OMG the goverment is shutting down. Now where will I get cheese from....

[quote name='UncleBob']Pretend, for a moment, that you 100% believe life begins at conception. That a fetus in the womb is equal to a baby outside of the womb. Now, a woman says "Hey, I want to kill this baby." For the purpose of this post, I'm not going to define status of the baby (i.e. born or unborn) as, again, you're pretending that they are equal. Are you not allowed to object to this woman who wants to kill her baby (which may or may not be born) because you have a penis?[/QUOTE]

See, the water, the tide-- it comes in and it goes out. NO NO NO You can't explain that! You can't explain it!
 
[quote name='dopa345']If history has taught us anything, it's that you never stiff the troops.

I just find it laughable that they are putting the country through the wringer over a measly $40 billion dollars. Considering that the national debt is over $14 trillion, that's not even a drop in the bucket. Imagine what will happen when the government is forced to make real cuts.... or worse announces that we've defaulted on our debt.[/QUOTE]
It was never about that. The Repubs originally wanted (and campaigned on "not a dollar less than") $100 bil in cuts. Then everyone laughed and remembered they didn't give a shit, so then Repubs pulled the number $30 bil out of a hat. Obama came back with $33 bil. Then the Repubs moved it to $40. The number was always a lie. They just wanted it in order to say "see, we're compromising" while demanding social policy change.

It was and always will be social policy battles. Everything else is a lie to help cover it up.
[quote name='UncleBob']Pretend, for a moment, that you 100% believe life begins at conception. That a fetus in the womb is equal to a baby outside of the womb. Now, a woman says "Hey, I want to kill this baby." For the purpose of this post, I'm not going to define status of the baby (i.e. born or unborn) as, again, you're pretending that they are equal. Are you not allowed to object to this woman who wants to kill her baby (which may or may not be born) because you have a penis?[/QUOTE]
See? The lowest common denominator has checked in to explain to us exactly why, in a time of huge budget battle, fucking abortion (which has exactly zero to do with this) is so important.

He's just trying to help us all understand. Don't you understand dopa?

Srsly tho, it's about the budget. Keep voting Repub. They learned their lesson last time. Srsly. Srsly Srsly. :trollface:
 
[quote name='speedracer']See? The lowest common denominator has checked in to explain to us exactly why, in a time of huge budget battle, fucking abortion (which has exactly zero to do with this) is so important.

He's just trying to help us all understand. Don't you understand dopa?

Srsly tho, it's about the budget. Keep voting Repub. They learned their lesson last time. Srsly. Srsly Srsly. :trollface:[/QUOTE]

A.) Wouldn't I have to vote Republican in order to "keep" voting Republican?
B.) Would you be willing to vote for something that allowed babies (again, to some, fetus=baby) to be killed just to solve the "budget battle"? Now, you and I may disagree with these people that a fetus is a baby, but, personally, I'd have more respect for someone who believes fetus=baby and won't compromise over someone who claims to believe that and will compromise.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']There will be no Government Shutdown.


what a fucking bunch of pansies.
[/QUOTE]

Now, I'm mad there won't be a shutdown, but that's because I think we need a good bit of chaos and suffering so these fucking teabaggers understand how their lives are so much better and easier because of BIG EVIL GOVERNMENT.

Maybe when shit gets halted for a week or two, numbskulls will stop screaming for programs to be cut.

But why are they pansies? And which they?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I seem to recall a thread awhile ago where people were picking on Texas for using Federal Stimulus money in a similar shell game.

"What, we have to use this money in one particular way? Okay, we'll divert the money we were going to spend that way towards the other things we want."

The entire "Republicans don't want cancer screenings" reminds me of the "Democrats want to give Viagara to sexual predators."



Pretend, for a moment, that you 100% believe life begins at conception. That a fetus in the womb is equal to a baby outside of the womb. Now, a woman says "Hey, I want to kill this baby." For the purpose of this post, I'm not going to define status of the baby (i.e. born or unborn) as, again, you're pretending that they are equal. Are you not allowed to object to this woman who wants to kill her baby (which may or may not be born) because you have a penis?[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, no I'm not. It isn't my god damned body you idiot.

I'm so fucking sick of these conversations, I can take dissenting opinions, but your opinions are so damn asinine that I feel like I'm wasting my time whenever I reply. And yeah, there I go attacking the poster again, but dammit when your fundamental understanding of things is so ridiculous I can't help it. You're the vs forum equivalent of Bill O'Reilly and I know I couldn't argue with him without strangling him to death.

That's it, I'm finished.
 
[quote name='Clak']Uh, no, no I'm not. It isn't my god damned body you idiot.[/QUOTE]

It's not your body, so it's okay for a mother to kill her one year old child. Gotcha.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, I'm mad there won't be a shutdown, but that's because I think we need a good bit of chaos and suffering so these fucking teabaggers understand how their lives are so much better and easier because of BIG EVIL GOVERNMENT.

Maybe when shit gets halted for a week or two, numbskulls will stop screaming for programs to be cut.

But why are they pansies? And which they?[/QUOTE]

I wanted a shutdown too because I want to see Government sweat once in a while. 40 billion in cuts to a 3 trillion dollar budget is a drop in the bucket and won't help anything. Especially when something like Obamacare is coming down the line that will really bloat the budget.

I say the Republicans are pansies because a compromise is exactly what cost them in 96. I don't know who made out better, but my guess is the Democrats did.

But just remember guys, the Washington Monument is open today. So everything is A-OK :roll:
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Especially when something like Obamacare is coming down the line that will really bloat the budget.[/quote]

Based on what figures/estimates do you make this claim? Heck, even Paul Ryan's I-believe-in-unicorns budget incorporates the $230B in savings the CBO estimated for the Affordable Care Act (the name of the bill, but I'm quite sure you already knew that ;)) in his budget proposal. Eliminating PPACA would increase our annual budget deficit.

But I'm sure you've thoroughly done the math. So, tell me, what math wizard thinks the budget will be bloated because of this bill?

I say the Republicans are pansies because a compromise is exactly what cost them in 96. I don't know who made out better, but my guess is the Democrats did.
Click to expand...

So you don't know the actual outcome of the compromise, but you still react in a way that identifies someone somewhere as "pansies." Getting your reaction out on the vs forums was more pressing an issue than actually reading up on the compromise, eh?

Truth be told, this is a 6-day budget. So if you thought this week was a pain in the ass politically, next week is reruns.
 
Yeah I wanted a shutdown too!!!!! You all are so fucking stupid it amazes me.

Two things need to happen (neither one of which is a gov. shutdown):

1) Campaign finance reform.
2) Americans stopping being such fucking polarized idiots and realize that there are TWO EQUALLY IMPORTANT solutions to solving the budget problem (1. cutting spending and 2. increasing revenue) not just ONE!
 
[quote name='speedracer']It was never about that. The Repubs originally wanted (and campaigned on "not a dollar less than") $100 bil in cuts.[/QUOTE]

They had some Tea Party poobah on tv and she was upset they weren't getting every single thing they wanted (she sounded like an overgrown toddler).

Thing is, what exactly is the policy goal of cutting 100 billion?

Not one of the tea toddlers an where could explain why they wanted that specific number, it is just a big round number that sounds good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, I'm mad there won't be a shutdown, but that's because I think we need a good bit of chaos and suffering so these fucking teabaggers understand how their lives are so much better and easier because of BIG EVIL GOVERNMENT.
[/QUOTE]

Normally I'd be right there with you, but as a resident of the District of Columbia I'm happy that my trash will still be picked up and that I'll be able to go to the god damned zoo. :D

Though I'll admit part of me hoped that they'd have to cancel the Cherry Blossom Festival and we could rid ourselves of some of these damned tourists.

Maybe one day they will realize how ridiculous it is that the district needs congressional approval to spend our own money. I'm not holding my breath though.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Normally I'd be right there with you, but as a resident of the District of Columbia I'm happy that my trash will still be picked up and that I'll be able to go to the god damned zoo. :D[/QUOTE]

I heard there was going to be an effort to dump trash on John Boehner's front porch if the gov't shutdown.

[quote name='KingBroly']I say the Republicans are pansies because a compromise is exactly what cost them in 96. I don't know who made out better, but my guess is the Democrats did.[/QUOTE]

If we're going to believe right walk talk radio and blame Democrats for getting us to this point for not passing a budget back when they were in power, then the Republicans made out better. Since Democrats only care about increasing spending and Republicans only care about cutting spending, this is much much better than the alternative that the Limbaugh-ites are talking about.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I heard there was going to be an effort to dump trash on John Boehner's front porch if the gov't shutdown.
[/QUOTE]

I heard that as well, though I doubt many people would have actually had the stones to do it.
 
I think with a near shut down blame is probably about equal across party. But with no shutdown, it will really be a non-issue by the time elections ramp up in 2012, so it's a moot point unless we're in a similar situation again next year and put the issue back in the voter's minds.

Anyway, I'm glad they worked something out. Hate all the cuts, but no way to get a budget through without them and it's not worth the hardships that would have hit many families if there was a shut down and paychecks delayed, non-essential employees furloughed etc.
 
What republicans don't seem to want to admit is that they're adding to budget problems as much as they are trying to fix them. The extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Oh yeah that's helping a lot. That was set to expire and basically fix itself, but oh no they had to make a big stink about that and Obama caved in to them.
 
So Republicans are now saying that while they will vote to pass the budget they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling without agreements to cut NPR, Planned Parenthood, the EPA and Obamacare. I would have assumed if we did not raise the debt ceiling it would have meant a government shutdown, but a lot of stuff I am watching and reading make it sound like instead the US would default on its debt. Can someone wiser, older and generally more knowledgeable then me explain what exactly that would mean other then chaos and pissing China off? I understand if we default on our debt it means that we will not be paying debt back, but shouldnt that also mean that no one will lend us money and thus we cant really function?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both sides are trivializing the issue by using this as a battleground for petty political bickering rather than recognizing the severity of the problem and coming up with constructive ways to deal with it. I do blame the Republicans in this case. If they seriously want to embrace fiscal reform, they should put their money where their month is and propose cuts in Medicare and Social Security, not pick on chicken feed like NPR and Planned Parenthood.
 
Social Security isn't contributing to our deficit.

Reigning in Medicare expenditures doesn't address the out of control inflation of medical care compared to inflation - it would just resolve government debt, and increase either personal debt levels (shifting the cost burden to citizens doesn't fix the issue) or lead to declining health/reduced life expectancy for US citizens as many seek to avoid medical care for fear of cost.

The problem is the public doesn't care about reality. Those on the right would be apoplectic (hypocritically so) if politicians sought to cut medicare spending, or if we sought out widespread decarceration of nonviolent drug offenders as a means of saving money. They want to be regaled with tales of how defunding NPR/NEA/PP/teachers' unions are the key to 2.8% unemployment and a mega surplus.

I can't take any austerity hawk seriously who does either of the following:
1) doesn't put the military on the cutting table
2) talks about tax cuts of any kind
 
I saw a great comment today where the guy suggested since in the US we outsource all our other jobs anyways that we should start outsourcing the work politicians do too. He suggested that we could hire people in India to do their job for us at a fraction of the cost and twice the efficiency ;) I think I am all for this idea!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Social Security isn't contributing to our deficit.

Reigning in Medicare expenditures doesn't address the out of control inflation of medical care compared to inflation - it would just resolve government debt, and increase either personal debt levels (shifting the cost burden to citizens doesn't fix the issue) or lead to declining health/reduced life expectancy for US citizens as many seek to avoid medical care for fear of cost.

The problem is the public doesn't care about reality. Those on the right would be apoplectic (hypocritically so) if politicians sought to cut medicare spending, or if we sought out widespread decarceration of nonviolent drug offenders as a means of saving money. They want to be regaled with tales of how defunding NPR/NEA/PP/teachers' unions are the key to 2.8% unemployment and a mega surplus.

I can't take any austerity hawk seriously who does either of the following:
1) doesn't put the military on the cutting table
2) talks about tax cuts of any kind[/QUOTE]

You should specify tax cuts for the middle and lower class. Technically they always mention tax cuts, its just always for the rich and corporations. Cause you know its impossible to get a job if the rich are not getting richer.
 
Nah, we don't need any more tax cuts either.

We need more unions to help laborers organize for the purpose of getting some of the wealth expansion that was supposed to trickle down to workers actually trickle down. 99% of all wealth growth in the US in the past 2+ decades has gone to the top 10% of income earners. Trickle down is a fraud both in policy and in practice.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']So Republicans are now saying that while they will vote to pass the budget they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling without agreements to cut NPR, Planned Parenthood, the EPA and Obamacare. I would have assumed if we did not raise the debt ceiling it would have meant a government shutdown, but a lot of stuff I am watching and reading make it sound like instead the US would default on its debt. Can someone wiser, older and generally more knowledgeable then me explain what exactly that would mean other then chaos and pissing China off? I understand if we default on our debt it means that we will not be paying debt back, but shouldnt that also mean that no one will lend us money and thus we cant really function?[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I'm not sure that anyone actually knows. In real terms I think it means that any federal security (ie bond) that comes due after the date the debt ceiling is reached will be unredeemable and I don't think they would be able to issue any more bonds.

In theoretical terms, the US would default. The market has no idea what that would do, but you know shit is bad when even the market doesn't want to talk about it and instead kind of whispers they way they do when they're afraid. Cue this morning's post from Business Insider:
A quick follow-on to our last post about the market ignoring the risk of a US default (as a result of the debt ceiling now being raised).

The debt ceiling was obviously a big part of the discussion on the Sunday news shows today.

Listen to what top GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling had to say

Asked by CNN's Candy Crowley if Republicans were willing to "play chicken" with the debt ceiling, Mr. Hensarling said, "I don't know what you mean."

He acknowledged that a government default would be "catastrophic," but said the argument was based on a "false premise," because the U.S. can cut spending and reduce the deficit.

So essentially the view of one party is: We'll induce a "catastrophic" (in his own words!) event if certain policy paths aren't agreed to in the next few weeks.
Click to expand...
The last post they refer to basically says that the market refuses to acknowledge it because you've have to be insane to even think of doing it and locked up permanently if you actually try doing it. Yet that's exactly what the GOP is saying and in theory going to do. And it's a lie to say it's because of the numbers because Obama already met their first set of numbers (both before AND after they pulled away the football) and is going to propose more cuts this week. So it's not like the Dems aren't trying to play ball.

It's because of Planned Parenthood and NPR. It seriously is. This is the part that I shake my head at in total disbelief. The Tea Party was laughed off by virtually everyone outside it, including me. They are now fully at a point where Dems are willing to make the massive cuts they want. The small difference between the two starting positions of Dems and Tea Party was unimaginable 18 months. Really, it's the how and not the how much, which I still can't believe. They're going to get what they wanted. And they're going to blow it on Planned Parenthood. That smooth gearshift between the debt/deficit being the single biggest issue and Planned Parenthood being the issue is just incredible.

Msut takes a lot of crap for saying what he says. He has said all along the TP is full of shit. He's said there's not an honest dealer out there. They don't care about the debt or deficit. That it's all a lie. That they'll pull the football as soon as Dems try to meet them. He is and has been 100% correct.

The most honest thing Bob has ever said.
Would you be willing to vote for something that allowed babies (again, to some, fetus=baby) to be killed just to solve the "budget battle"?
Click to expand...
Remember when the Tea Party ran on preventing abortion? :trollface:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What the Dems should do on the debt thing from someone smarter than me:
It’s a two pronged strategy. The first one is a credible, repeated commitment not to surrender anything in exchange for getting congress to agree to the debt ceiling being increased. After all, why should anything be given up. Everyone knows that increasing the debt ceiling is the right thing to do. If the government were operating under uniform Republican control, the GOP would be increasing the debt ceiling. There’s nothing to bargain over. If some members of congress genuinely think that no increase in the debt ceiling is a superior options to raising it, then they’re entitled to be wrong. But there’s no reason that Obama should be trading votes with guys like John Boehner who know perfectly well that an increase is in order. This frames the issue correctly as one of whether or not Republicans who think an increase is warranted will nonetheless refuse to allow one in order to extract unrelated concessions.

The second prong, important for credibility, is to move to thinking about what happens as we reach the ceiling.

This isn’t a sudden “shutdown.” Nor is is true that we have to default on obligations to our bondholders. Rather, it means that government outlays are now limited by the quantity of inbound tax revenue. But for a while, the people administering the federal government (to wit Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner) will be able to selectively stiff people. So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. Don’t make some farm payments. Stop sending Medicare reimbursements. Make the doctors & hospitals, the farmers and defense contractors, and the currently elderly bear the inconvenient for a few weeks of uncertain payment schedules. And explain to the American people that the circle of people who need to be inconvenienced will necessarily grow week after week until congress gives in. Remind people that the concessions the right is after mean the permanent abolition of Medicare, followed by higher taxes on the middle to finance additional tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='IRHari']If we're going to believe right walk talk radio and blame Democrats for getting us to this point for not passing a budget back when they were in power, then the Republicans made out better. Since Democrats only care about increasing spending and Republicans only care about cutting spending, this is much much better than the alternative that the Limbaugh-ites are talking about.[/QUOTE]

First off, I haven't listened to Limbaugh in a long time, so I suggest you hold your tongue when you want to talk out of your ass because it's not helping your case. They could've passed a budget before the election, but didn't. They could've passed a budget during the lame duck period where they got a lot of stuff they wanted passed but didn't. So do not tell me it couldn't have been done because they easily had the numbers to do it and had ample opportunity to do it. Saying I got it from the "Right Wing Machine" when I can look at what and when stuff got passed and by how much is idiocy on your part.

Second, it's not just the spending that is the problem with our Government right now. It's the debt. If you can come up with a way to curb the debt without tanking the economy again I'd love to hear it, but taking away tax cuts isn't going to do it. Oh yes, increase corporate taxes on businesses. You know what they'd do? They'd go to other countries that will give them better rates then the Fed is giving them now. The Fed wouldn't get their money, they'd lose the money they were taking in from them to begin with, and this country would lose a lot more jobs. They have the resources to take their bags and go somewhere else. Oh, and they'd probably raise the taxes of regular citizens in response if such a thing happened. And doing that would decrease the amount of money circulating into the economy, so we'd be at the same situation we are at now.

The budget can do the things it needs to do, but it still needs to do it within the means in which it has been given. The problem is that it isn't, and the people in Washington are only making it worse and are unwilling to make it better.
 
Michele Bachmann spells it out in its entirety.
Since Republicans took the House majority in January I have been calling for our leadership to fight. We must answer the bell that was rung last November when the American people called us to fight for deep cuts in spending, for the full repeal of ObamaCare, for an end to taxpayer funding of abortion, and for a government that will live within its Constitutional boundaries.
Click to expand...
:trollface:
 
I still love that one. Even though, well you know, they can't...
Scripted Response: You can't prove that they don't fund abortion with the money they receive.

Ok, show that they do. The absence of evidence not being proof.

Oh well, still don't have to barter chickens for lap dances so as far as I'm concerned all is well.
 
I wish the burden of proof was as lax for everyone as it is for them. "They can't prove it isn't happening, so it must be!"
 
is there a site, ideally nonpartisan, that details as specifically as possible what the $38 billion cuts from the budget removed?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']First off, I haven't listened to Limbaugh in a long time, so I suggest you hold your tongue when you want to talk out of your ass because it's not helping your case. They could've passed a budget before the election, but didn't. They could've passed a budget during the lame duck period where they got a lot of stuff they wanted passed but didn't. So do not tell me it couldn't have been done because they easily had the numbers to do it and had ample opportunity to do it. Saying I got it from the "Right Wing Machine" when I can look at what and when stuff got passed and by how much is idiocy on your part.

Second, it's not just the spending that is the problem with our Government right now. It's the debt. If you can come up with a way to curb the debt without tanking the economy again I'd love to hear it, but taking away tax cuts isn't going to do it. Oh yes, increase corporate taxes on businesses. You know what they'd do? They'd go to other countries that will give them better rates then the Fed is giving them now. The Fed wouldn't get their money, they'd lose the money they were taking in from them to begin with, and this country would lose a lot more jobs. They have the resources to take their bags and go somewhere else. Oh, and they'd probably raise the taxes of regular citizens in response if such a thing happened. And doing that would decrease the amount of money circulating into the economy, so we'd be at the same situation we are at now.

The budget can do the things it needs to do, but it still needs to do it within the means in which it has been given. The problem is that it isn't, and the people in Washington are only making it worse and are unwilling to make it better.[/QUOTE]

Never said you listened to Limbaugh or you got anything from a 'machine'.

They didn't pass a budget, but you should be happy they didn't. Democrats are being portrayed as only wanting to increase spending, and Republicans only want to cut spending. If Democrats passed it when they had 'ample opportunity' to do it, presumably it wouldn't contain as many spending cuts as what was actually agreed to on Friday. So this is the best possible scenario, no?
 
[quote name='vherub']is there a site, ideally nonpartisan, that details as specifically as possible what the $38 billion cuts from the budget removed?[/QUOTE]

I'm interested in this too, if anyone has suggestions.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Never said you listened to Limbaugh or you got anything from a 'machine'.[/QUOTE]

It is cute how he likes to pretend there is some difference between Limbaugh and the "mainstream" cons.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sadly, some people are really this out of touch.

MOAR DEBT! WE MUST, WE MUST, WE MUST INCREASE OUR DEBT![/QUOTE]

I doubt he is saying long term we should just increase the debt time and time and time again. We have made commitments to other countries, to our own citizens and to those that buy our debt. The simple truth is we must meet these commitments and in order to do so means raising the debt limit. If you want to be a conservative and argue we need to reduce debt fine, if you want to be an ultra conservative and say we need to take a machette to the budget and cut social programs that benefit the worst off of society...fine. To say we need to not raise the debt limit from everything I am reading just sounds irresponsible and dickish...even for Republicans.
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112A6Kd3D::

I'm on my phone so I'm not a 100% certain but I believe that is the bill.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Everyone knows that increasing the debt ceiling is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Sadly, some people are really this out of touch.

MOAR DEBT! WE MUST, WE MUST, WE MUST INCREASE OUR DEBT![/QUOTE]

Was there like, any context to that quote?
 
[quote name='vherub']is there a site, ideally nonpartisan, that details as specifically as possible what the $38 billion cuts from the budget removed?[/QUOTE]
I haven't, but this is the list I saw and there doesn't seem to be disagreement.
-- $18 billion in cuts to programs deemed unnecessary by the Pentagon

-- $13 billion from funding for programs at the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services

-- $8 billion in cuts to the budget for state and foreign operations

-- At least $2.5 billion in transportation funding that is ready to be earmarked

-- Over $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies

-- $630 million in earmarked transportation projects

-- $35 million by ending the Crop Insurance Good Performance Rebate

-- $30 million for a job training program that was narrowly targeted at certain student loan processors

-- Reductions to housing assistance programs and some health care programs
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmm was watching CNN and Cornell Belcher(think thats the guys name)who was one of their more liberal contributers was claiming that if the debt ceiling is not raised that it would mean the goverment would have to find one hundred billion in cuts to keep things running. He said it like its a terrible thing, but again even if I lean liberal it should just be common sense that if its one hundred billion in cuts we need....we dont raise the debt ceiling and instead make those cuts.

I mean Christ 100 billion in cuts, we could get that from the department of defense or raising taxes if we did either in any common sense sort of way! If that number is true I say do not raise the ceiling, make some compromising cuts and do not force us to pay ever higher interest on the fucking debt. The article above I posted showed that over the next ten years our payments on the debt are going to go from like 6% to like 15% as it is!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Great article showing how much we pay towards different services with a nice little table as well as charts and graphs showing in %s what we pay to what services. Whole thing just runs down pretty well where our money goes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ars-go-a-long-story-in-5-quick-graphs/237128/[/QUOTE]


These two graphs from that link really show what's wrong with our tax systems.

042153_shifting_tax_burden.jpg


030856_composition_of_taxes.jpg



Spending is part of the problem, as shown by the graph below. Defense spending in particular, though it's been more stable. But we also have to find ways to cut costs in social security and health care for sure.

But the deficit will not go away if we don't roll back some of the tax cuts for the wealthy and close corporate tax loopholes and get both of those back to levels in the early years in the graphs above. That's the only way the debt will ever go away.


030351_spending_breakdown.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Raising the debt limit may be necessary - but it's not the "right" thing to do. There's a very subtle difference.[/QUOTE]
Why is it not the right thing to do? Can you name a single country that has undertaken austerity measures and is doing well?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']greece!
ireland!
uk![/QUOTE]

Only the UK really had a choice, the other 2 were kind of forced into it by the other folks in the Euro who couldn't afford for it to collapse (i.e Germany)

For all the people who seem to be saying "Lets just spend our way out of debt !!", is there a country where that's worked out well ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top