by Americans... yeah.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

understood. I actually would love to see a surplus again but who knows, maybe that is unrealistic of me.

Who wouldn't love to see a surplus? It's a sign of stability, no?

 

[Pctx]

Option A: Default. The country's debt rating is reduced to junk and the world dominance of USA in global economy is swiftly curtailed. The markets go haywire, the seniors lose their benefits and the the medicare cow is slaughtered.

Option B: Debt ceiling is raised + measures to balance our budget are put in.

Now tell me how could the same be said of us all when we are the ones backing Option B while the teabaggers and people of lower intellect are screaming Option A?

The biggest difference whether anyone sees it or not is the handling of the problem. Everyone talks as if the Teaparty members want us to default to prove a point. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Do they want their money to be worthless? Do they want to not eat? Do they Americans to be punished for their choices? Only those who carry those ideals could answer that. It is increasingly typical though of most people who clump groups of people into one column of stereotype to either: A) Get hung up on the mob mentality of what they are trying to do and B) Dismiss the person as if they are non-important to solving the problem.

This discussion can go back and forth but takes all parties involved to make the best choices for what the future of the country looks like. Just because the Teaparty members may look, act and sound crazy doesn't mean you just automatically discount them from the population pool of the country.

What will eventually happen is that the sides will concede, the ceiling will be raised, people will yell, shout, spit, yell slurs and hate on both sides and then people will calm down and go about their business.

Yep that and Afghanistan... both meant spending obviously didn't stay the same...

I wasn't thinking about either (sorry) as I was purely thinking of program spending. Both of the wars though caused a huge increase in government spending and I will agree with that. Still not sure why we're still in either but that's another topic.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Brilliantly Put:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q8MvUiK7n90