..
- Thread starter Soodmeg
- Start date
Well all this article does is validate what I've suspected, that there's been money around and it's just not being spent. So let's find some way, if possible, to hold the people accountable doing this and make them pay the taxes on it instead of allowing them to get even more invasive advertising for pennies on the dollar.
I agree with Cheapest about dropping a lot of foreign aid, especially with the Saudi's. I know there's a decent amount of religious extremists there but I really wouldn't care if the money was dropped and the gap in their money created a security hole that possibly got them killed. Boohoo, some idiots die who have more money then sense.
I agree with Cheapest about dropping a lot of foreign aid, especially with the Saudi's. I know there's a decent amount of religious extremists there but I really wouldn't care if the money was dropped and the gap in their money created a security hole that possibly got them killed. Boohoo, some idiots die who have more money then sense.
[quote name='RealDeals']Where to begin... First, to 'quantify' that statement, I mean pay whatever you would at the current tax rate if you weren't hiding funds in 
ing offshore accounts. Just your legal, accountable due, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
So - you believe the "Bush tax cuts" should stay in place and that tax rates shouldn't go up for anyone then?
Yeah, damn conservatives. I mean, they're totally 100% responsible for "Defense" spending. That's why when we got a nice, responsible liberal into the Oval Office, "Defense" spending went down. Oh, and he went and put someone in charge of foreign policy that wasn't a ****nut who voted to go to war in Iraq.
I don't go for the "too big to fail" BS.
And by the way - while Ford lobbied for the passage of the bill, Ford took $0 in "bailout" funds from the AIFP/TARP.
ing offshore accounts. Just your legal, accountable due, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]So - you believe the "Bush tax cuts" should stay in place and that tax rates shouldn't go up for anyone then?
Yeah, damn conservatives. I mean, they're totally 100% responsible for "Defense" spending. That's why when we got a nice, responsible liberal into the Oval Office, "Defense" spending went down. Oh, and he went and put someone in charge of foreign policy that wasn't a ****nut who voted to go to war in Iraq.
We "owe" China what?
As someone also from Illinois, you know as well as I do the rust belt states would be completely
I don't go for the "too big to fail" BS.
And by the way - while Ford lobbied for the passage of the bill, Ford took $0 in "bailout" funds from the AIFP/TARP.
[quote name='UncleBob']So - you believe the "Bush tax cuts" should stay in place and that tax rates shouldn't go up for anyone then?
Yeah, damn conservatives. I mean, they're totally 100% responsible for "Defense" spending. That's why when we got a nice, responsible liberal into the Oval Office, "Defense" spending went down. Oh, and he went and put someone in charge of foreign policy that wasn't a ****nut who voted to go to war in Iraq.
We "owe" China what?
I don't go for the "too big to fail" BS.
And by the way - while Ford lobbied for the passage of the bill, Ford took $0 in "bailout" funds from the AIFP/TARP.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl3571AmS98
You literally missed EVERY point I made... Did you pass high school reading?
How the can you interpret me saying we should establish a way to stop the rich from using offshore accounts as tax evasion to supporting the Bush tax cuts? To spell it out for you, I'm saying we need a way where this sort of (as it is now) legal fraud can end. Possibly establish a way where you're taxed (the rich, not you and me 
) on your total net earned regardless of where you earned it or are filing it under. As long as you pay American taxes, account for ALL you earned.
Last I checked, every Republican congressman except ONE approved Iraq and Afghanistan. And I do believe it was Mr. Bush's unfruitful wars that added trillions to that precious deficit you seem to care so much about. And I do believe a Mr. Barack Hussein Obama voted against the approval of these wars. Or, y'know, disregard facts...
What do we owe China? Oh, not much... Over a trillion dollars. I suggest we get started on this http://www.theonion.com/articles/china-agrees-to-erase-portion-of-us-debt-if-americ,20913/
And again, I don'ting care whether you agreed with the concept of 'too big to fail'. (Da does that have to do with anything? The fact that the bailout worked and revived those companies might actually be considered proof that tenet is true {SARCASM}) How exactly do you think a billion dollar company ready to declare bankruptcy and lay off hundreds of thousands of jobs dramatically bounced back with 0 help? Sometimes you have to realize the difference between being told it's raining and pissed on :lol:
Yeah, damn conservatives. I mean, they're totally 100% responsible for "Defense" spending. That's why when we got a nice, responsible liberal into the Oval Office, "Defense" spending went down. Oh, and he went and put someone in charge of foreign policy that wasn't a ****nut who voted to go to war in Iraq.
We "owe" China what?
I don't go for the "too big to fail" BS.
And by the way - while Ford lobbied for the passage of the bill, Ford took $0 in "bailout" funds from the AIFP/TARP.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl3571AmS98
You literally missed EVERY point I made... Did you pass high school reading?
How the
can you interpret me saying we should establish a way to stop the rich from using offshore accounts as tax evasion to supporting the Bush tax cuts? To spell it out for you, I'm saying we need a way where this sort of (as it is now) legal fraud can end. Possibly establish a way where you're taxed (the rich, not you and me ) on your total net earned regardless of where you earned it or are filing it under. As long as you pay American taxes, account for ALL you earned.Last I checked, every Republican congressman except ONE approved Iraq and Afghanistan. And I do believe it was Mr. Bush's unfruitful wars that added trillions to that precious deficit you seem to care so much about. And I do believe a Mr. Barack Hussein Obama voted against the approval of these wars. Or, y'know, disregard facts
...What do we owe China? Oh, not much... Over a trillion dollars. I suggest we get started on this http://www.theonion.com/articles/china-agrees-to-erase-portion-of-us-debt-if-americ,20913/
And again, I don't
ing care whether you agreed with the concept of 'too big to fail'. (Da does that have to do with anything? The fact that the bailout worked and revived those companies might actually be considered proof that tenet is true {SARCASM}) How exactly do you think a billion dollar company ready to declare bankruptcy and lay off hundreds of thousands of jobs dramatically bounced back with 0 help? Sometimes you have to realize the difference between being told it's raining and pissed on :lol:This should be fun.
[quote name='RealDeals']
How the can you interpret me saying we should establish a way to stop the rich from using offshore accounts as tax evasion to supporting the Bush tax cuts?[/quote]
Because you said it. With the words you used.
[quote name='RealDeals']Where to begin... First, to 'quantify' that statement, I mean pay whatever you would at the current tax rate if you weren't hiding funds ining offshore accounts. Just your legal, accountable due, nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]
Why just "the rich"? Why not subject everyone to the same rules?
heh.
hehe.
A little history lesson for you, my friend. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" was passed in 2001. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was passed in (duh) 2002.
Your good buddy Mr. Barack Hussein Obama did not vote against the approval of either of these wars.
Go ahead - check out the voting lists for each of these "approvals of war". You won't find his name in the "Nay" column. For that matter, you won't find his name in any column.
Because HE WASN'T ****ING IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME. Obama wasn't elected at the federal level until 2004. I mean, talk about your revisionist history right there... seriously.
And sure, Obama gets to say now "Oh, I would have voted against them."... but that doesn't change the fact that he then put an individual in charge of his foreign policy who not only voted FOR both wars, but actively championed for the war in Iraq.
And how, exactly, does us owing them money require us to give them "aid" and such?
Not interested in seeing them "bounce back". We constantly cry for the days when the little guys had a chance to do something, but now the big mean corporations beat them down and don't even give them a chance - here was a chance for newer and smaller automotive manufacturers to rise from the failed ashes of a corporation that was too stuck in their ways to make it. At the point the government starts propping up business (which, to be fair, they've been doing this long before the auto bailouts), you can't reasonably blame the evil corporations for everything that goes wrong.
[quote name='RealDeals']
How the
can you interpret me saying we should establish a way to stop the rich from using offshore accounts as tax evasion to supporting the Bush tax cuts?[/quote]Because you said it. With the words you used.
[quote name='RealDeals']Where to begin... First, to 'quantify' that statement, I mean pay whatever you would at the current tax rate if you weren't hiding funds in
ing offshore accounts. Just your legal, accountable due, nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]To spell it out for you, I'm saying we need a way where this sort of (as it is now) legal fraud can end. Possibly establish a way where you're taxed (the rich, not you and me
Why just "the rich"? Why not subject everyone to the same rules?
And I do believe a Mr. Barack Hussein Obama voted against the approval of these wars. Or, y'know, disregard facts
heh.
hehe.
A little history lesson for you, my friend. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" was passed in 2001. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was passed in (duh) 2002.
Your good buddy Mr. Barack Hussein Obama did not vote against the approval of either of these wars.
Go ahead - check out the voting lists for each of these "approvals of war". You won't find his name in the "Nay" column. For that matter, you won't find his name in any column.
Because HE WASN'T ****ING IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME. Obama wasn't elected at the federal level until 2004. I mean, talk about your revisionist history right there... seriously.
And sure, Obama gets to say now "Oh, I would have voted against them."... but that doesn't change the fact that he then put an individual in charge of his foreign policy who not only voted FOR both wars, but actively championed for the war in Iraq.
And how, exactly, does us owing them money require us to give them "aid" and such?
Not interested in seeing them "bounce back". We constantly cry for the days when the little guys had a chance to do something, but now the big mean corporations beat them down and don't even give them a chance - here was a chance for newer and smaller automotive manufacturers to rise from the failed ashes of a corporation that was too stuck in their ways to make it. At the point the government starts propping up business (which, to be fair, they've been doing this long before the auto bailouts), you can't reasonably blame the evil corporations for everything that goes wrong.
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
[quote name='Clak']Some may take this as excusing or endorsing the Saudi government, but do take into consideration what could happen if we were to piss them off.[/QUOTE]
You mean such things as the U.S. having to rely on our own resources or find alternative ways to fuel vehicles other than burning fossil fuels? Imagine that.
You mean such things as the U.S. having to rely on our own resources or find alternative ways to fuel vehicles other than burning fossil fuels? Imagine that.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
A day will come our debts come due and when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency. What will our Government say? "Raise taxes," of course. That solves so much. And I will say "then stop spending money you don't have." They will laugh at the thought of acting responsibly.
[quote name='KingBroly']A day will come our debts come due and when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency. What will our Government say? "Raise taxes," of course. That solves so much. And I will say "then stop spending money you don't have." They will laugh at the thought of acting responsibly.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...being a bit sanctimonious aren't you? Especially when most of the cutting you'd suggest will come from social programs that will be needed more than ever? Not to mention the ridiculous notion of US debt being compared to individual debt and collection agencies...again.
People aren't laughing about acting responsibly; they're laughing at someone that thinks a country's finances can be run in the same way a family household budget is.
LOLZ...being a bit sanctimonious aren't you? Especially when most of the cutting you'd suggest will come from social programs that will be needed more than ever? Not to mention the ridiculous notion of US debt being compared to individual debt and collection agencies...again.
People aren't laughing about acting responsibly; they're laughing at someone that thinks a country's finances can be run in the same way a family household budget is.
[quote name='UncleBob']This should be fun.
Because you said it. With the words you used.
Why just "the rich"? Why not subject everyone to the same rules?
heh.
hehe.
A little history lesson for you, my friend. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" was passed in 2001. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was passed in (duh) 2002.
Your good buddy Mr. Barack Hussein Obama did not vote against the approval of either of these wars.
Go ahead - check out the voting lists for each of these "approvals of war". You won't find his name in the "Nay" column. For that matter, you won't find his name in any column.
Because HE WASN'T ****ING IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME. Obama wasn't elected at the federal level until 2004. I mean, talk about your revisionist history right there... seriously.
And sure, Obama gets to say now "Oh, I would have voted against them."... but that doesn't change the fact that he then put an individual in charge of his foreign policy who not only voted FOR both wars, but actively championed for the war in Iraq.
And how, exactly, does us owing them money require us to give them "aid" and such?
Not interested in seeing them "bounce back". We constantly cry for the days when the little guys had a chance to do something, but now the big mean corporations beat them down and don't even give them a chance - here was a chance for newer and smaller automotive manufacturers to rise from the failed ashes of a corporation that was too stuck in their ways to make it. At the point the government starts propping up business (which, to be fair, they've been doing this long before the auto bailouts), you can't reasonably blame the evil corporations for everything that goes wrong.[/QUOTE]
At this point, getting the rich to pay even the ridiculously lenient Bush imposed taxes would be a victory. My problem is they squabble over and find ways to avoid even those. I subject rich to higher rules because you and I do not have methods of legal tax evasion such as this. We can't manage offshore accounts. The IRS would bust our ass over pocket change. If you think there isn't a discrepancy, you're disillusioned. IMO, such changes would just make it a somewhat more level playing field.
My bad on Obama voting against Iraq, I just remember him being Senator at the time and forgot he was still just a State Senator. You got me on that one
Still, he was undoubtedly opposed from the start, though I'll give you I too wish he'd do more to end ALL the wars.
I'm saying when the times comes when things such as aid to China are laid on the table, our current erhmm... 'circumstance' might sway us to help just a bit more. It's not like it's stopped, we're STILL borrowing.
I think the employees at those companies cared a lot when they bounced back, considering that's their livelihood and all. I'm not too thrilled about almost being bound to saving such a monopoly, but I'll swallow my chagrin at that and take solace in that those people kept work.
Because you said it. With the words you used.
Why just "the rich"? Why not subject everyone to the same rules?
heh.
hehe.
A little history lesson for you, my friend. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" was passed in 2001. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was passed in (duh) 2002.
Your good buddy Mr. Barack Hussein Obama did not vote against the approval of either of these wars.
Go ahead - check out the voting lists for each of these "approvals of war". You won't find his name in the "Nay" column. For that matter, you won't find his name in any column.
Because HE WASN'T ****ING IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME. Obama wasn't elected at the federal level until 2004. I mean, talk about your revisionist history right there... seriously.
And sure, Obama gets to say now "Oh, I would have voted against them."... but that doesn't change the fact that he then put an individual in charge of his foreign policy who not only voted FOR both wars, but actively championed for the war in Iraq.
And how, exactly, does us owing them money require us to give them "aid" and such?
Not interested in seeing them "bounce back". We constantly cry for the days when the little guys had a chance to do something, but now the big mean corporations beat them down and don't even give them a chance - here was a chance for newer and smaller automotive manufacturers to rise from the failed ashes of a corporation that was too stuck in their ways to make it. At the point the government starts propping up business (which, to be fair, they've been doing this long before the auto bailouts), you can't reasonably blame the evil corporations for everything that goes wrong.[/QUOTE]
At this point, getting the rich to pay even the ridiculously lenient Bush imposed taxes would be a victory. My problem is they squabble over and find ways to avoid even those. I subject rich to higher rules because you and I do not have methods of legal tax evasion such as this. We can't manage offshore accounts. The IRS would bust our ass over pocket change. If you think there isn't a discrepancy, you're disillusioned. IMO, such changes would just make it a somewhat more level playing field.
My bad on Obama voting against Iraq, I just remember him being Senator at the time and forgot he was still just a State Senator. You got me on that one
Still, he was undoubtedly opposed from the start, though I'll give you I too wish he'd do more to end ALL the wars.I'm saying when the times comes when things such as aid to China are laid on the table, our current erhmm... 'circumstance' might sway us to help just a bit more. It's not like it's stopped, we're STILL borrowing.
I think the employees at those companies cared a lot when they bounced back, considering that's their livelihood and all.
I'm not too thrilled about almost being bound to saving such a monopoly, but I'll swallow my chagrin at that and take solace in that those people kept work.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...being a bit sanctimonious aren't you? Especially when most of the cutting you'd suggest will come from social programs that will be needed more than ever? Not to mention the ridiculous notion of US debt being compared to individual debt and collection agencies...again.
People aren't laughing about acting responsibly; they're laughing at someone that thinks a country's finances can be run in the same way a family household budget is.[/QUOTE]
I want to cut programs that legitimately do not work. I do not know which ones to cut because there are a ton of them to sort through. I also believe that the Federal Government can be run a lot more efficiently than it does currently. That alone would save a lot of money. Our current path is unsustainable, and something needs to be done. You may not like cutting social programs, but when they take up the majority of the budget, it's easiest to cut fat from there.
As for collection agencies, I'd say countries we owe debt to (China) are considered collection agencies that are currently out to lunch, but can return at any time. People are scared about that happening, and there are no signs the Federal Government is going to let up on its' current spending habits. Printing more dollars just devalues the currency even more, and when we try to offer our worthless dollars to them, they will say 'you need something better than that.' Then what? Making peoples' hard earned money worthless on a global scale, where inflation skyrockets due to import costs skyrocketing is not acting in their best interest.
People aren't laughing about acting responsibly; they're laughing at someone that thinks a country's finances can be run in the same way a family household budget is.[/QUOTE]
I want to cut programs that legitimately do not work. I do not know which ones to cut because there are a ton of them to sort through. I also believe that the Federal Government can be run a lot more efficiently than it does currently. That alone would save a lot of money. Our current path is unsustainable, and something needs to be done. You may not like cutting social programs, but when they take up the majority of the budget, it's easiest to cut fat from there.
As for collection agencies, I'd say countries we owe debt to (China) are considered collection agencies that are currently out to lunch, but can return at any time. People are scared about that happening, and there are no signs the Federal Government is going to let up on its' current spending habits. Printing more dollars just devalues the currency even more, and when we try to offer our worthless dollars to them, they will say 'you need something better than that.' Then what? Making peoples' hard earned money worthless on a global scale, where inflation skyrockets due to import costs skyrocketing is not acting in their best interest.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
China owns about 8% of the debt. Inflation is steady at record lows. Real bond yields are zero to negative, meaning people actually pay to have the US borrow their money, because its safe. China is still quite happy to continue to buy more. Collecting the interest is fine with them. Under the circumstances, we should be borrowing like crazy to get us out of this mess.
Surely by now everyone has seen the budget balancing game from the New York Times. Balancing the budget within your particular ideological framework is actually very easy. Of course balancing it with austerity actually makes things worse in anything other than the short term, but the option is there and it technically works on paper. I did it with very little cutting, and nearly all of the cutting defense related. The game isnt even very creative with its options. It doesnt even include repealing the Reagan tax cuts. In reality, doing it without touching any social programs would be a piece of cake on paper. Its all politics that gets in the way.
Surely by now everyone has seen the budget balancing game from the New York Times. Balancing the budget within your particular ideological framework is actually very easy. Of course balancing it with austerity actually makes things worse in anything other than the short term, but the option is there and it technically works on paper. I did it with very little cutting, and nearly all of the cutting defense related. The game isnt even very creative with its options. It doesnt even include repealing the Reagan tax cuts. In reality, doing it without touching any social programs would be a piece of cake on paper. Its all politics that gets in the way.
[quote name='RealDeals'] My bad on Obama voting against Iraq, I just remember him being Senator at the time and forgot he was still just a State Senator. You got me on that one Still, he was undoubtedly opposed from the start, though I'll give you I too wish he'd do more to end ALL the wars.[/QUOTE]
Another note on this - Once he was elected at the Federal level, Obama voted to pass all but one spending bill regarding defense spending (I believe the total number is ten). The final one he voted against he *originally* voted for, but then changed his vote when Bush vetoed the version of it that included a date for withdrawal from Iraq.
Regarding setting a date to withdraw from Iraq, the Bush administration did eventually set a date - which occurred during Obama's Presidency. And Obama kept that date... but only after failing to negotiate with the Iraqi government a way to keep our troops there - i.e.: he wanted to keep us in Iraq longer and spend *more* money.
To find more ways that Obama is working to cut military spending - http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
Still, he was undoubtedly opposed from the start, though I'll give you I too wish he'd do more to end ALL the wars.[/QUOTE]Another note on this - Once he was elected at the Federal level, Obama voted to pass all but one spending bill regarding defense spending (I believe the total number is ten). The final one he voted against he *originally* voted for, but then changed his vote when Bush vetoed the version of it that included a date for withdrawal from Iraq.
Regarding setting a date to withdraw from Iraq, the Bush administration did eventually set a date - which occurred during Obama's Presidency. And Obama kept that date... but only after failing to negotiate with the Iraqi government a way to keep our troops there - i.e.: he wanted to keep us in Iraq longer and spend *more* money.
To find more ways that Obama is working to cut military spending - http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
[quote name='KingBroly']I want to cut programs that legitimately do not work. I do not know which ones to cut because there are a ton of them to sort through. I also believe that the Federal Government can be run a lot more efficiently than it does currently. That alone would save a lot of money. Our current path is unsustainable, and something needs to be done. You may not like cutting social programs, but when they take up the majority of the budget, it's easiest to cut fat from there.[/quote]
So in your warped mind, programs to house, feed, school, and medically treat the citizens of the country are less important than creating tools of war and killing people. Did you cheer when Ron Paul said that we should allow someone with no insurance to die as well?
So in your warped mind, programs to house, feed, school, and medically treat the citizens of the country are less important than creating tools of war and killing people. Did you cheer when Ron Paul said that we should allow someone with no insurance to die as well?
It's hilarious that people always bring up China, but are so deep into their ideology that they don't really know who owns the debt and at what ratio. Here's a spoiler alert: Japan owns just as much as China. Not to mention any foreign entity calling in their debt marker is so removed from reality that it's farcical. All your chicken little inflation horseshit would never happen because the people that really control this country have a vested interest in making sure their stockpiles of money continues to be worth something. Gradual inflation is actually a GOOD thing for most people because it makes debt worth less. And with hyper-inflation, debts will literally be worthless. No one is going to call in those markers because it isn't good for anyone.
[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chr...ing-he‘d-’let-someone-die’-during-gop-debate/[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...theblaze.com. Paul's answer doesn't change the reality of how it would play out. Charity and churches can't solve systemic problems and we know exactly what the country and world would look like if we relied on churches and charity. You're handwaving all of recorded history to make a superficial point.
LOLZ...theblaze.com. Paul's answer doesn't change the reality of how it would play out. Charity and churches can't solve systemic problems and we know exactly what the country and world would look like if we relied on churches and charity. You're handwaving all of recorded history to make a superficial point.
"lolz republicans"
If someone proposed a system where all citizens were kept in 10x10 square rooms, fed 100% nutritious meals from a computer, forced to a perfect cycle of sleep and exercise and had perfectly filtered/mixed air/water - this system would save all kinds of lives.
If someone who supported this system and said anyone who was against it just wanted to let people die, that person would never be taken seriously.
That's because the vast, vast majority of us realize that there is an amount of risk that one faces when given freedoms.
The trick, of course, is determining the best way to balance risk vs. freedoms. But anyone who wants to sum up "the other side" as "you just want to let people die!" is not someone to be taken seriously.
If someone proposed a system where all citizens were kept in 10x10 square rooms, fed 100% nutritious meals from a computer, forced to a perfect cycle of sleep and exercise and had perfectly filtered/mixed air/water - this system would save all kinds of lives.
If someone who supported this system and said anyone who was against it just wanted to let people die, that person would never be taken seriously.
That's because the vast, vast majority of us realize that there is an amount of risk that one faces when given freedoms.
The trick, of course, is determining the best way to balance risk vs. freedoms. But anyone who wants to sum up "the other side" as "you just want to let people die!" is not someone to be taken seriously.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']"lolz republicans"
If someone proposed a system where all citizens were kept in 10x10 square rooms, fed 100% nutritious meals from a computer, forced to a perfect cycle of sleep and exercise and had perfectly filtered/mixed air/water - this system would save all kinds of lives.
If someone who supported this system and said anyone who was against it just wanted to let people die, that person would never be taken seriously.
That's because the vast, vast majority of us realize that there is an amount of risk that one faces when given freedoms.
The trick, of course, is determining the best way to balance risk vs. freedoms. But anyone who wants to sum up "the other side" as "you just want to let people die!" is not someone to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
Matrix must have been on basic cable last night.
If someone proposed a system where all citizens were kept in 10x10 square rooms, fed 100% nutritious meals from a computer, forced to a perfect cycle of sleep and exercise and had perfectly filtered/mixed air/water - this system would save all kinds of lives.
If someone who supported this system and said anyone who was against it just wanted to let people die, that person would never be taken seriously.
That's because the vast, vast majority of us realize that there is an amount of risk that one faces when given freedoms.
The trick, of course, is determining the best way to balance risk vs. freedoms. But anyone who wants to sum up "the other side" as "you just want to let people die!" is not someone to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
Matrix must have been on basic cable last night.
[quote name='UncleBob']"lolz republicans"[/QUOTE]
No. It's "LULZ conservatives."
No. It's "LULZ conservatives."
Strawman. No one is making that argument.
Sorry, but cutting social services is EXACTLY what your side is advocating for. If the result is the same, what difference does intent make for someone that needs those services? What would your answer to them be? That they should've had the foresight to not get sick and plan better? That that was the risk they took and that's the price of freedumz? Better to die free from a curable illness than to live as a slave...cause taxation is slavery/theft/satan amirite!
They don't support social programs because without them the people they don't like anyway will hopefully just die off and decrease the surplus population. It's disturbing how Scrooge-like conservatives are. It proves that things don't really change as much as we think they do. These assholes existed in Dickens' time and they exist now.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']China owns about 8% of the debt. Inflation is steady at record lows. Real bond yields are zero to negative, meaning people actually pay to have the US borrow their money, because its safe. China is still quite happy to continue to buy more. Collecting the interest is fine with them. Under the circumstances, we should be borrowing like crazy to get us out of this mess.
Surely by now everyone has seen the budget balancing game from the New York Times. Balancing the budget within your particular ideological framework is actually very easy. Of course balancing it with austerity actually makes things worse in anything other than the short term, but the option is there and it technically works on paper. I did it with very little cutting, and nearly all of the cutting defense related. The game isnt even very creative with its options. It doesnt even include repealing the Reagan tax cuts. In reality, doing it without touching any social programs would be a piece of cake on paper. Its all politics that gets in the way.[/QUOTE]
You might want to also add that China is in the middle of political tornado right now, especially concerning trade. Bo Xilai really put a wrench in the capitalist friendly part of the politburo, and the old school socialists are putting them to task trying to gain power. Right now there is really no political will to effectively screw the US. This is especially true since if recent book fixing is correct (utility use is down enough that China is cooking those books, never a good sign when secondary monitors of economic stability need to be fixed) their economy is about to hit a wall.
Surely by now everyone has seen the budget balancing game from the New York Times. Balancing the budget within your particular ideological framework is actually very easy. Of course balancing it with austerity actually makes things worse in anything other than the short term, but the option is there and it technically works on paper. I did it with very little cutting, and nearly all of the cutting defense related. The game isnt even very creative with its options. It doesnt even include repealing the Reagan tax cuts. In reality, doing it without touching any social programs would be a piece of cake on paper. Its all politics that gets in the way.[/QUOTE]
You might want to also add that China is in the middle of political tornado right now, especially concerning trade. Bo Xilai really put a wrench in the capitalist friendly part of the politburo, and the old school socialists are putting them to task trying to gain power. Right now there is really no political will to effectively screw the US. This is especially true since if recent book fixing is correct (utility use is down enough that China is cooking those books, never a good sign when secondary monitors of economic stability need to be fixed) their economy is about to hit a wall.
[quote name='dohdough']Strawman. No one is making that argument.[/QUOTE]
$50k tax increase with no regards to income comes to mind here.
RE: Austerity
Austerity actually has a dramatic short term negative (see Estonia 2007) followed by a protracted recovery that's anemic even by standards of the current US recovery. Here's the fun backwards logic:
Unemployment is bad but jobs in govt services are worse, ergo we'll take the higher unemployment.
The cuts don't cover the loss of tax base
Just because the govt decides to cut spending across the board 50% doesn't mean that private industry will suddenly hire A.) unemployed former govt workers or B.) anyone at all
Private enterprise that is engaged in govt bidding for contracts will lose out with less spending. Cuts don't cover the tax base as more unemployment will result
I could go on. Seriously, it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see that the only thing Austerity will do is cause a bunch of BS in the immediate future, would likely double unemployment, has no clear exit strategery and has no benefit to a society at all. We The People is not I Amongst Another Large Group Of Individuals.
$50k tax increase with no regards to income comes to mind here.
RE: Austerity
Austerity actually has a dramatic short term negative (see Estonia 2007) followed by a protracted recovery that's anemic even by standards of the current US recovery. Here's the fun backwards logic:
Unemployment is bad but jobs in govt services are worse, ergo we'll take the higher unemployment.
The cuts don't cover the loss of tax base
Just because the govt decides to cut spending across the board 50% doesn't mean that private industry will suddenly hire A.) unemployed former govt workers or B.) anyone at all
Private enterprise that is engaged in govt bidding for contracts will lose out with less spending. Cuts don't cover the tax base as more unemployment will result
I could go on. Seriously, it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see that the only thing Austerity will do is cause a bunch of BS in the immediate future, would likely double unemployment, has no clear exit strategery and has no benefit to a society at all. We The People is not I Amongst Another Large Group Of Individuals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']They don't support social programs because without them the people they don't like anyway will hopefully just die off and decrease the surplus population. It's disturbing how Scrooge-like conservatives are. It proves that things don't really change as much as we think they do. These assholes existed in Dickens' time and they exist now.[/QUOTE]
You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net.
I advocate eliminating everything, but priorities are important. I'd rather cut Dept of Ag and Commerce subsidies than SS and Medicare. Better to phase out programs like those over a 25-30 year period than a full stop slash. During that same time I'd bring non-VA military spending down to 25 billion a year in 2012 dollars, and VA spending would naturally decrease as wars are eliminated. Elimination of federal taxes would start at the 30k level, and progress upward as programs are unwinded.
You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net.
I advocate eliminating everything, but priorities are important. I'd rather cut Dept of Ag and Commerce subsidies than SS and Medicare. Better to phase out programs like those over a 25-30 year period than a full stop slash. During that same time I'd bring non-VA military spending down to 25 billion a year in 2012 dollars, and VA spending would naturally decrease as wars are eliminated. Elimination of federal taxes would start at the 30k level, and progress upward as programs are unwinded.
[quote name='RealDeals']A lot of people are using the Colorado shooting to bring up gun reform again. (And, of course, Fox is trying to keep the discussion from taking place ) What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]
If they succeed I'll have to hide my guns in an offshore account.
) What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]If they succeed I'll have to hide my guns in an offshore account.
[quote name='dohdough']Strawman. No one is making that argument.[/quote]
You might need to look up the definition of the word "If".
But to that point, no legitimate person is making the argument that sick people should just die. Yet, the usual suspects around here are always ready to chime in with "you just want to let children die!".
Curious - if a man is sick from the flu. He says "No, I don't want medicine, I don't want a doctor - God will take care of me." and refuses any kind of help. He deteriorates and deteriorates, the entire time, making it clear - "No help." At what point should someone step in and force aid upon him.
[quote name='cindersphere']This is especially true since if recent book fixing is correct (utility use is down enough that China is cooking those books, never a good sign when secondary monitors of economic stability need to be fixed) their economy is about to hit a wall.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I see no reason for China to decide they might want to cash in their chips.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net..[/QUOTE]
Shhh. Crazy talk like that isn't allowed here.
Besides - even if you cut something like military spending, then you're cutting jobs - and the private sector isn't going to jump in and hire all those ex-soldiers and military contractors. Therefore, it's up to our government to find any pathetic reason they can to keep them on the payroll, or else unemployment, austerity, killing children, racism, blah, blah, blah.
You might need to look up the definition of the word "If".
But to that point, no legitimate person is making the argument that sick people should just die. Yet, the usual suspects around here are always ready to chime in with "you just want to let children die!".
Curious - if a man is sick from the flu. He says "No, I don't want medicine, I don't want a doctor - God will take care of me." and refuses any kind of help. He deteriorates and deteriorates, the entire time, making it clear - "No help." At what point should someone step in and force aid upon him.
[quote name='cindersphere']This is especially true since if recent book fixing is correct (utility use is down enough that China is cooking those books, never a good sign when secondary monitors of economic stability need to be fixed) their economy is about to hit a wall.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I see no reason for China to decide they might want to cash in their chips.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net..[/QUOTE]
Shhh. Crazy talk like that isn't allowed here.
Besides - even if you cut something like military spending, then you're cutting jobs - and the private sector isn't going to jump in and hire all those ex-soldiers and military contractors. Therefore, it's up to our government to find any pathetic reason they can to keep them on the payroll, or else unemployment, austerity, killing children, racism, blah, blah, blah.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']
Yeah, I see no reason for China to decide they might want to cash in their chips.
[/QUOTE]
If you missed my point, China can't call in the debt. Their economy is flagging, hard. Disruptions in the US/UK economy will send China down the same hole we are. But supposing China does decide that your pov is right bob and liquidate their supply of American debt, what is the most likely scenario? The US dollar is the reserve currency, that means that whoever they sell their debt to, they will most likely get dollars right back. However lets say they really want to show off and drop their supply of dollars as well, so they buy a reserve currency that will probably be a combination of Yen/Pound/Euro, and what happens then? The economies they buy currencies from will then go out and buy American dollars yet again, meaning that the only change is China loses leverage with the US and puts its own economy in undue risk (a risky thing to do in Chinas current political climate) and more US debt finds its way into the hands of countries that aren't antagonistic to the US.
In the end there IS no good reason for them to liquidate their american debt or call it in as you say, certainly not now while the country is not in a strong position.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net.
I advocate eliminating everything, but priorities are important. I'd rather cut Dept of Ag and Commerce subsidies than SS and Medicare.[/QUOTE]
Question, which program cutting would achieve this and what would be the results of those cuts? Secondly, why cut the Department of Agriculture? I am a bit lost on why that is so high up on the list.
Yeah, I see no reason for China to decide they might want to cash in their chips.
[/QUOTE]
If you missed my point, China can't call in the debt. Their economy is flagging, hard. Disruptions in the US/UK economy will send China down the same hole we are. But supposing China does decide that your pov is right bob and liquidate their supply of American debt, what is the most likely scenario? The US dollar is the reserve currency, that means that whoever they sell their debt to, they will most likely get dollars right back. However lets say they really want to show off and drop their supply of dollars as well, so they buy a reserve currency that will probably be a combination of Yen/Pound/Euro, and what happens then? The economies they buy currencies from will then go out and buy American dollars yet again, meaning that the only change is China loses leverage with the US and puts its own economy in undue risk (a risky thing to do in Chinas current political climate) and more US debt finds its way into the hands of countries that aren't antagonistic to the US.
In the end there IS no good reason for them to liquidate their american debt or call it in as you say, certainly not now while the country is not in a strong position.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net.
I advocate eliminating everything, but priorities are important. I'd rather cut Dept of Ag and Commerce subsidies than SS and Medicare.[/QUOTE]
Question, which program cutting would achieve this and what would be the results of those cuts? Secondly, why cut the Department of Agriculture? I am a bit lost on why that is so high up on the list.
Last edited by a moderator:
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You can cut military/national security spending and several departments and balance the budget. All without touching the basic safety net.
I advocate eliminating everything, but priorities are important. I'd rather cut Dept of Ag and Commerce subsidies than SS and Medicare.[/QUOTE]
Question, which program cutting would achieve this and what would be the results of those cuts? Secondly, why cut the Department of Agriculture? I am a bit lost on why that is so high up on the list.
I advocate eliminating everything, but priorities are important. I'd rather cut Dept of Ag and Commerce subsidies than SS and Medicare.[/QUOTE]
Question, which program cutting would achieve this and what would be the results of those cuts? Secondly, why cut the Department of Agriculture? I am a bit lost on why that is so high up on the list.
bread's done