Screw the Government

[-EnVus-]

I say if the Government is gonna take away Government checks and make cuts to SSI and Medicare while jacking up Taxes. Then i hope they do other big cuts that make us all go Broke. At least it would be fair for everyone to be broke an the Dollar worthless. Maybe then we can all start over and do it right the next time around. I wanna see all them senators and Obama getting their hands dirty to survive.
We all should have to that is the only fair way for us to continue and do away with upper,lower middle class bullshit...We are all one class just getting by and learning to make it like in the old days.

[ek forever]

Communist Manifesto much? What would the government "cut" that would make everyone broke?

[Vteckidd]

I think both sides are at fault.

Democrats need to wake up and realize we have a SPENDING problem not a revenue problem. Raising taxes and causing class warfare solves nothing. Cuts and reform HAVE TO BE made to SS and Medicare/caid. That doesn't mean seniors are going to die in the streets. Stop the Bs.

Republicans need to be open to closing loop holes on businesses evading taxes like GE. I'm with them we need to not raise income taxes at all, but closing come corporate loop holes needs to be on the table

I think the republicans need to give into a 1% national sales tax.

My .02

[Vteckidd]

Worry about Obamacare after 2012 .

Obama needs to show some leadership, and not be giving vague speeches. He's done nothing on this issue.

[Elbow]

Here is an idea. Stop relying on ANYTHING from the government, do your own work, make your own money, don't give a crap about anything else.

[Vteckidd]

Here is an idea. Stop relying on ANYTHING from the government, do your own work, make your own money, don't give a crap about anything else.

youre asking them to undue 60 years of government involvement. Its not going to happen. Do you realize what would happen if they abolished all social programs? you would have anarchy.

I believe they need to send a message to the American People that they are serious about tackling these issues. What they are talking about isnt even DRASTIC. They want to CUT spending by as much as they want to borrow. Thats not even tackling the existing 14+trillion dollars in debt.

Even the republicans get what they want, our debt will still hold at 14.X Trillion dollars, and CLIMB because we pay about 35 BILLION in interest and that will continue to climb. So :

EVEN IF THE REPUBLICANS GET WHAT THEY WANT, our debt will still stay at the current number, and continue to climb monthly with interest accruing.

The Democrats want to ADD to the debt as they really only wanna cut 1.5-2 trillion, AND RAISE TAXES, which they havent really said by how much. But even if they tax the WEALTHIEST of individuals earning more than $200,000 at a 100 percent marginal rate–and we confiscated their passports so they could not flee–the take would come to $1.27 trillion, or just 77 percent of this year’s deficit(1.6 trillion).

So clearly, they wont tax people over $200,000 100%, and even if they did it amounts to barely a DENT in THIS YEARS federal deficit.

The hole is so deep, something major has to be done.

I think the way to go is institute a flat 1% sales tax. Many people dont even pay taxes in the country, a 1% national sales tax would force EVERYONE to participate, illegals, poor, etc. pull out of iraq or seize their oil fields until they pay us back the almost 1 trillion in war costs we have spent. I think we pull out of afghanistan and institute a hard line closed borders policy.

drop corporate tax rates, but also close loop holes that lets GE park 7 billion dollars overseas without paying taxes.

Legalize marijuana and offer incentives for start up businesses. Tax it at 30%, make billions on an industry that is less destructive than alcohol.

that would be a start

[-EnVus-]

My mother is Disabled from an accident on the job 15 years ago. She relies on her assistance from the Government to survive. The cost of Meds these days alone take most of her Money.
If they start making cuts she may not afford all her Meds that she is required to stay healthy or live. So many people like her and the elderly rely so much on these programs.
Yes if it wasn't for them they would be screwed either way but thats why we help people. This would be almost like the Government saying "Hey we have $$ issues so we can't help you no more".
Our country is broke cause our Presidents and Government don't know how to spend nor manage Money. They make and produce all this damn money we just use it yet they can't control it.
Stop fuckin outsourcing jobs stop bailing out other poor money managing countries going broke. Stop going around the world spending Billions playing referee or Hero for countries that hate us.
The point is OUR money Hungary government would rather make us hurt than accept a compromise anyways.

[Vteckidd]

My mother is Disabled from an accident on the job 15 years ago. She relies on her assistance from the Government to survive. The cost of Meds these days alone take most of her Money.
If they start making cuts she may not afford all her Meds that she is required to stay healthy or live. So many people like her and the elderly rely so much on these programs.
Yes if it wasn't for them they would be screwed either way but thats why we help people. This would be almost like the Government saying "Hey we have $$ issues so we can't help you no more".

IMO the problem with the system is for every 1 person that deserves help, there is 1 that blatantly abuses the system. Im sorry, that is a tough choice, but i will tell you this, if we do nothing , your mother will have NOTHING instead of less of something. that is a fact.

There are thousands of stories like yours, but that doesnt change the fact that really touch decisions needs to be made. It is unsustainable, period.


Our country is broke cause our Presidents and Government don't know how to spend nor manage Money. They make and produce all this damn money we just use it yet they can't control it.
Stop fuckin outsourcing jobs stop bailing out other poor money managing countries going broke. Stop going around the world spending Billions playing referee or Hero for countries that hate us.
The point is OUR money Hungry government would rather make us hurt than accept a compromise anyways.


Then you have to change who is in power, and by and large we wont do it. Im sorry left or right, Obama is an establishment democrat and the republicans are establishment right wing people as well.

They are only there to get elected more, and stay in power. Period. The only way to break that cycle is vote them all out. but that will never happen.

Instead, you need to recognize that hard and touch choices need to be made, and people are going to suffer. Maybe not your mom, but someone else will. I dont know what else to tell you, but the current path is not going to work.

So they need to prob do a little of everything, raise taxes without hurting the economy, stop spending, severely cut social programs or find ways to make them more efficient, end the wars because at this point we need to take care of ourselves more than anything else.

End all foreign aid

[ek forever]

With lower taxes your mother would be able to get financial assistance from the people who should give it to her, friends, family, etc.

Can't stand this nonsense about corporations who pay no taxes paying their "fair share."

Can someone tell me where GE and O'Charley's, Applebee's, Target, etc, where do they get the money with which they pay these taxes?

Businesses write the check, we give them the money. It's our money paying the businesses tax bill. It's just politically popular for them to write the check instead of the consumer. Not to mention that most of the tax burden comes out of the laborers pocket. A little more than half of all the taxes placed on businesses comes out of the laborers pocket in the form of lower wages.

[BanginJimmy]

There are so many things that need to be done to fix our debt issues it isnt even feasible to lay it out. I will point out several key issues that need to be a MAJOR part of any plan to fix this problem.


1. Scrap the entire tax system and replace it with something far simpler. I dont care if its the fair tax or a flat tax. Something HAS to be done. If I remember correctly Americans spent about $450B last year just to comply with the tax code.

2. Medicare and SS have to institute means testing. If you have other income, SS pays out an amount that totals out to 150% of SS benefits for your age bracket. Unfortunately, if you are smart enough to save for retirement, you are punished by not receiving the entire benefit you paid for.

3. Massive increase in the investigative arm of SS and medicare/medicaid. A 1 time expenditure of about $10B for new investigators and technology and maybe $1B a year for administrative costs (salary and upkeep) will net 20-30B a year in savings from stopping fraud.

4. Complete replacement of the DoD acquisitions system and practices. It is a massive drain on a significant part of the overall DoD budget. A big part of this is the DoD likes to make changes to a weapons system half way through development, the result of which is cost overruns and delayed deliveries on a pandemic scale.

5. Sealing of the SS and medicare trusts from congressional fingers. Those 2 programs would be self sufficient for a long time to come if Congress would have kept their fingers out of the cookie jar. Because of Congressional 'borrowing' these 2 programs suck up nearly 40% of all tax receipts the feds take in.

6. Balanced budget amendment. 49 states require a balanced budget, its time the feds join them. Ratify the Amendment in 2012 and require the books to be even by 2022. I think a decade is long enough to figure it out.

7. MASSIVE cuts to federal agencies. Dept of Ed can completely go away, thats more than 100B saved right there. It is an absolutely useless bureaucracy that has done nothing to further education in this country. HHS, Homeland Security, and EPA could also use a bit of a haircut. We could completely dump the useless TSA.

8. A tax amnesty period. Anyone that owes more than 10k in back taxes can come forward and settle up for 10% of what they actually owe and the slate is wiped clean. Anyone that owes under 10k pays a flat 'fine' of 1k or their balance, whichever is less.

9. Line by line auditing of every federal agency and dept. Any program that is not needed gets a haircut or is eliminated, every redundant job is cut, and every overlapping bureaucracy is reigned in.

10. Sell off excess, unused federal lands and properties.


I may come back to this tomorrow and add more.

[BanginJimmy]

With lower taxes your mother would be able to get financial assistance from the people who should give it to her, friends, family, etc.

Can't stand this nonsense about corporations who pay no taxes paying their "fair share."

Can someone tell me where GE and O'Charley's, Applebee's, Target, etc, where do they get the money with which they pay these taxes?

Businesses write the check, we give them the money. It's our money paying the businesses tax bill. It's just politically popular for them to write the check instead of the consumer. Not to mention that most of the tax burden comes out of the laborers pocket. A little more than half of all the taxes placed on businesses comes out of the laborers pocket in the form of lower wages.



Exactly. I would have no problems with US based companies paying no income taxes on US profits. Who knows, it may even lower prices to the consumer. Especially in the manufacturing industry, any taxes paid by the company are simply passed on to retailers, who then pass them on to the consumer. Raising taxes does nothing more than raise the cost to consumers.

[-EnVus-]

I will say this im almost 80% sure they will reach an agreement but its only going to be a short time one thats non effective on shit. They will make it sound like it is and build the peoples hopes up then after a few weeks it will appear nothing changed. How does a poor man make money if he can't borrow or take handouts And he can't find work cause jobs are non existent.
The US is like that poor man just screwed till life deals him his ending.

[ek forever]

The democrats knew this shit was coming for years. Why didn't they raise the debt ceiling while they had a supermajority in the house, senate, and control of the presidency?

The president has kicked the debt can down the road. He's ran up $4 Trillion on while he was presiding over a democratic congress. Since democrats gained control in 2006 the debt has risen $5.1 Trillion. 33% of the nations debt owed by the public and owed to foreign investors built in the last 5 years and by a 100% democratic controlled government. Here's what the presidents debt plan has consisted of since he got into office:

- Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

- Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.

- Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn’t even mention the debt until 35 minutes in.

- Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97–0.

- Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

Now all of a sudden Obama is a super-hero cape wearing budget hawk?

Peoples memories are short.

[Vteckidd]

The democrats knew this shit was coming for years. Why didn't they raise the debt ceiling while they had a supermajority in the house, senate, and control of the presidency?

The president has kicked the debt can down the road. He's ran up $4 Trillion on while he was presiding over a democratic congress. Since democrats gained control in 2006 the debt has risen $5.1 Trillion. 33% of the nations debt owed by the public and owed to foreign investors built in the last 5 years and by a 100% democratic controlled government. Here's what the presidents debt plan has consisted of since he got into office:

- Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

- Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.

- Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn’t even mention the debt until 35 minutes in.

- Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97–0.

- Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

Now all of a sudden Obama is a super-hero cape wearing budget hawk?

Peoples memories are short.

that is probably the single most aggravating thing about all this. The GOP is getting hammered about stalling the debt talks and is making Obama look like hes some budget hawk. Its laughable.

Hopefully the voters arent this stupid and dont believe the Mainstream Media. I do not care what happens deal wise, this is SOLELY OBAMAs fault. If he got his way he would increase the debt limit with no cuts.

[bu villain]

that is probably the single most aggravating thing about all this. The GOP is getting hammered about stalling the debt talks and is making Obama look like hes some budget hawk. Its laughable.

Hopefully the voters arent this stupid and dont believe the Mainstream Media. I do not care what happens deal wise, this is SOLELY OBAMAs fault. If he got his way he would increase the debt limit with no cuts.

Just to give you a different perspective on why the GOP is being hammered on this. Obama is offering 2B in spending cuts and agreed to not raising taxes (only closing loopholes which many republicans also said should be done). Obama is making concessions that the GOP is asking for. What concessions are the GOP willing to make? None as far as I can tell. No one thinks Obama is a budget hawk but they do see him as someone who is willing to compromise unlike the GOP leaders.

Secondly, I don't see how this is SOLELY Obama's fault. Budgets are the job of the House which is Republican controlled. And everyone should be able to agree that both parties contributed plenty to the debt we are in. Yes Obama has a large role to play but this is the House's job.

[ek forever]

You realize the government spends $5-7 Billion per day right? $2 Billion in spending cuts is a joke. It IS mostly democrats fault. There hasn't been a budget made in over 800 days, republicans have been in control of one house of congress for 200 or so days. The presidents own budget proposal failed 97-0 in a democratic controlled senate.

GOP leaders were elected on a no new taxes platform.

Here's a graph you should consider very carefully:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i35/oogystick/6a00d8341c4eab53ef01348992e7dd970c-500wi.jpg

Tax revenues are much more closely tied to the economy and not the tax rates. This is why "revenue measures" are a load of horse shit.

[Vteckidd]

Just to give you a different perspective on why the GOP is being hammered on this. Obama is offering 2B in spending cuts and agreed to not raising taxes (only closing loopholes which many republicans also said should be done). Obama is making concessions that the GOP is asking for. What concessions are the GOP willing to make? None as far as I can tell. No one thinks Obama is a budget hawk but they do see him as someone who is willing to compromise unlike the GOP leaders.

Secondly, I don't see how this is SOLELY Obama's fault. Budgets are the job of the House which is Republican controlled. And everyone should be able to agree that both parties contributed plenty to the debt we are in. Yes Obama has a large role to play but this is the House's job.

Keep drinking the kool aid.

What are these 2 trillion in cuts exactly? Show me. republicans should concede the loop holes, but not at the behest of Obama promising 2 trillion in cuts 20 years from now
Obama hasn't had a budget in 3 years, why should he get a pass? The democrats could have addressed this when they had super majorities, they didn't.

So this is solely Obamas inaction, not the republicans.

[ek forever]

A lot of these "cuts" being proposed by repubics are not cuts anyway. Much of them are reduced spending, and not cuts. The McConnel plan passes House of Representative constitutional powers on to the president. That alone is scary. It's probably the closest to being a dictatorship the country has ever been. Giving federal power from one branch to another even temporarily only sets a precedent for it to happen again in the future.

Republicans need to pass a bill in the house that says: "We're going to pass a stop gap measure that funds defense, medicare, social security, medicaid, and service on the debt. The rest we'll let the president and the Democratic controlled Senate roll over for a 6 or so months till we hit the debt ceiling again."

Slap a stamp on it, send it, go.

And one more time, 800 days we haven't had a budget. only 240 of those days republicans have been in power of one half of congress. The other 560 days democrats had super-majorities in which they new these deadlines were coming.

Are republicans doing enough? No, there's too many mainstream/RINO republicans that are dodging the 3rd rails that refuse to act. Too many of the leadership positions in congress are held by weak-stomached republicans who don't have the gall to put their foot down like Schumer, Hoyer, Frank, etc.

Democrats need to read a book, Republicans need to grow a pair. It's a big problem.

[bu villain]

You realize the government spends $5-7 Billion per day right? $2 Billion in spending cuts is a joke. It IS mostly democrats fault. There hasn't been a budget made in over 800 days, republicans have been in control of one house of congress for 200 or so days. The presidents own budget proposal failed 97-0 in a democratic controlled senate.

GOP leaders were elected on a no new taxes platform.

All of that is irrelevant to my point which is that people want a compromise. They see the Dems as willing to make concessions to the GOP but they don't see the GOP making any to the Dems. It's that simple.



Here's a graph you should consider very carefully:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i35/oogystick/6a00d8341c4eab53ef01348992e7dd970c-500wi.jpg

Tax revenues are much more closely tied to the economy and not the tax rates. This is why "revenue measures" are a load of horse shit.

I don't know why I need to consider this for. I never argued increased taxes = increased revenue. By the way, couldn't this graph also be used to argue that lowering taxes will also not help raise revenue either?

[bu villain]

Keep drinking the kool aid.

What are these 2 trillion in cuts exactly? Show me. republicans should concede the loop holes, but not at the behest of Obama promising 2 trillion in cuts 20 years from now


What kool aid? I only said Obama is willing to make concessions to the Republicans and the Republicans won't reciprocate and that's why people are angry at them. Both sides think they are right, it doesn't mean they don't have to work together.



Obama hasn't had a budget in 3 years, why should he get a pass? The democrats could have addressed this when they had super majorities, they didn't.

So this is solely Obamas inaction, not the republicans.

Because the President doesn't make the budget, the House does. You wan't to be upset at the congressional Democrats, that I can understand but to make everything that happens in government the fault of the president is not right. He is not a dictator.

[-EnVus-]

Obama, claims he is for the people and he will not touch medicare or the safety nets that its for our future generations.
He said "I am turning 50 in a few weeks and myself will be starting aarp" so i will know what its like......


Well we will see how long this last

[BanginJimmy]

What kool aid? I only said Obama is willing to make concessions to the Republicans and the Republicans won't reciprocate and that's why people are angry at them. Both sides think they are right, it doesn't mean they don't have to work together.

Obama hasnt made a single meaningful concession. Everything he is proposing is for outlying years where all those 'cuts' could simply be ignored. He isnt alone in this though. This has been a trademark of American politics for decades.




Because the President doesn't make the budget, the House does.

Obama has proposed budget frame works in his 3 full budget years (FY10, 11, 12). Its the Senate Dems that havent even proposed a budget, not to mention debate, vote, or pass one, in over 800 days. They are required by law to do so. Even though its not an official budget, it is a budget blueprint.




but to make everything that happens in government the fault of the president is not right. He is not a dictator.

If this is the case, then 1/3 of all the debt assigned to Bush was not his fault. All of those funds were passed in the last 2 years of the Bush Admin with dems holding both houses of Congress.

[ek forever]

You clearly aren't up to date on some pretty simple law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921


The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.

[ek forever]

Obama, claims he is for the people and he will not touch medicare or the safety nets that its for our future generations.
He said "I am turning 50 in a few weeks and myself will be starting aarp" so i will know what its like......


Well we will see how long this last


Why not use AMAC? Why AARP?

[-EnVus-]

Why not use AMAC? Why AARP?
Idk call Him and ask lol

[ek forever]

Idk call Him and ask lol

AMAC is very much like AARP, but not nearly as powerful an interest group and isn't ran by a bunch of statists.

[Vteckidd]

What kool aid? I only said Obama is willing to make concessions to the Republicans and the Republicans won't reciprocate and that's why people are angry at them. Both sides think they are right, it doesn't mean they don't have to work together.

No he isnt. You would have to really look at the math, and i dont have time to walk anyone through it. His "concessions" are not really concessions. He wants to give them 2 trillion in CUTS in exchange for raising the income tax rate NOW. He also wants to get rid of the tax loopholes (which im in favor of). But he wont say WHEN the cuts will come. THere has been no commitment to any cuts what so ever in the near future. SO its not really a compromise more like a hollow promise to maybe do something 10 years from now......




Because the President doesn't make the budget, the House does. You wan't to be upset at the congressional Democrats, that I can understand but to make everything that happens in government the fault of the president is not right. He is not a dictator.
That is technically correct, but i believe Bush W always put forth a plan the congress voted on and passed so its not neccesary. The president could have been involved years , months ago. The job is for everyone to be engaged.

Furthermore if what you say is true, then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE the democrats had COMPLETE control of congress in 2006, then i NEVER want to hear ANY BLAME assessed to George W Bush for his last 2-3 fiscal budgets. Congress and the Dems can own that. You cant have it both ways :P

What Obama has done is what he has ALWAYS done which is sit back, let congress fight it out, he stays out of it (while blaming the republicans off handed) then tries to act like hes not the same as them. Thats not showing leadership IMO

both sides are WRONG and god help the republicans if they pass some bullshit mconnel plan.

[bu villain]

As I said before, if you are angry at congressional Democrats I understand. I also stated that the President DOES have some responsibility here, just not SOLE responsibility. I don't know why there seems to be an assumption that I don't think Democrats are to blame for anything related to the fiscal crisis and that only the GOP is? Or that Bush is more responsible for his spending than Obama (I never even mentioned Bush). I just think its damaging and innacurate when people speak as if everything is so black and white when these issues are filled with messiness and shades of grey. There are more than 2 sides to political arguments.

Whether or not you think the concessions are too weak, at least some are being made. Can anyone tell me what deal the GOP proposes that gives the Dems something they want in return for something the GOP wants.

Additionally, can someone explain to me why there needs to be any deal at all. Why can't we just have a straight up or down vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling? Can't we argue about taxes and spending cuts for the budget separately without calling our ability to live up to our previously agreed upon obligations in to question? Just seems like playing with fire.

[BanginJimmy]

The reason for no straight up or down vote is because neither side wants to be on record with a vote like that. Voting on record is what is preventing the Senate from even making a budget proposal.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Vteckidd]

Whether or not you think the concessions are too weak, at least some are being made. Can anyone tell me what deal the GOP proposes that gives the Dems something they want in return for something the GOP wants.

Well the dems have had unlimited spending in the last 3 years. The GOP isnt in any position to give any concessions. The economy has gotten WORSE and the debt is higher. The dems want to continue spending and raising taxes which hasnt worked YET. So the GOP is basically saying we did it your way for 3 years, its obviously not working, lets at least not spend anymore, and raising taxes will just hurt jobs even more.

I do agree that the GOP needs to agree to fix the tax loopholes and SOON, not a year from now.


Additionally, can someone explain to me why there needs to be any deal at all. Why can't we just have a straight up or down vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling? Can't we argue about taxes and spending cuts for the budget separately without calling our ability to live up to our previously agreed upon obligations in to question? Just seems like playing with fire.

The dems would like a up or down vote they could win. but they cant, because the GOP controls the house.

The GOP wont do a up or down vote because they want to use this as leverage to cut spending. They know obama needs to borrow more money , and by controlling 50% of the entity that can give him that, they are using it as leverage to get what they want, spending cuts.

[ek forever]

Indeed, I too am tired of hearing the blame placed on republicans when Democrats had control of the purse strings since 2006.


Debt in October of 2005 The US Treasury Department reports that the US National Debt increased $553.7 Billion in fiscal 2005 (ends Sept 30, 2005).

The total National Debt is now $7,932,709,661,723.50

So when Democrats took both houses of congress then the debt was probably a little more than $8 Trillion.

It's now $14.4 Trillion and that's ~$6 Trillion in a 5 year period that Democrats had almost all the control over.

[-EnVus-]

BERLIN/BRUSSELS (Gernot Heller and Luke Baker) - The European Central Bank is willing to let Greece slip into temporary default as part of a crisis response that would involve a bond buyback but no new tax on banks, EU sources said on Thursday.

Must be nice to have such giving neighbors to let you go Temporarily broke lol

[ek forever]

Must be nice to have such giving neighbors to let you go Temporarily broke lol

Sometimes letting crack heads hit rock bottom is the best decision. Instead of giving them more crack/money.

[-EnVus-]

Sometimes letting crack heads hit rock bottom is the best decision. Instead of giving them more crack/money.
Good example but this crack head had to many chances and just close to dying from Withdraws

[ek forever]

Good example but this crack head had to many chances and just close to dying from Withdraws

This is where Darwin comes in and the species incapable of dealing with its environment dies off.

[EJdm]

That is why i careless about the government BS...i work on a daily, save what i can and wait for the world to end...;)

[bu villain]

Well the dems have had unlimited spending in the last 3 years. The GOP isnt in any position to give any concessions. The economy has gotten WORSE and the debt is higher. The dems want to continue spending and raising taxes which hasnt worked YET. So the GOP is basically saying we did it your way for 3 years, its obviously not working, lets at least not spend anymore, and raising taxes will just hurt jobs even more.

And if the American people agree with you then those Democrats will get voted out in their next election. But until that happens, we still need a working government, not gridlock. If the GOP is prepared to be held accountable if they debt ceiling is not raised, then by all means they should continue the way they are going.


The dems would like a up or down vote they could win. but they cant, because the GOP controls the house.

The GOP wont do a up or down vote because they want to use this as leverage to cut spending. They know obama needs to borrow more money , and by controlling 50% of the entity that can give him that, they are using it as leverage to get what they want, spending cuts.

Are you saying a majority of the GOP doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling? Because if they do want it raised, they are saying they will vote against their own goal (raise the debt ceiling) just to try to and get more of what they want (spending cuts). That seems both disengenuous and unethical to me. If they truly do not want the debt ceiling raised then I understand their tactics even if I don't agree with that position.

[-EnVus-]

Boehner, is a duck and dodge Bitch !!

[ek forever]

And if the American people agree with you then those Democrats will get voted out in their next election. But until that happens, we still need a working government, not gridlock. If the GOP is prepared to be held accountable if they debt ceiling is not raised, then by all means they should continue the way they are going.


Apparently you missed the last election. That and haven't looked at polling numbers for congressional approval and generic ballots.

Last November was the biggest republican house gain in ~70 years. It is pretty obvious the American people aren't terribly pleased with the Democrats. Not to mention there weren't many democratic seats up for re-election in the senate compared to republican seats.

Also, there is redistricting being done with a sweeping tide of republican state legislatures. Many pollsters and analysts think that republicans will gain 30-50 seats in the house from redistricting alone.



Boehner, is a duck and dodge Bitch !!

Which politician isn't? The president is a key example of someone who ducks and dodges. The guy didn't address the oil spill in the gulf for 41 days, he played golf 3-4 times before he gave an address to the media about the oil spill. The guy has ignored the deficit, he kicked the can to a commission, proposed a budget with a deficit so large it failed in democratically controlled senate 97-0 talked about it a lot and didn't do anything for going on 3 years now.

[bu villain]

Apparently you missed the last election. That and haven't looked at polling numbers for congressional approval and generic ballots.

Last November was the biggest republican house gain in ~70 years. It is pretty obvious the American people aren't terribly pleased with the Democrats. Not to mention there weren't many democratic seats up for re-election in the senate compared to republican seats.


As I said, if they are fine with the consequences, then the GOP shouldn't vote for a debt ceiling increase. But if you think all the GOP voters are against the debt ceiling increase you are simply misinformed.

And on a general note, those new representatives get to vote how they like but it doesn't mean the rest of the government must bend to their will. The newly elected aren't any more special than those that were elected before them and a Democratic congressman from California doesn't represent the republicans of Ohio, so why would he vote based on what people in Ohio think? You're oversimplifying how our government works. It's not winner takes all.

[Vteckidd]

I don't understand what's so hard to understand.

The GOP owns the house. Dems control senate and whitehouse.

The GOP can't pass anything as they arent a majority. Then can only block. However, they :

Are the only ones who have passed a budget
Are the only ones who truly want to shrink govt spending and have proposed a plan

Doing an up or down vote on "raise the debt ceiling" can't happen. GOP wants spending cuts, and dems won't let it happen because it effects their pet projects unless they can tax the "rich".

[-EnVus-]

I'm liking this so far....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/harry-reid-debt-ceiling_n_908596.html

[BanginJimmy]

Anyone that thinks Reid's 2.7T in fake cuts, or the GOP's 4T in fake cuts mean anything is simply ignorant. None of these are cutting anything. They are simply kicking the can down the road so that MAYBE budget increases wont be as large.


Lets think about this entire discussion in real terms though. I believe the GOP's 4T in 'cuts' is the largest proposal we have seen. Big whoop. All that does is slightly slow our decent into oblivion. All these 'cuts' are scored in a 10 year cycle, not in a single year or even 5 year period. With current spending levels we are looking at 16T in deficit spending over the next 10 years. What good does 4T in savings do when you are only touching 25% of the problem? Look at your personal budget. How many of you are get your credit card paid off if you only pay the monthly interest you accrue and at the same time 'cut' spending from 400/mo to 300/mo? Sounds to me like you are going to just keep adding to the debt, not reduce it. Anyone disagree?


While I am not a big fan of the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan the House passed, I do like the concept of a balanced budget amendment. IMO, The GOP should waive JUST the amendment, with the inclusion of a super majority requirement for tax increases, in Front of the Senate and the President. They get their debt limit increase with no cuts required in exchange for passage of the Amendment. At that point you leave it up to the States to ratify or defeat.

[ek forever]

Indeed, reducing growth in spending isn't cuts. $36 Trillion in debt instead of $42 trillion in debt is still an insane amount of debt. Not to mention we won't get that far before foreign countries quit borrowing from us. The U.S.A. faces a much larger threat to its credit rating from over-borrowing, not hitting the debt ceiling.

The gang of six plan is the only one praise by Obama. Gee, I wonder if that's because it doesn't have any cuts in it. The guy is a big government statist imposing class warfare to grow the size of government.

[-EnVus-]

These numbers say enough about where the money goes and look how much is missing its Bullshit !!!
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm


For your quick reading, I've listed key statistics about the Iraq War and occupation, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of June 30, 2011, except as indicated.
U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through November 2010.

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Lost and Reported Stolen - $6.6 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money earmarked for Iraq reconstruction, reported on June 14, 2011 by Special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen who called it "the largest theft of funds in national history." (Source - CBS News) Last known holder of the $6.6 billion lost: the U.S. government.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

U.S. Annual Air-Conditioning Cost in Iraq and Afghanistan - $20.2 billion (Source - NPR, June 25, 2011)

U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009

U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion

U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

TROOPS IN IRAQ

Troops in Iraq - Total 46,000 U.S. troops. All other nations have withdrawn their troops.

U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,469 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 72% were from the US Army

Non-U.S. Troop Casualties - Total 316, with 179 from the UK

US Troops Wounded - 32,130, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries. (Total excludes psychological injuries.)

US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home

US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 75 total, at least 36 by enemy fire

IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ

Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per The Nation/LA Times.

Journalists killed - 148, 97 by murder and 51 by acts of war

Journalists killed by US Forces - 14

Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 9,950 as of Jan 31, 2011

Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - On October 22, 2010, ABC News reported "a secret U.S. government tally that puts the Iraqi (civilian) death toll over 100,000," information that was included in more than 400,000 military documents released by Wikileaks.com.

A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 572

Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 306, including 57 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 89 status unknown.

Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14

Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70

Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000

QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS

Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000

Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million

Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect

Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%

Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%

Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000

Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000

Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007

Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007

Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24

Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%

Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%

RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)

Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%

Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%

Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67%

Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%

[One_Bad_SHO]

I've been doing a lot of research and have come up with a good idea on how to solve this budget crisis. All we have to do is make Canada a part of the USA and use their oil to pay off our debts. Then, we take all the french people in Canada and either sell or export them. After we have completed those two tasks, we drop a bomb on Venezuela and then sit back and enjoy some hotpockets and chocolate milk. Sounds like a fuckin plan to me.

[One_Bad_SHO]

These numbers say enough about where the money goes and look how much is missing its Bullshit !!!
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

The "6.6 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money" that was lost in Iraq was not, in fact, U.S. tax payers money. It was Iraqs money that we were holding for them which they (Iraq) are considering suing us for. The money came from Iraqi oil sales, seized Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the United Nations oil-for-food program. Do your own research to educate yourself on that.


There's other dumb shit in your post that I'd like to comment on but I don't really do the whole online pissing contests fueled by misled opinions of sheep, thing. Oh and.... I support the $20.2 billion we spend yearly on AC for our troops. Have you been out here? Something as little as AC helps boost morale which makes it easier for us to embrace the suck. Just saying....

[ek forever]

Dear god, if you think war is expensive, consider the cost of the 100 Million+ people who are dependent on the federal government. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of school systems, municipalities, businesses, and states.

The treasury department writes 80,000,000 checks every month. Defense is ~20% of the budget, and probably half of that is money going into soldiers pockets being spent here at home.

While I think these wars are pretty silly and wildly expensive, at least there is constitutional justification that the government has a responsibility to protect us. Government in it's simplest form should provide for a legal system to foster the free market, protect it's people, and that's pretty much it.

[.blank cd]

Damn there are sane people in congress....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Q52PwFVgE&feature=youtu.be

[.blank cd]

There's other dumb shit in your post that I'd like to comment on but I don't really do the whole online pissing contests fueled by misled opinions of sheep, thing. Oh and.... I support the $20.2 billion we spend yearly on AC for our troops. Have you been out here? Something as little as AC helps boost morale which makes it easier for us to embrace the suck. Just saying....I dont support the 20 billion we spend on AC for the troops one bit. If you brought all of them home, you'd save all that money, and they'd be back home where we're already paying for their AC



While I think these wars are pretty silly and wildly expensive, at least there is constitutional justification that the government has a responsibility to protect us. Government in it's simplest form should provide for a legal system to foster the free market, protect it's people, and that's pretty much it.No there's not and no It shouldnt

[Browning151]

Damn there are sane people in congress....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Q52PwFVgE&feature=youtu.be

Initial statement: Just raise the debt limit with no strings attached. What does that accomplish other than allowing us to continue to pile on more and more debt?

0:14 "Medicare for all, end of $400b in yearly subsidies for the health insurance industry" Uh, what? Surely he's not implying that Medicare for everyone would save the gov't money.

0:37 "We could have another New Deal" Uh, no thanks.

[.blank cd]

Initial statement: Just raise the debt limit with no strings attached. What does that accomplish other than allowing us to continue to pile on more and more debt?Initial statement: raise the debt limit.

Following statements: attached strings.


0:14 "Medicare for all, end of $400b in yearly subsidies for the health insurance industry" Uh, what? Surely he's not implying that Medicare for everyone would save the gov't money. You're partially right here. Medicare for all
the way it is now won't save any money. End the govt subsidies and put that towards Medicare, now you're getting somewhere.

0:37 "We could have another New Deal" Uh, no thanks.Lol. Ok. You need to do some more research about the New Deal. The reason you can go to the store and pick up a 6 pack or a 5th of jäger and party it up with your friends was part of the new deal. See "prohibition"

[Browning151]

You're partially right here. Medicare for all
the way it is now won't save any money. End the govt subsidies and put that towards Medicare, now you're getting somewhere.
So $400b a year would be enough to pay for everyone that is currently covered by private insurance to be covered by Medicare?



Lol. Ok. You need to do some more research about the New Deal. The reason you can go to the store and pick up a 6 pack or a 5th of jäger and party it up with your friends was part of the new deal. See "prohibition"

So the most important part of the New Deal was the repeal of prohibition? Perhaps you should do some more research if you believe that is the case.

[.blank cd]

So $400b a year would be enough to pay for everyone that is currently covered by private insurance to be covered by Medicare?Lemme guess, you dont think that it would be?


So the most important part of the New Deal was the repeal of prohibition?Totally right. I totally forgot to add that part...

[ek forever]

I dont support the 20 billion we spend on AC for the troops one bit. If you brought all of them home, you'd save all that money, and they'd be back home where we're already paying for their AC

No there's not and no It shouldnt

I know you didn't just say that the federal government isn't constitutionally bound to provide for a standing military. Article 1 Section 8.

And the New Deal was really a "Raw deal" Massive government growth, massive growth in spending, and FDR was still seeing 14% unemployment and weak economic growth into his 3rd term. The guy was a master of demagoguery. You really can't argue that the New Deal did remotely what it was supposed to do besides grow government. It didn't fix the economy. The economy sucked until post WWII, over 25 years after the Great Depression in 1929.

And as far as medicare:


In a newly released report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that, in fiscal year 2010, $48 billion in taxpayer money was squandered on fraudulent or improper Medicare claims. Meanwhile, the nation’s ten largest health insurance companies made combined profits of $12.7 billion in 2010 (according to Fortune 500). In other words, for every $1 made by the nation’s ten largest insurers, Medicare lost nearly $4…

Actually, it may have been even worse than that: The GAO writes that this $48 billion in taxpayer money that went down the drain doesn’t even represent Medicare’s full tally of lost revenue, since it “did not include improper payments in its Part D prescription drug benefit, for which the agency has not yet estimated a total amount.”

That doesn't even include part D!!!!

[One_Bad_SHO]

I dont support the 20 billion we spend on AC for the troops one bit. If you brought all of them home, you'd save all that money, and they'd be back home where we're already paying for their AC


Spend a week out here with us and you'll support it.

Regardless, the $20 billion spent on AC is after the fact that we are already here. To state that we'd save the money if we were all brought home is just... plainly... stupid.

You should move to France. Just saying....

[.blank cd]

^ Trust me. I know all about how it is out there. My brother is on the way home from there as we speak. My cousin is an active SEAL.

I dont understand what you're saying here though: After the fact? Of course its after the fact. If no one was there, they wouldnt spend it. simple as that. I guess you're thinking Im saying that you guys can go without A/C out there, what Im saying is you guys can go without being there in the first place

[BanginJimmy]

I can't believe at mere 20B is causing this much discussion. It is such a small number er for the scale we are talking about its not even worth mentioning.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[ahabion]

I can't believe at mere 20B is causing this much discussion. It is such a small number er for the scale we are talking about its not even worth mentioning.



He's referring that we shouldn't have involved ourselves in war post-9/11. Killing Osama and eliminating Hussien does nothing for this country other than make us broke. Why should we worry about national safety/security and living in freedom? He'd rather be living rich and under oppression... /sarcasm

IMO, I'd say cut every social program out there and put a fair or flat tax on the whole system and get rid of the IRS. The government should never be running on debt anyway (deficit spending), it's stupid, both mathematically and ethically. They should be running all cash. For those people who want to support social programs, then that should be facilitated either at the state level or privatized. If you care about the homeless or Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, then donate and do it. Want your kids to have a better education then pay for it. If you want to see the economy pick up, then you need to make a budget for yourself and tell everyone you know to make a budget. When everyone starts 'fixing themselves' that is when the economy will come back. The Top-Down mentality of the government fixing the economy is just plain stupid and it doesn't work.

Bottom line: Put your money where your mouth is. When everyone does this, you create a thriving community/county/state/country.

[Browning151]

Lemme guess, you dont think that it would be?

With the massive amount of fraud and loss in the system that we already can't keep up with, and you want to add everyone that currently has private insurance? No. Government is inefficient at running business, healthcare is no different.


Totally right. I totally forgot to add that part...

Just find it funny that out of all of the significant programs and changes brought about through the New Deal, that's the one you pick out. The New Deal really never accomplished what it set out to do, aside from grow government.

[Browning151]

If you care about the homeless or Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, then donate and do it. Want your kids to have a better education then pay for it. If you want to see the economy pick up, then you need to make a budget for yourself and tell everyone you know to make a budget. When everyone starts 'fixing themselves' that is when the economy will come back. The Top-Down mentality of the government fixing the economy is just plain stupid and it doesn't work.

Bottom line: Put your money where your mouth is. When everyone does this, you create a thriving community/county/state/country.

That's called personal responsibility/accountability, a concept which sadly most of this country has no knowledge or understanding of.

[ahabion]

http://youtu.be/_68GjR6V6zI

Yay John! /doh!

[KlassAct_EJ6]

This guy best describes how I feel (and probably how you all feel too, but I can't speak for you guys). My message to the federal government. STOP IT B!!!!

http://youtu.be/tRmZ9zH-mYM?hd=1

[ahabion]

This guy best describes how I feel (and probably how you all feel too, but I can't speak for you guys). My message to the federal government. STOP IT B!!!!

http://youtu.be/tRmZ9zH-mYM?hd=1

great link! that was definitely a facebook share.

[KlassAct_EJ6]

All this finger pointing and we still get downgraded by S & P. Even after that, you still have both sides pointing fingers days after the "big vote." AGAIN!?! These assholes don't learn. If this gridlock gets any worse its gonna cost us. Its not gonna matter if you're liberal or conservative, we are ALL going to suffer because of these morons.

[BanginJimmy]

All this finger pointing and we still get downgraded by S & P. Even after that, you still have both sides pointing fingers days after the "big vote." AGAIN!?! These assholes don't learn. If this gridlock gets any worse its gonna cost us. Its not gonna matter if you're liberal or conservative, we are ALL going to suffer because of these morons.



S&P downgraded us because they know the "cuts" are a joke that will never happen. Just like the commission, they are political theater. S&P wanted better than 4T worth of cuts and they got 2.5T in reductions in growth. When S&P gets the proof that the cuts arent going to happen, they, and the other rating agencies, are going to downgrade our debt a couple more notches.


Want to see things change in DC? Great, all you have to do is stop electing the Theocrats and Socialists. How about electing people that care more about the country than they do the D or R next to their name? How about electing people that have actually held a real job before and speak in real terms, not political ones?

I know, its too much to ask. What is happening on Jersey Shore is more important.

[.blank cd]

How about electing people that care more about the country than they do the D or R next to their name? How about electing people that have actually held a real job before and speak in real terms, not political ones?
I know, its too much to ask. What is happening on Jersey Shore is more important.Yes


How about electing people that care more about the country than they do the D or R next to their name? How about electing people that have actually held a real job before and speak in real terms, not political ones?
I know, its too much to ask. What is happening on Jersey Shore is more important.Yes


How about electing people that care more about the country than they do the D or R next to their name? How about electing people that have actually held a real job before and speak in real terms, not political ones?
I know, its too much to ask. What is happening on Jersey Shore is more important.Hell yes. I don't think enough people know that you don't have to vote for someone that has a D or and R next to their name. Like it's a requirement or something.....


How about electing people that care more about the country than they do the D or R next to their name? How about electing people that have actually held a real job before and speak in real terms, not political ones?
I know, its too much to ask. What is happening on Jersey Shore is more important.

[-EnVus-]

Soon we china and Russia will be playing Mob and breaking our knee caps. We owe them so much money and they can careless what happens to us just pay up...

[Browning151]

S&P downgraded us because they know the "cuts" are a joke that will never happen. Just like the commission, they are political theater. S&P wanted better than 4T worth of cuts and they got 2.5T in reductions in growth. When S&P gets the proof that the cuts arent going to happen, they, and the other rating agencies, are going to downgrade our debt a couple more notches.


Want to see things change in DC? Great, all you have to do is stop electing the Theocrats and Socialists. How about electing people that care more about the country than they do the D or R next to their name? How about electing people that have actually held a real job before and speak in real terms, not political ones?

I know, its too much to ask. What is happening on Jersey Shore is more important.

Completely agree.

[Vteckidd]

I expect the DOW to fall another 1000 points in the next 30 days. Already down 200 today.

Make no mistake about it this is another recession, and it will be as bad as the 2008 debacle. Only difference is we will go from 9.1% unemployment to prob 12-13%.

They "cut 2.5Trillion" from the expected 9 trillion we are going to borrow in the next 10 years. So CUT is a shitty word to use, more like "we arent goint to borrow as much" which history shows us thats easy to change once a new congress and president is elected.

sit back, its going to be a bumpy ride

[ek forever]

Even the CBO says we're going to borrow $12 Trillion by 2021 under the new debt deal. And we all know how optimistic the CBO is. They are bound legally to use current law, which assumes Bush tax cuts will end, Millions of Americans who will never get hit with the AMT will get hit with that, and so on.

The CBO basically is always off by a matter of Trillions in its projections. Almost always in the optimistic direction.

[BanginJimmy]

I expect the DOW to fall another 1000 points in the next 30 days. Already down 200 today.

Make no mistake about it this is another recession, and it will be as bad as the 2008 debacle. Only difference is we will go from 9.1% unemployment to prob 12-13%.

They "cut 2.5Trillion" from the expected 9 trillion we are going to borrow in the next 10 years. So CUT is a shitty word to use, more like "we arent goint to borrow as much" which history shows us thats easy to change once a new congress and president is elected.

sit back, its going to be a bumpy ride

Mostly agree but a few things I need to point out


1. We never got out of a recession. This is still the same recession we started in 08. The only growth we have had since then has been the gov't. Now that TARP and the stimulus are over with economy os showing its true colors.

2. The cuts called for in the deal will never happen and we all know it. When Congress can't get their shit together they will simply pass an extension on the 'trigger' so it never actually forces cuts.


There are very simple things Congress can do to at least stop hitting a recovery. Things like reductions in corporate tax rates will immediately cause businesses to hire.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Vteckidd]

Mostly agree but a few things I need to point out


1. We never got out of a recession. This is still the same recession we started in 08. The only growth we have had since then has been the gov't. Now that TARP and the stimulus are over with economy os showing its true colors.

I hear ya man, but if we go by the true definition of a recession and recovery, the recession ended around may/june 2009. This is the exact DOUBLE DIP recession economists warned about when stim 1 was passed. Pass the stim and you deal with the NOW until the money runs out........


2. The cuts called for in the deal will never happen and we all know it. When Congress can't get their shit together they will simply pass an extension on the 'trigger' so it never actually forces cuts.


There are very simple things Congress can do to at least stop hitting a recovery. Things like reductions in corporate tax rates will immediately cause businesses to hire.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Agreed 100000% , but today Obama blamed the economic free fall on the TP, until we kick him and other GOP members out and elect people willing to do the tough choices, we are in major trouble.

[ek forever]

Yeah, but can you trust the experts when they say we're out of a recession when the equation for GDP is as follows:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),


The "experts" say we're out of a recession based on GDP growth. But when that GDP growth is largely attributed to the government taking money from someone else and spending it the way the government sees fit, you might find a lot of economists who would argue the private sector is shrinking. Or at least growing at a much slower rate than the government.

This "we aren't in a recession" nonsense is political ploy used for speeches, polls, and campaigns. The DOW is tanking, the economy is crawling, CPI is exploding, 1st time home ownership is at a 30 year low, etc. The list goes on and on.

And I agree with you VtecKidd, the RINOs and establishment needs to go. Things aren't much better with the new congress because we've still got old leadership. As much as I avoid associating with the Tea Party for argumentative reasons the Tea Party really does have a firm grip on actually cutting government. Growing at a slower rate isn't government cuts, spending less this year than the year before is a cut. We aren't going to see that with the republican leadership we have now.

[.blank cd]

There are very simple things Congress can do to at least stop hitting a recovery. Things like reductions in corporate tax rates will immediately cause businesses to hire.

Sent from my DROIDX using TapatalkNever understood why people keep thinking this will work. If your business is failing because people are too broke to buy your stuff, no smart business man is gonna pay MORE people to produce a product that isn't selling, ask anyone with a simple understanding of business. Cutting corporate tax rates is just gonna put more money in a single persons pocket or cause a business to stockpile their profits even more than whats already happening. That only works in theory in a perfect world. Sadly we don't live in a perfect world

[ahabion]

Never understood why people keep thinking this will work. If your business is failing because people are too broke to buy your stuff, no smart business man is gonna pay MORE people to produce a product that isn't selling, ask anyone with a simple understanding of business. Cutting corporate tax rates is just gonna put more money in a single persons pocket or cause a business to stockpile their profits even more than whats already happening. That only works in theory in a perfect world. Sadly we don't live in a perfect world

While there is the possibility that a person may keep more of the earnings rather than paying taxes, there are many more people who will use that money to reinvest into their business in the form of either jobs, job tools, or simple infrastructure. Corporations pay far more to dodge taxation and jump through loopholes. If you don't have corporate taxes, then that money can have a far greater potential that it will be reinvested back into the company. Pretty simple thought really.

This guy is just a genius. I'd vote for him for President.
http://youtu.be/D-nj2H7ALzg

[BanginJimmy]

Never understood why people keep thinking this will work. If your business is failing because people are too broke to buy your stuff, no smart business man is gonna pay MORE people to produce a product that isn't selling, ask anyone with a simple understanding of business. Cutting corporate tax rates is just gonna put more money in a single persons pocket or cause a business to stockpile their profits even more than whats already happening. That only works in theory in a perfect world. Sadly we don't live in a perfect world


I disagree. This wont affect all sectors the same, but it will have a heavy influence on the manufacturing sector. CORPORATIONS DONT PAY 1 CENT IN TAXES, CONSUMERS PAY IT. That simple fact is why dumping corporate taxes will add jobs. Cutting those taxes will put more money in the consumers pocket. More money in the consumer's pocket means more money to spend on the things they want and need. More consumer spending means more jobs are opened to fill that need.

You also have to look at this in a global sense. Even if the rise in spending is small in the US, the elimination of the corporate tax rate would cause the prices on our exports to also drop, making those products more competitive overseas. This also results in more jobs, more money, and more jobs. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world and is a massive drag on businesses, especially those that are profitable and need to expand.

Think of it this way. You own a business that does 10 mil a year in sales. 8 mil of that goes to supplies. You have 20 employees making 50k a year when you add in payroll taxes and benefits. You take home about 100k a year and the rest goes to various taxes. Business is strong and has you working everyone, including yourself, to full capacity. You want to expand and add 5 more employees. Then you find out that the govt is going to cut your taxes by 50%. This gives you another 400k of disposable income plus whatever increase in sales results from the added output. At this point, a smart businessman is going to add the five people he needs and expand his manufacturing capacity. He will probably give those 20 people that have been working themselves ragged a raise to help compensate for the added hours and stress.

Now imagine if you raise this same businessman's taxes by 10%. Well, there goes the 5 extra employees, plus 2 more current ones.

[.blank cd]

While there is the possibility that a person may keep more of the earnings rather than paying taxes, there are many more people who will use that money to reinvest into their business in the form of either jobs, job tools, or simple infrastructure. Corporations pay far more to dodge taxation and jump through loopholes. If you don't have corporate taxes, then that money can have a far greater potential that it will be reinvested back into the company. Pretty simple thought really.

This guy is just a genius. I'd vote for him for President.
http://youtu.be/D-nj2H7ALzgThe chance of a CEO or business pocketing the extra income is almost an absolute certainty. Especially in this day in age where everyone is looking for the fast buck. What are you gonna do when youre store is folding up? You're not gonna hire more people, youre not gonna buy more raw material. You're gonna use that money to stay afloat. And Rubio? He's an evangelical Protestant Christian. The absolute last thing you need in the white house is someone trying to erase that part of the constitution that separates church and state.


I disagree. This wont affect all sectors the same, but it will have a heavy influence on the manufacturing sector. CORPORATIONS DONT PAY 1 CENT IN TAXES, CONSUMERS PAY IT. That simple fact is why dumping corporate taxes will add jobs. Cutting those taxes will put more money in the consumers pocket. More money in the consumer's pocket means more money to spend on the things they want and need. More consumer spending means more jobs are opened to fill that need.How does cutting taxes on a business put more money in my pocket? "AT&T's tax rate got slashed!! Now I feel alot better about handing them 180 bucks a month!" Do you honestly think if we gave them more money, they would drop prices on goods and services? Think again


You also have to look at this in a global sense. Even if the rise in spending is small in the US, the elimination of the corporate tax rate would cause the prices on our exports to also drop, making those products more competitive overseas. This also results in more jobs, more money, and more jobs. The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world and is a massive drag on businesses, especially those that are profitable and need to expand.No, the biggest drag on businesses are their artificially inflated prices on goods and claiming its because of the economy. Take basic goods like chips and coke and gum; the price of an ear of corn has plummeted, the price of water, soybeans, the fact that most of the labor has moved overseas, wheres all the money going? Do you remember what you paid only 5 years ago for a bottle of coke and a bag of chips? And this can be applied to almost anything. Its a sickening cycle thats only hurting businesses more than its helping. I have personally written off buying bottled sodas and chips because of their recent price hike. Last I checked, the price of an ear of corn hasnt gone up, and neither has the price of carbonated water.

[ek forever]

How does cutting taxes on a business put more money in my pocket? "AT&T's tax rate got slashed!! Now I feel alot better about handing them 180 bucks a month!" Do you honestly think if we gave them more money, they would drop prices on goods and services? Think again

You've got no clue how economics works.

And it's not giving them more money, it's letting AT&T keep more money that they earned. Where does AT&T get that money with which it pays taxes? It gets it from you as you so elegantly stated. Businesses write checks to the government with your hard earned money.

Target and Walmart both sell a Huffy bicycle. They both sell them for $100. $25 of that price is embedded taxes and regulatory burdens that make producing that good more expensive.

If you eliminate those taxes, walmart cuts it's price by $5. Target cuts it's by $10. Walmart jumps the gun and cuts it to $75 and so does target because that is the market price for that good.

That's a simple way of putting it, but that's how it works and that's almost literally how much of a businesses taxes you're paying when you buy something. About 23% of the price of everything you buy is taxes. It varies a bit on the good or service by its elasticity, but the average is ~23%.

I got news for you, corporations don't collaborate together to keep prices high, they would much rather short the other company it's profits by selling the same product for less at a greater volume.

Not to mention you need to get off the big corporation schtick. Small businesses make up an epic fuckton more of the economy than big businesses do. hundreds of thousands of small businesses up against a few thousand multi-million dollar businesses? It's not even close how much more of an impact on the economy that small businesses have compared to big business. Get off the wealth envy horse.

Businesses are in business to make money, not fund government. They have an obligation to the investors, shareholders, and employees to turn a profit and that is it. Anything the government does to them as a regulation or a tax is simply a cost of production and that is passed onto the consumer and their laborers.

A study I read that examined 35 countries over 21 years examined wages, labor, and business taxes over that period and concluded that .5-.6 of every 1% of taxes levied on business come out of the laborers pocket in the form of suppressed wages. With another 20-30% coming out of the consumer in the form of higher prices you can start to see where businesses don't pay taxes. Depending on the elasticity of the good or service some businesses might pay up to 20% of the literal tax burden, but that's not very often.

Makes pretty good sense when you think about it, a business has to make X dollars to keep its doors open and keep hiring people ever year. Most businesses fire and hire ~3% of it's workforce every year to increase productivity and get rid of the bad workers and give new ones a shot. Something we should see a lot more in public schools, government agencies, etc.

Edit: And please tell me where the constitution separates church and state? You're perpetuating a court ruling that progressives have copied/pasted in the classroom for years and years. Progressive teachers don't read kids the literal text because that's not what it implies. You're a government educated Ostrich with it's head in the mainstream sand hole.

[.blank cd]

You've got no clue how economics works.

Target and Walmart both sell a Huffy bicycle. They both sell them for $100. $25 of that price is embedded taxes and regulatory burdens that make producing that good more expensive.

If you eliminate those taxes, walmart cuts it's price by $5. Target cuts it's by $10. Walmart jumps the gun and cuts it to $75 and so does target because that is the market price for that good.

That's a simple way of putting it, but that's how it works and that's almost literally how much of a businesses taxes you're paying when you buy something. About 23% of the price of everything you buy is taxes. It varies a bit on the good or service by its elasticity, but the average is ~23%.

I got news for you, corporations don't collaborate together to keep prices high, they would much rather short the other company it's profits by selling the same product for less at a greater volume. I know thats how its supposed to work, but thats not whats happening


Edit: And please tell me where the constitution separates church and state? You're perpetuating a court ruling that progressives have copied/pasted in the classroom for years and years. Progressive teachers don't read kids the literal text because that's not what it implies. You're a government educated Ostrich with it's head in the mainstream sand hole.
I can tell you've never read the constitution before. Particularly the first amendment, and particularly the establishment clause. No, the text "separation of church and state" doesn't appear here, but it is implied, seeing as how it was written by secularists. You should research more into this issue, you'll see why you dont want someone in office proselytizing and making laws based on their faith and not on rational thought

[ek forever]

I know thats how its supposed to work, but thats not whats happening

Well not shit it isn't happening because businesses are still taxes and regulations are being pumped out every day. When do you think it's going to happen? It won't until these market distortions leave the market.




I can tell you've never read the constitution before. Particularly the first amendment, and particularly the establishment clause. No, the text "separation of church and state" doesn't appear here, but it is implied, seeing as how it was written by secularists. You should research more into this issue, you'll see why you dont want someone in office proselytizing and making laws based on their faith and not on rational thought

I'm a political science major. I've taken constitutional law. I've read the constitution many times and keep a copy in my glove box and another in my book bag.

The text reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now where does it say you can't have religion in government? Prayer at public meetings?

You clearly haven't read a history book. Jefferson simply stated that the Federal Government would not 'interfere' with the church. No where did he say there was separation of church and state. In fact Jefferson regularly attended church at the Capital Building and it was used as a church even before the Capital was used by congress!!!

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/historical/images/OrreryText.jpg


The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: "Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary.

I'll go further to elaborate, and by doing this you'll probably ignore everything I posted before this, that Jefferson can be quoted from a letter:



"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the, "wall of separation of church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

The key here is to remember the times. Why did this matter at all to the founders? Remember that Britain had spilled the lives of tens of millions of foreigners and even it's own people over the past half-millennium. All due to the fact that the church ruled the state. The church had a grip on the executive and the legislature. This is why they called for a "separation" of the establishment of religion in the government. They never said you can't have invocation prior to a government meeting, etc. Or that no public official can have a religion or some other extreme. When calling for a "wall between church and state" he means the establishment of either. No religion gets special treatment or favors. Modern minds read old text very poorly and take it out of context. Reading the federalist papers would do a lot for your understanding of this countries founding. Hell, now you can even buy it in modernized english. I've read them in the old text, and it's tough, but very legible. Just goes to show how brilliant people were a few hundred years ago. No one writes with the level of intelligencia that Washington and Madison did anymore.

What the architects of the 1st Amendment had in mind was the English civil war a few generations earlier when English society was torn apart over a three way struggle between Catholicism, Anglicism and Calvinism. The issues of King and Parliament could have been resolved with minimal bloodshed, but when the issue became how much the government should support which religion it became an intractable bloodbath. What the founders recognized is that when the government takes sides on religion it eliminates the ability for people to make the compromises needed in a free society.

Edit: If you haven't read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography you should. It's a very moving book.

[ahabion]

The chance of a CEO or business pocketing the extra income is almost an absolute certainty. Especially in this day in age where everyone is looking for the fast buck. What are you gonna do when youre store is folding up? You're not gonna hire more people, youre not gonna buy more raw material. You're gonna use that money to stay afloat. And Rubio? He's an evangelical Protestant Christian. The absolute last thing you need in the white house is someone trying to erase that part of the constitution that separates church and state.

The separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state... not the state from the church... *history*

and isn't Obama already doing that with the United States and the Constitution? Just bypassing the one founding document that this whole country is grounded on...

[.blank cd]

In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

In the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams, another founding father, wrote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.And yes, I know its context of the Barbary War

No one said anything about prayer before public meetings, although I would rather it be kept to a moment of silence. My discourse is with elected officials making a mess of rational situations with their irrational decisions. I need someone in office who is gonna say "OK, a=b and a=c, so therefore b=c" not "hmmmm, what would you do, god?" The latter is absolutely terrifying to me. Case in point, the stripping of rights of the LBGT community.


The separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state... not the state from the church... *history*. [citation needed]

You got it a little backwards, but ok.

[ek forever]

I don't think anyone is logically thinking that "god" will be directing government officials through their prayers. I can't think of anyone campaigning as "god's politician" I think this is all blown out of proportion over the clear religious oppression that Christians face compared to other religious sects.

There is a lot of hyperbole over something I consider to be quite personal and a core fabric of many peoples lives regardless of their religions. There are much bigger issues at hand. I consider myself a christian, but I don't attend church more than 4-5 times per year and pray to myself in private at home. I view this religious nonsense as political distraction. Part of it may be that logical arguments can't be made by some people so they must submit to making ad-hominem attacks or attacking someones personal life because they can't logically argue their stance.

[bu villain]

First of all, I don't have any problem with a politician being religious and acting as such. However, I think your claim that Christianity is oppressed in America is a little rediculous. A small minority of people complaining about a politician's prayer meeting is not oppression! In this country, the government, private industry, and the population as a whole are dominated by Christians. As long as Christians hold a majority of positions of authority in this country, then by definition, they can not be oppressed except by themselves.

[ek forever]

Oppressed was the wrong word. However you know exactly what I mean. There is plenty of religious demonization in the media. My point was simply that there are much larger fish to fry. Especially on the national level where very little social issues are dealt with.

[.blank cd]

Yeah, Christians are just feeling threatened because they're in danger of losing their spot as the majority. It's about 70/30 now. I give it 20-25 years and Ill bet money that'll change to 49/51 at the very least. 30 years we'll see an out of the closet Atheist president.

[BanginJimmy]

Case in point, the stripping of rights of the LBGT community.


Though I agree with what you are alluding to, no one's rights have been stripped by anyone. If anything the LGBT has more rights than heterosexuals.

[BanginJimmy]

First of all, I don't have any problem with a politician being religious and acting as such. However, I think your claim that Christianity is oppressed in America is a little rediculous. A small minority of people complaining about a politician's prayer meeting is not oppression! In this country, the government, private industry, and the population as a whole are dominated by Christians. As long as Christians hold a majority of positions of authority in this country, then by definition, they can not be oppressed except by themselves.


Christian's arent being oppressed, but christian views are, even from self described christians. From Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" line to everyone on the right being attacked like being a christian is bad. It is also done in more subtle ways. Look at the way the bomber in Norway was described, and the way Major Hasan as described by the press. No mention of Hasan's religion but nearly every article about the Norway bomber mentioned his religion.

[.blank cd]

Though I agree with what you are alluding to, no one's rights have been stripped by anyone. If anything the LGBT has more rights than heterosexuals.

You could say they have all the rights of heterosexuals, except the right to get married

[BanginJimmy]

You could say they have all the rights of heterosexuals, except the right to get married

That is not a right.

I agree with you though. The first time a state passed a same sex marriage law, this needed to go to the SC because of the obvious conflict with Article IV section 1 of the Constitution.


The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.

[ek forever]

Indeed, getting married isn't a "right." Neither is healthcare, or housing. You do have a right to your health. But not the goods and services produced by someone else.

I don't think the government should decide who does and doesn't get married. There shouldn't be any financial benefits to being married from the public sector. Period. If a private insurance company wants to offer discounts for married couples that's their prerogative as a private company making that decision.

[bu villain]

I agree Christians get attacked more now than they ever have in the past (much of which I don't agree with) but they got a long way to go before they get on the same level as other religions. It's just hard to listen to a majority group that holds that vast majority of power in this country play the victim card.

[bu villain]

I don't think the government should decide who does and doesn't get married. There shouldn't be any financial benefits to being married from the public sector. Period. If a private insurance company wants to offer discounts for married couples that's their prerogative as a private company making that decision.

Agreed! With a 50% divorce rate, I don't see marriages really doing much for the stability of modern society.

[.blank cd]

Indeed, getting married isn't a "right." Neither is healthcare, or housing. You do have a right to your health. But not the goods and services produced by someone else.

I don't think the government should decide who does and doesn't get married. There shouldn't be any financial benefits to being married from the public sector. Period. If a private insurance company wants to offer discounts for married couples that's their prerogative as a private company making that decision.Careful how you word this. 50-60 years ago, my parents didn't have a "right" to sit wherever they wanted to on a bus, or piss in the same toilet, or eat at the same restaurants, and before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same exact thing. It is a "right". They're called civil "rights". Carry on

[greasemunkey]

the house is electing 4 dem and 4 rep to determine a way to cut actual costs that the government has in its millions of programs. If they don't come to a conclusion, which is a possibility, THEN they will cut it from our social security and defense programs. if these cuts dont happen, we keep printing money to pay off debt that becomes worth nothing. Guns and gold will be what pays for things. I say they cut revenue supplied to almost all programs by a small percentage, roads will still get paved, water will still be supplied, yadda yadda we are paying for retiree's that make 100k a year for the rest of their life for doing nothing and over manned gov't programs. We don't need 3 people working the jack hammer....or 2 guys driving the water truck doing a one man job..i say cut them all down.

[ek forever]

Careful how you word this. 50-60 years ago, my parents didn't have a "right" to sit wherever they wanted to on a bus, or piss in the same toilet, or eat at the same restaurants, and before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same exact thing. It is a "right". They're called civil "rights". Carry on

There are also "legal" rights, want to open that can of worms? We're discussing fundamental rights and you totally took it in an off-the-wall direction. You make it sound like I'm abdicating such things. What happened was surely wrong, but no one has a "right" to be on a bus. No one has a "right" to piss in a toilet.

A private individual who owns a private business and funds it with his own money and his own work should be able to allow whomever he wants to in his restaurant. I do agree that if you pay taxes you should have all have equal access to public facilities. But if I open a business with my money I should allow into the premises whom I please. The same goes for every private business. If you don't want to sell your good or service to a certain person or persons, you shouldn't have to.

[BanginJimmy]

the house is electing 4 dem and 4 rep to determine a way to cut actual costs that the government has in its millions of programs.

Wrong, its a total of 12 members of congress. 3 Dem and 3 GOP from both houses.






If they don't come to a conclusion, which is a possibility, THEN they will cut it from our social security and defense programs. if these cuts dont happen, we keep printing money to pay off debt that becomes worth nothing. Guns and gold will be what pays for things. I say they cut revenue supplied to almost all programs by a small percentage, roads will still get paved, water will still be supplied, yadda yadda we are paying for retiree's that make 100k a year for the rest of their life for doing nothing and over manned gov't programs. We don't need 3 people working the jack hammer....or 2 guys driving the water truck doing a one man job..i say cut them all down.[/QUOTE]