Slashdot Mirror
House Websites Jammed After Obama Debt Speech
Hugh Pickens writes "CNN reports that House switchboards have been flooded by phone calls — nearly twice the normal average — and hit with an unusual volume of constituent e-mails as voters voice their concern over the worsening debt-ceiling crisis. At least 104 of 279 congressional websites surveyed by CNN were down or had experienced slow connections on Tuesday, after President Obama's speech Monday night. In his address to the nation, Obama called on the American people to 'make your voice heard.' House Speaker John Boehner's website responded with a 'Server Too Busy' or 'Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)' message during parts of the day. His switchboard reported as many as 150-300 callers on hold, wanting to leave their thoughts for the speaker. House Chief Administrative Officer spokesman Dan Weiser said that lawmakers' websites and phone lines began to sag with the traffic on Monday night. 'Last night we had some website problems. ... There was some websites that were hosted by outside vendors that had slowness, sluggishness, people had trouble getting in. And that was rectified early this morning.'"
This is extortion. This is anti-American. Rep Mike Lee Admits Extortion.
In specific Tea Party Republicans are threatening to put the nation into default, holding the entire US economy and millions of lives hostage to pass their amendment to the Constitution. They want the nation to default because it will boost recruitment into their militias. They want a civil war and are apparently beyond compromise. They cannot be reasoned with apparently.
Who are these people? Before they called themselves the Tea Party they called themselves the John Birch Society. and before they were called the John Birch society they called themselves the American Liberty League.
This is the same American Liberty League that was behind the Business Plot.
The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship. The history of that can be seen by watching this video.
Read about Smedley Darlington Butler and how he single handedly saved the nation from a coup. Now that we have a black President the forces looking to have a coup have grown stronger than ever. And these groups hate the feds and the government because these are the ones investigating them. The solution? Tax cuts, smaller government, which means less FBI investigations into them.
And btw I expect "them" to rate my post down into oblivion. Expect to see it rated as flamebait, overrated or something else.
It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.
Pay attention, kids: we're experiencing history! This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
This is Democracy inaction
There, fixed it for you.
Our system of government was not setup for this large of a population. When the countru was founded there were many who thought the constittuent:representative ratio was too high and it is faaaar worse now. It is time to dissolve the union and form 50 new nations.
And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.
Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Pity you can't vote for another party and leave the Dems and Reps out of it. Mind you, you'd need some kind of system in place that allows anyone to stand for a seat and be voted in, regardless of how much money they put in to one of the two parties in the democracy.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
Sandy Adams, Florida
Robert Aderholt, Alabama
Todd Akin, Missouri
Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, Chairman
Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland
Joe Barton, Texas
Gus Bilirakis, Florida
Rob Bishop, Utah
Diane Black, Tennessee
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Paul Broun, Georgia
Dan Burton, Indiana
John Carter, Texas
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Ander Crenshaw, Florida
John Culberson, Texas
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Stephen Fincher, Tennessee
John Fleming, Louisiana
Trent Franks, Arizona
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
Wally Herger, California
Tim Huelskamp, Kansas
Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
Steve King, Iowa
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jeff Landry, Louisiana
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Kenny Marchant, Texas
Tom McClintock, California
David McKinley, West Virginia
Gary Miller, California
Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Rich Nugent, Florida
Steve Pearce, New Mexico
Mike Pence, Indiana
Ted Poe, Texas
Tom Price, Georgia
Denny Rehberg, Montana
Phil Roe, Tennessee
Dennis Ross, Florida
Ed Royce, California
Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Tim Scott, South Carolina
Pete Sessions, Texas
Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Lamar Smith, Texas
Cliff Stearns, Florida
Tim Walberg, Michigan
Joe Walsh, Illinois
Allen West, Florida
Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Now we're going to Slashdot them too!
The fucker lied about the President's plan right after the president explained he was for cuts and tax increases. Fucking John Boehner right after says, Obama wants to increase taxes and SPEND MORE.
What a fucking lying piece of shit. He should be removed from office. Fuck him, the Tea Party, and any other lying piece of shit that is out to bleed our country to death.
Hi, you seem to be using the FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy!
Let me bring you up to speed: two long and incompetently-waged wars kept of the budget books for political reasons, at the same time we had a tax cut. Nobody's ever cut taxes during a war, let alone two, because that's a really fucking stupid thing to do.
In the latest episode of the Washington Follies, the Republicans demanded big cuts in spending. Fine, say the Dems, here's $3 trillion in spending cuts But we want $1 trilliion in eliminated tax subsidies and raised taxes on the rich. NONONONONO, scream the Republicans, TAXES BAD TAXES BAD.
That's not "durr, they're equally bad".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
They didn't give a fuck then, why would they give a fuck now?
Same happened when Obama rammed through his "Health Care Reforms" and - they didn't give a fuck then.
So now this is important because it is something Obama cares about?
HA HA HA HA.
Do you even know what the amending process entails? Hint: you have to get a supermajority of the state legislatures to approve the amendment. Do you have any fucking idea how long that would take? /Years/. We don't have time for that kind of political theater bullshit. If Republicans want that, they should put it out as a separate measure. If the people and their representatives in the states want it, it'll pass on its own merits.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The Congressional filtering system is extremely efficient. No matter what you say, somehow you're always supporting the position that the Congresscritter has already taken.
I've been writing to "my" Congressional "representatives" for almost forty years, and even when I've bluntly said that Senator Bozo has a severe case of craniorectal insertion, I get a letter back thanking me for supporting him.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Defaulting on the federal debt will simply mean the federal government is limited to its revenues and whatever it can print (and that will totally screw over the poor and vulnerable). We have over $2T in revenues. All that means is that the federal government will have to prioritize.
How about we start means-testing Social Security and Medicare. If Grandma has a pension, fat 401k or private assets she gets no Social Security.
So what if she "paid into the system her whole life." I have no kids and pay thousands of dollars in property taxes, mainly to support local schools. Do you see me whining, bitching and moaning about the injustice of paying for something from which I derive no personal benefit? No. It's called civic responsibility. Part of your duty as a citizen is to put the common good before yours and frankly, I'm sick of ordinary Americans adopting the same "fuck you, I'll get mine" attitude they accuse the rich of having and then acting holier than thou toward them.
Say they decide to pay the troops, what about the contractors who were promised money who are risking their lives as well? You think the mercenaries are going to be happy when they find out they might not be paid and that their contract may even be canceled? So how are they going to get their money?
Also how will the troops be paid? That isn't even a guarantee. The foreigners who own the nations debt have to be paid before anyone else and that includes the troops. After the foreign debt holders are paid then the President can think to give priority to the troops, or to contractors, or to social security. And at some point, somewhere, some people aren't going to be paid. Which people can afford not to get paid for a month?
And when a budget is finally passed, will that lost month's pay be included in the budget? The point is that this will fuck the system up internally, as well as fuck up the entire economy.
So we should march on D.C. this week? What should I put on my sign? "More Debt NOW!"?
I didn't vote for him. But he has the power to influence elections regardless of who the people voted for.
It beats the hell out of fighting in the streets.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The way you say that you want what the Federalists wanted and then put Jefferson and Madison in the camp of the Federalists cracks me up. While Madison was a Federalist early on (and helped Hamilton write the Federalists Papers), by the time the Constiitution was ratified, he was was agreeing with Jefferson on almost every issue and staunchly opposed the Federalists. The root of this dispute was largely over the centralization of the government. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. The anti-Federalist groups (like the Republicans that later formed into the Demoratic-Republican clubs which are not to be confused with the party of Lincoln) thought that a strong central government was doomed to end in tyrrany. The anti-Federalists lost that battle with the ratification of the US Constitution. They lost it again during Washington's presidency. By the time Jefferson was elected president, Federalist doctrine was so par for the course, that you'd be hard pressed to show the difference between his term and what the Federalists supported.
The Anti-federalists lost again in the US Civil War. The so-called states' rights movement was really just a replay of the same old debate, except with guns and bayonets instead of broadsides and pamphlets. Lincon's Republican Party put a strong union headed by a powerful centralized government at the center of their platform.
HTTP ERROR 511: Website is Jammed.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Obama slashdotted his own communication services. Some people never learn hey?!
"and that was rectified early this morning"
Great doublespeak insinuating someone actively did something to fix the websites, when in reality the problem went away because people went to bed.
Actually, your comment about property taxes does sound sort of bitchy.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Sadly, that is probably in the future if we don't start getting rid of our debt. :-(
Missing from this story is that the White House switchboard was, also, jammed. This story makes it seem as if the people are supporting Obama against Congress, when in fact, they are mad at the whole lot of them.
My question is this, how do you negotiate with someone who will not give you a list of what they want out of the negotiations? The Republicans have laid out in clear terms what their negotiating position is, the Democrats have, also, done so with Obama's budget from April, yet they are trying to tell us that that isn't their negotiating position. If that isn't their starting point for negotiations, what is it?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
OMG, it might take 10 years. Of course, that was the reason we didn't drill in Alaska 10 years ago. Dang...sure would be nice to have that oil now that it's 10 years later.
Damn idiots only think 2-4 years down the road. And it's destroying our country. Meanwhile, China has a 50 year plan for the continent of Africa. Who do you think is going to be a player in 50 years?
In most of the world, federalism is a political idea where a relatively weak central government helps a federation of more or less independent states govern themselves. Many of the Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, etc.) were federalists of this sort but generally referred to themselves as Republicans or as Anti-federalists.
During early American period advocates of a strong federal government (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington -by the end of his second term anyway, etc.) adopted the name Federalists to descrbe themselves. So in the US, use of the word 'Federalism' tends to mean the opposite of what it does in other contexts.
For a great read, look up the July 29, 1792 letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton in which Washington recounts the complaints he's heard from Republicans against the Federalists. The complaints are largely identical to Tea Party complaints of today right down to having problems with a strong central bank, exercise of executive power, and onerous taxes. Mind, you, Washington wasn't the one /making/ these complaints. Rather, he was itemizing them in order to find out how Hamilton would respond to them. Most likely they came straight from Thomas Jefferson.
This election is "blah"
Rand Paul 2016
...it's too late for the pebbles to vote. Regardless of your fiscal outlook, the fact is the debt ceiling must be raised, simply because of economic inertia. Fiscal conservatives may be correct that less government spending is good - but that perspective doesn't matter today, as our economic difficulties are the result of decisions years, maybe decades past. If you want to avoid raising debt ceilings in the future (a goal I actually support), that's fine - we can have a discussion on the best fiscal policy to pursue over the next ten years in order to achieve that. But *today* is not the time to debate *this* particular ceiling. That discussion should've happened ten years ago. Playing with the cap today is irresponsible at best, and cynical exploitation of economic trouble created, in part, by an ex-president from your own party, to secure a victory in 2012 ... well, not even at "worst", as that's pretty much exactly what the Republicans are doing.
The point is, you don't change economic trends overnight. The necessity of raising the debt ceiling cannot be altered today, even with the best intentions. I want to stay balanced and not single a particular side for blame, but it seems that the politicking is all about discrediting the sitting president to hurt his incumbent standing in 2012, rather than any form of principled economic disagreement.
Btw: captcha: "defraud"
It's no new taxes without balancing the budget.
Absolutely unreasonable....if you're religious in your belief that Democrats (or Republicans) can do no wrong. And irrational enough to not be able to do the math and realize that $10 in and $20 out can't be done.
And so? Propose a separate goddamn balanced-budget amendment. Don't hold the country hostage to your political religion.
I think a BB amendment might be a good idea, subject to how it's implemented, but this is /not/ the way to go about it.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
How can Republicans hold to the position: "We must have a balanced budget", which by itself is perfectly fine, then add to that, "but we won't let you increase your income"? These 2 principles do NOT go together. If you remove 1 of only 2 fundamental tools to achieving a balanced budget from the table, then it beyond ridiculous to expect a balance budget be enforced this way. This is even more true of a government than it is to a household, as governments typically have some very inflexible spending requirements.
You may, or may not, have a point. But the fact that you also think deliberately spelling someone's name incorrectly is a neat way to express your disapproval immediately invalidates all you have to say. It's rhetoric that'd be fitting coming from an 8 year old.
Ergo; your opinion has no value.
The last time I checked, the US was still a democracy. Currently, 47% of the country (including me) would prefer to not raise the debt ceiling, while 42% (presumably including you) are all in a panic that not raising it would be a catastrophe. I am tired of the government borrowing money on my behalf, while you would like your debt to be even more than the $46,137.29 it is now. When do you plan on paying this debt back? Ours are therefore opposite and irreconcilable positions, perfectly reflecting the opposite and irreconcilable positions held by the two parties in Congress. What you are proposing that your view must be imposed on everybody in the country, ignoring the views of the other 47% of americans. That's not how democracy works. That's how a dictatorship works. If you like that system, try moving to China or something. In America we try to not allow a minority dictate the majority what to do (even though, unfortunately, it does happen).
Really, cause Grandma or Grandpa paid into social security for 20+ years, but let's fuck them over. Cause, they were smart enough to not rely on the goverment. Fuck that shit. Give me back my social security, and I'll pay for my own fucking retirement.
21st Century Renaissance Man
"There was some websites that were hosted by outside vendors that had slowness, sluggishness, people had trouble getting in."
Wait, what? Outside vendors had their sites crash, but sites run by the Congress staff itself ran with the load?
That can't be right. That contradicts everything I'm told about privatization and outsourcing uber alles.
[/sarcasm]
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Yeah, except that lowering taxes doesn't seem to grow the economy. Certainly not enough to make up for the lowered rate. Too bad. It's all sensible except for that point.
Anyway, the top 20% pays 86% of the taxes, maybe, but don't they own an equally large (or larger) share of the wealth and income?
When I was a kid, in the 1960s, tax rates were way over 50%. Tax rates in England peaked at 90%. While 90% marginal tax rates will certainly hurt your economy, it's not at all clear than 30%, 40%, 50% rates will do much damage. If we can manage to spend some of that on useful infrastructure things, it may even be good in the long run. Just think! We could have a well-educated, healthy workforce, streets and networks that work, et cetera.
Even without kids he does get benefits from the local schools, children locked in the schools during the day won't be busy vandalizing property while he's away at work.
to the Republican assholes. They just don't give a fuck. They are power-hungry whores who will do anything to damage the President, including fuck up the global economy.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
-- Amazing how things change...
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
LOL, funny media. Does anyone notice they specifically do not say that most of those callers are against Boehner. Sources say most of the calls are in support of Cut Cap and Balance. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. All i know is that I called supporting Boehner yesterday.
No, Obama has spent more dollars, but Bush has spent more PERMANTE dollars.
By this I mean that Bush's policies amounted to taking tax money and burning it on the white house lawn.
While Obama has certainly done some of this as well, most of his most expensive policies have already or will recoup most if not all the money invested. What this means is that the long term impact is just the interest on the debt for the time the money was out.
There is an intersting article published a few days ago:
http://ezkool.com/2011/07/two-potus-spending-2/
What I find amazing is that as far as I can tell, Regan, Bush junior and Obama all seem to have read '1984' and decided that it demonstrated a sound financial plan! Read the book. The key aspect of the financial system was making production disapear through war. This kept most of the population poor, reduced the availability of consumer good and had the fringe benefit of sparking patriotism...
What I cna't believe
I'd be interested to see the declaration documents for at least one of those wars, and what nations they were against.
You can't declare war on a concept, nor on an individual. Only a nation can declare war on another nation.
We have over $2T in revenues. All that means is that the federal government will have to prioritize.
How about we start means-testing Social Security and Medicare. If Grandma has a pension, fat 401k or private assets she gets no Social Security.
So what if she "paid into the system her whole life." I have no kids and pay thousands of dollars in property taxes, mainly to support local schools. Do you see me whining, bitching and moaning about the injustice of paying for something from which I derive no personal benefit?
I have a better idea. How about we do the following programs:
1. Stop Agriculture subsidies
2. Stop Ethanol subsidies
3. Raise the tariffs on goods entering this country from countries like China so our tarrif restricts their exports to us like they restrict our exports to them.
4. Impose a tariff on any US companies' goods that are manufactured over seas so it becomes cheaper for them to be made here.
5. Stop bombing brown people
6. Quit Being Team America world Police and bring all our troops home from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Canada, Mexico. I think that covers everything
7. Quit buying military equipment the military doesn't want or need (I'm looking at you F-35 JSF and all your friends)
8. Closing tax loopholes, you know ones like the carried interest deduction for hedge fund managers or the ones the allow Exxon to get a check from the government.
9. Close down the some federal departments
10. Shit can the TSA airport screener and their scanners
11. Adjust congressional pay to so that it matches the median or average pay (I don't know which is lower) of the private sector employees in the country (this won't save much but is more symbolic)
12. Quit pissing money away on stupid stimulus spending like bailing out banks, car companies, or any other private entity.
Those seem like they would be a good start and would probably do more than stupid crap like suggesting means testing Social security or Medicare. Granted changes do need to be made to both of those programs, but don't hold them up as being the elephant in the room at the moment. In case you haven't noticed social security is considered an insurance program as is medicare, as such any changes made should only affect those no already on it or about to go on it. I would love to be able to say to social security you can keep all the money that my employers and I have already paid in in for me but give me the 12.4% (6.2% I pay and the 6.2% my employer pays) of my income that is paid in each year for me back so I can just add it to my Roth IRA (I already paid taxes on this income I have the pay stub show that) in return I won't ever be able to collect social security.
Time to offend someone
"The Republican plan would allow Obama to increase the debt ceiling by $2.4T"
It's not the President's job to increase the debt ceiling. The cowards are just looking for a way to get around their blood oath AND be able to score points in the next election, pretty much the definition of dirty pool.
It's raspberry!
Only one man would dare raspberry me...
He's already threatened mine. In fact, I could make an argument he got me laid off.
I work in Aerospace at a company that manufactures interior fittings for private jets. Essentially we pimp them out.
When Obama first opened his Pie Hole about how corporations should not be buying these jets, within two weeks we had nearly 60% of our orders canceled as the jet builders like Gulfstream, Falcon, etc. had their orders canceled or placed on hold. With one Class Warfare speech he helped put thousands of people out of work.
Now, a year later I'm back with the same company and sure enough DipShit opens his PieHole again trying to demonize jet owners. We saw a 15% decrease in orders this time. I guess people realize he's just talking out of his ass.
Private jets, yachts, expensive cars, etc. are no different than dishwashers, washers, dryers, TVs, etc. They are luxuries that people pay for and the industries that build these things support thousands of jobs. In fact, in our industry, it’s almost 100% U.S. jobs, and well paying jobs at that.
People bitch and moan about how "rich people" and corporations have their money locked up and are not hiring, yet when they engage in commerce with that very same money, purchasing high end goods that end up paying for many, many salaries, they are demonized by this POS POTUS.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Tea-Party Republicans ran on platforms of cutting spending and lowering the debt. Can you blame them for not turning on their constituents and breaking promises to pass legislation their home districts are against? I thought we were tired of politicians making campaign promises, then breaking them in office.
Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
Indeed, that's the thing I was most surprised about in this story. Now I wonder if this hacktivism is doing the government's job better than the government could ever do itself.
rofl.
always trying to find some sinister connection with the "tea party". A better name for them might be a collective group of people pissed of at government but saying they are former John Birchers - please. I would bet 99.99999% do not even know who or what that is.
I've heard of several countries that will disband the current government if it's not functioning, and go back to elections. We need a process for that here. Although I'm pretty sure recalls don't work at the Federal level, I bet recall petitions would get plenty of signatures right now. Perhaps we should do them anyway...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So much ignorance about Milton Friedman. He was not against taxes, and in fact, he invented the combination of flat tax with negative income tax. He didn't suggest cutting social programs, but augmenting them with private alternatives with voucher programs. He opposed the recent copyright extensions, and supports legalizing drugs and prostitution.
Most importantly, and this is something people seem to have forgotten about economics, he supported the idea that the government should provide services that are public goods, because other types of goods are better provided by the private sector. However, the way we could provide public goods could involve the private sector (like the education vouchers).
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Wow, you know how to fix everything. Can I subscribe to your blog? Wait a second, your blog is about cars... and if it were that simple wouldn't we have already done it? You're just a great big PHONEY!!!
The answer is not to give a little ground, it is for both sides to completely cave in.
The US welfare system and other social programs is a joke, they are horribly inefficient and provide little. Why does the US spend more on healthcare yet get less?
And why do the rich in America got an entire party supposedly representing 50% of the population cater solely to their needs? Because all the republican tax cuts are for the super rich, not the working middle class.
America needs to reform. A better tax system and more efficient spending. A lot more money in and a lot less money out.
Neither side is willing. Don't forget that the republicans need the social spending to avoid social unrest that would soon see just how much a security gate is worth when armed poor rise up. And the democrats got plenty of backers with corporate jets.
US politics has reached stalemate. The status quo works fine enough, in a world that doesn't change but the world has changed and the 50/50 distribution of political power makes the US unable to cope.
The US needs a plan for its economy, dare I say it a planned economy? That doesn't work if two parties are only intrested in the next sound bite, the next election in less then two years.
Just hold an election for the entire system (both houses) this year and just do the same thing whatever it is for 4 years at least. At this point what you do matters less then just doing ANYTHING. Cut all wellfare and deal with the civil uprising or tax the hell out of everything and deal with the civil uprising or don't do anything and deal with the economic mayhem. But do SOMETHING.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Iraq and Afghanistan? Despite being undeclared, not calling those two "operations" wars, and denying that they cost a hell of a lot of money, is deliberately obtuse.
Politicians don't believe in anything (yes, that includes your guy too, whoever he is). The only thing they're thinking about is the next election. And, in this case, Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the economy in the shitter through the end of 2012 (because it hurts Obama's reelection potential). In other words, they're not religious, they're just immoral opportunists who won't hesitate to throw the entire country under the bus just to advance their own short-term political interests.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The Bush tax cuts resulted in an acceleration of the 2000 recession and the high point was LOWER than the peak in the 90's.
Because of the Bush tax cuts we had the second most abysmal recovery EVER in 2001-2003. The only worse recover was his SECOND recession 2008-2009.
When you actually compare change in GDP to the top marginal tax rate you find that they are essentially independent. You can set it at historic lows or historic highs like in the 40's when it was at 95% and the economy gows humming righ along.
In fact you find a very slight BENEFIT from higher taxes to a point.
If you chart out the performance of the GDP according to the top marginal tax rate you actually find that our economy has been MOST effective at a tax rate of 60% (yes Six-Zero).
This actually makes sense because if the top tax bracket is high than owners/investors whill choose to not realize (take home) the profit and instead will tend to reinvest which boosts the economy.
Now it is true that in the past under certain situations lowering taxes helps. Like when Kennedy lowered them from 90 to 75%. But in general this is rare. For instance, when Regan cut taxes in the early 80's he triggered a recession. The recession was only resolved after he raised taxes 5 seperate times.
In virtually every case a tax cut has directly lead to a worsening economy the next year while a tax increase (to a point) has resulted in an improved economy the next year.
Take a look at this analysis: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-few-graphs-on-real-gdp-growth-rates-versus-taxes-and-the-size-of-government-2011-1
It is very interesting and simple enough for even me to replicate.
Hey, he could have emphasized Barack HUSSEIN 0sama, you know to remind us all that he's a fanatical muslim infiltrator who likes dijon mustard.
Pretty much, yeah. That plan lets Obama raise the debt ceiling on his own and would require a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress to forbid that from happening.
The Republicans know that they can't get a 2/3 majority in both houses, so this lets them all vote against it and look good for the next election while blaming Obama.
It's a fucking schoolyard tactic, so it is.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unfortunately, almost all governments of almost all parties in almost all countries gain political advantage by attempting to spend their successors' tax revenues. Almost no governments ever pay down their debts except at the very worst time, in a crisis (some do, though not usually for long, and only when they're politically popular enough that they don't need to buy votes). I doubt very much that changing the politicians for new ones would solve that because voters generally don't care much about deficits and debts when there isn't a crisis. How many votes were there in 'Slash public services and the army and increase taxes!' in 2005? Government debt is too long term a problem for 3-6 year political cycles.
Ideally governments would pay down their debt during benign economic conditions to leave space to borrow at times like now. It'd need a new mechanism to make that happen because all politicians will be under similar pressure. How about a variable income tax that goes up automatically with the size of the total debt? Or maybe a body like a central bank charged with maintaining a long term target percentage of GDP. Whatever it is, it has to be something that politicians can't fiddle with to exchange for short term political advantage for long term pain - just as they do with interest rates and inflation in countries without independent central banks.
As for opposing tax rises at all costs, that's just silly. Trying to balance current spending with current revenue is one thing, opposing additional taxes to pay for services already delivered five years ago is extreme.
But didn't they do this during the health care debate about wanting the public option but no one listened and got rid of it anyway? you think they would learn their lesson on if they would actually be listened too rather then being used as a annoyance weapon, since just about every non partisan poll showed that well over 52% of the people wanted it.
I know i would of loved to have it about that time, at that same time it started to heat up(beginning of 2009) a pituitary tumor made it's self known and i nearly died, the public option would of been a lot better then the hell i went through to get united health care to cover the 26k surgery cost.
Senator Obama's speech was given during the buildup of the housing bubble. It was a period where the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They used this power to start two never-ending land wars in asia (off the books no less), create an unfunded Medicare program, and cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals.
The economic situation in 2006 was significantly different than it is now. The demands on the government to assist the unemployed are far greater and the tax revenue generated is far smaller.
Further, President Obama is not demanding to be allowed to spend more money willy-nilly. He's asking to be allowed to borrow enough to spend the money Congress already authorized him to spend.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
This is exactly the right answer. The debt limit is about paying for money that was already spent.
I have a better idea. How about we do the following programs: 1. Stop Agriculture subsidies
I strongly suspect that agriculture subsidies are necessary. I don't think full free market forces acting on our food supply is something that would have good effects. That said, politics have corrupted the management of the subsidies we have now and are actively encouraging monoculture in corn instead of making sure they -don't- happen. Still, I can't see doing away with all subsidies improving the situation. Regulation is needed, and political regulation without subsidies would probably leave us with no farmers and no food before too long. Given the industry's importance, I'm not in favor of experimenting wildly with it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So spending should be cut. Where should the axe fall?
Corporate welfare would seem to be a good place to start - a really, really good place, in fact - but I'm sure there are other places where money is spent that does not help the country, the people or the economy.
Maybe they should lead by example with an across the board 15% cut in legislators' salaries?
And are not special-interest tax loopholes a form of subsidy, whereby the remaining taxpayers shoulder the burden that is dodged by the lucky (and often rich) few?
But that's just tinkering round the edges. More cuts will be needed. What (else) should be lost?
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
If a majority of the states / or federal law was enacted that any Senator or Representative ended their term with deficit spending was not allowed to be reelected or run for public office for four years - Problem solved.
It's simple grass roots. Nobody controls it, and I mean nobody. Various politicians and organizations have tried to coopt it through endorsement and financial support, but it still remains largely uncontrolled. Religious conservatives have tried to attach their social issues like abortion and homosexuality in order to leverage the tea party's popularity, and have failed.
It is nothing more than the general expression of anger at the fact that our spending is out of control, and that the consequences of continuing down this path will one day be devastating.
I am very happy that this is being threatened. It's going to take a confrontation this big in order to get the big-government Democrats AND Republicans (oh yes, they love big government too) to finally do something to avoid a total catastrophe a few dades down the road.
Compromise is overrated anyway. I want to put a tablespoon of shit in your yogurt. You don't want any shit in your yogurt. Okay, let's compromise and only put a teaspoon of shit in your yogurt. Are you happy with that? Is any compromise on the amount acceptable to you?
Most of our agriculture subsidies currently are going to the production of corn, cotton, soy beans, and tobacco but farm states (Iowa) seem to hold too much sway at the federal level. There are a fair amount of subsidies that put a floor on the price but with the current high prices of farm commodities this isn't being tapped at the moment (I can't find the article). Add to that those who are getting farm subsidies because they own a hobby farm and you can find lots of savings without affecting the nations food supply. There are also various subsides (CRP land at the federal level or CREP land here in Minnesota) where farmers are paid to not grow on some of their land.
Time to offend someone
> 1. Stop Agriculture subsidies:
Hear! Hear! but they aren't very large, $20 Billion per year, still, money is money
> 2. Stop Ethanol subsidies:
Peanuts, but we still shouldn't pay it
> 3. Raise the tariffs on goods entering this country from countries like China so our tarrif restricts their exports to us like they restrict our exports to them.
The U.S. is still the largest manufacturing country on the planet, tariff them and they'll tariff us in like manner. You save nothing here
> 4. Impose a tariff on any US companies' goods that are manufactured over seas so it becomes cheaper for them to be made here.
Dunno, but I doubt it would be easy.
> 5. Stop bombing brown people
First tell the brown people to stop trying to kill us, then we'll stop, I promise.
> 6. Quit Being Team America world Police and bring all our troops home from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Canada, Mexico. I think that covers everything
Of that lot, only Europe and Asia have any appreciable U.S. presence, and many countries pay the U.S. for it. The U.S. defense budget is about $700 billion, maybe you'd get a whole $50 billion out it, peanuts.
> 7. Quit buying military equipment the military doesn't want or need (I'm looking at you F-35 JSF and all your friends)
Still peanuts compared to the debt, but I'd agree purchases should be scaled back...at until China does something incredibly stupid and we get caught with our pants down.
> 8. Closing tax loopholes, you know ones like the carried interest deduction for hedge fund managers or the ones the allow Exxon to get a check from the government.
Oh, I'd go for that. Dunno how much it would bring but it would be substantial. Especially the mortgage deduction. That's where the real money is. Exxon is nothing.
> 9. Close down the some federal departments
Why? EPA? You don't like clean air and water? FDA? You like dangerous drugs? FAA? You'd like to die in a plane crash. Education? Okay, you got me there. Still the rest perform valuable and necessary functions. And to their credit they have to put up with people like you.
> 10. Shit can the TSA airport screener and their scanners
Yeah, allow anyone with a gun or bomb onto our planes. What could go wrong?
> 11. Adjust congressional pay to so that it matches the median or average pay (I don't know which is lower) of the private sector employees in the country (this won't save much but is more symbolic)
Yes, symbolic and not worth the time, most of the congress-critters are already rich.
> 12. Quit pissing money away on stupid stimulus spending like bailing out banks, car companies, or any other private entity.
Bailing out the banks probably saved us from a total economic collapse. Saving the car companies saved thousand of jobs and their tax payments and cost the U.S. government very little in the end (I think we lost a few billion on Chrysler). The stimulus probably prevented a worse economic pit, yet it was poorly spent. Still, it doesn't contribute to the structural deficit.
Means testing SS and Medicare will be necessary because of the baby boomers who are now starting to retire. They have to be changed just to stay solvent. You seem to have this perverse belief that the SS money is kept in a mattress some place. It is instead a lot of IOUs from the Federal Government. You, and everyone else, are not actually entitled to anything you paid in. Since it is a pay as you go system, you are actually only entitled to the extent the rest of America can afford your sorry retired ass. Keeping more than one thought your head a time helps.
So in sum total, you haven't come close to solving the debt problem, but thanks for playing.
So it sounds like I found one of your sacred cows in that list so tell us which one is it. It isn't that these aren't simple fixes (they are) it is that there has to be a political will to cut these things. How many of the items I listed above aren't lobbied hard for even if the general populous doesn't want them. I hate to break it to you but any cut to a special interest is going to piss them off and they will raise all kinds of hay and they probably have more money to convince your congress critters than you do.
Also I probably am more active in government than you even though I have never been elected. Have you ever written, called, faxed your rep? Have you gone down to their office and tried to talk to them or their staffers? I bet you didn't even know your house member had a local office in their home district and that senators usually have multiple offices in their state?
See I can do the personal attack thing too, but wait I didn't resort to name calling
Time to offend someone
"after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?"
I won't talk rates, I'll talk what's actually paid. Definition: Middle class has a broad definition, but I'll take $30,000-$100,000, which covers the span of most definitions and gives you a large middle class with which to make your argument.
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes. So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich. The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.
Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.
Obviously the rich are more likely to invest, so I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet to say that top 25% pay almost all capital gains taxes.
So, what's you're saying is that it's a Vast Right Wing conspiracy, where people have been instructed by a cable news channel to head to slashdot, obtain mod points "with a ton of fake accounts" all in an effort to? What? Silence the opposition by modding them offtopic?
Well, let's tackle the first piece of this: trolls have in the past created "mod farms" by creating a few hundred accounts to collect mod points and software to manage all of these accounts and easily use them for posting and modding. I know this because some guys I knew on IRC built one back in 2003 or so. Their modus operandi was primarily trolling; they'd post outrageous stuff looking to provoke posters into unhinged responses, use the mod farm to mod themselves up so that their comments were among the most prominent, and downmod folks who figured out that they were trolling.
So no, it wouldn't be a Vast Right Wing conspiracy; it would be a handful of guys with programming skills who built it for the lulz, but at least one of which also happens to be teabagger who just wants one side of the argument to "win."
So the real question is: if there is such a thing out there, active, how could we detect it? GP claims to have detected it by observing a pattern where an inordinate number of mod points were used to moderate comments ideologically. Well, then the question becomes whether there were really 300 mod points used that way (can we replicate GP's claimed observation?), and whether this is really inordinate, or just usual mod behavior on Slashdot.
The one I'm describing back in the day was detected because one of the dumber users decided to get into a modding match with the site admins. The admins have unlimited mod points, so apparently if you keep upmodding to 5 comments that they modded to -1 they will get suspicious, look at who's modding and what IP address they come from, and figure out what the game is.
Are you adequate?
Bingo!
They pulled the same stunt TWICE now!
Reagan had all those crispy tax cuts too, while spending lots of cash. They planned it so that the President *after* all that would get stuck with a burst bubble economy, which is supposed to be the magic formula for a 1-term President. The only problem was that last round they mistimed it, so that "their guy" Bush Sr. got stuck with the fallout.
Remember it was Clinton who made some progress balancing things.
So then yes, they had an absolute blast playing War, "Staying the Course", while sticking Obama with the worst financial crisis in history?
How are these guys not impeached for gross negligence or perjury in office?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Hear hear! We need some control over the likes of NPR and CBS (remember Memogate?) spouting their lies.
Oh, you probably meant Fox, as if they were the only ones that lied. You probably weren't thinking about the same standards being applied to your favorite liberal sources and their lies.
And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.
Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?
I think the buried lead is that these systems weren't even built with the expectation that they'd be used by a significant number of voters.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Whatever.
Same shit different administration. Is there any meaningful differences with this administration from the previous 3? Democrats bad, Republicans bad, Lady Gaga bad, etc. (And shut up, I do vote) Not that it really matters, they all screw up.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Well i guess Arnie did so why not.
Right, so how are they not impeachable for gross irresponsibility? Walk out of a restaurant without paying you get the cops all over you. Walk out on a trillion dollar war and "oh, it's just politics".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Enough of this drivel. What's fair? The 35% they pay now? The 39.6% they paid under Clinton? The 70% they paid under Kennedy? Or the 94% they paid under FDR?
The rich don't pay 35% of their income as taxes. That's the highest Federal marginal tax rate on ordinary income (e.g., salaries). For 2009, that rate applied to each dollar of ordinary income earned in excess of $372,951 for the year. The thing is that the truly rich avoid this 35% on most of their income by receiving most of their income as long term capital gains, which are taxed at 15%.
What you want to compare is effective tax rates, which is the true percentage of income paid as tax after all the math is done. Over the past few years, the 400 highest-income Americans have had an effective federal income tax rate of about 17-18%. For comparison, I make low six figures, and my effective tax rate is about 21%.
Are you adequate?
The GOP would be more than happy to zero out public schooling. Rather, they would just move that money into hands of thier zealot friends to fund their madrassa-style christian academies.
Crew, maintenance, repair parts, airport fees and all those petroleum industry employees paid for with expensive jet fuel. Easily hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars a year put into jobs for just one rich guy's desire to own a jet. And rich guys don't pay minimum wage for a flight crew since they like to remain among the living. IIRC, these jets tend to get redecorated when they change owners. That can cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and more, and you and your coworkers keep your jobs for that much longer.
And yachts. Unfortunately we've kicked most private shipbuilding out of this country, but those hundred million dollar yachts still come with an operating cost of around 10% of the purchase price per year with a large crew, maintenance, fuel, and expensive berthing fees. Paul Allen's boat employs a crew of 60, including helicopter pilots, pumping $20 million a year into the economy.
here are also various subsides (CRP land at the federal level or CREP land here in Minnesota) where farmers are paid to not grow on some of their land.
I know, but there are good reasons behind that. There are areas you -don't- want farmers to use for ecological reasons. If you don't pay them not to farm there, they will, and that will cause more harm than good, except to that farmer. That's a -key- area where I think free market forces work in agriculture against the common good. Again, there are no doubt abuses, but cancelling the program altogether would be extremely short-sighted.
Same goes with eliminating agriculture subsidies entirely. There is ample room for cutting them down and reform, but to dump the whole thing would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, except instead of a baby, it's the nation's food supply.
is when a small fraction of a man actually thinks that his attempts at boosting is importance by mechanical enhancement is really of any concern to the government or any adults. Next time, try sticking some socks down your pants instead.
Don't forget government meddling in markets, providing the perverse incentive to create said corporate corruption. Don't forget Democrat Barney Frank's response when Bush was trying to tighten regulation on these corporations in 2003 to head off said mortgage crisis:
Meaningful regulation and enforcement was thus blocked.
Democrats have been riding on "Bush's fault" for years. Time to man up and take responsibility.
to share what you are smoking? It must be some pretty strong stuff.
Because darn it, they're RIGHT! And if they're RIGHT, then the Democrats must be WRONG!
Humor aside for a moment, there is a kernel of truth in the hyperbole above... Today's (not excluding other eras, just not addressing them) Republican party is very much rooted in authoritarianism. A key part of authoritarianism is that the legitimate leader is Right, and authority flows down from there. That explains 2 things, among others...
1 - It's why there are so many attacks against Obama's legitimacy - the birther movement, etc.
2 - It's also why Obama can tout ideas that originated with Republicans, and suddenly they're Wrong!
In other words, if authority flows down from the legitimate leader, nothing the illegitimate leader does can possibly be right.
This is part of why in TV interviews, etc, Republicans sound so certain of their facts and convictions, regardless of the correctness of those facts. By that same token, Democrats are rooted in uncertain processes, consensus, discovery, and such. Therefore in public debate, you have a Republican who KNOWS he's right vs a Democrat who believes he's right. It's human nature to respond positively to that certainty.
Therefore, the Republicans have been very successful at blaming Democrats for the country's problems, regardless of any facts. It's all the more interesting when the Republicans could hold the Presidency, Senate, and House, and STILL blame the Democrats for the country's problems - and get away with it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Nobody is saying not to pay the restaurant, the Republican side is there will be no default, to pay the restaurant, we have to stop paying for netflix. Obama is saying we won't pay the restaurant knowing full well that we could pay the restaurant and take the much less severe consequences of having our netflix account cancelled. Thing is, no netflix isn't as scary as having the cops all over you, so it doesn't work as a political tool as well. Who's playing politics again?
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Really? Have you run the numbers? I certainly don't see any. Since social security/medicare amount to nearly two-thirds of all our national spending, I believe you have quite a task ahead of you to prove cuts in any other area of our budget are even remotely close to reforming those two cash cows. This is especially true considering we have a new social cash cow on the horizon (obama's healthcare program).
Sell Canada back Alaska!
We'll even let you keep Palin!
In 2008, the top 0.1% (140,000 people) earned 10% of all income and paid 19% of all income taxes.
The top 1% (over $380,000) earned 20% of income and paid 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% (over $160,000) earned 35% of income and paid 59% of taxes.
Notice the trend, they all pay MORE in taxes than their percentage of earnings.
Now when you go below that, the top 5-10%, $114,000-$160,000, the percentage of earnings about equals the percentage of taxes paid at 11% each.
It gets flipped when you go below that, $67,000-$114,000 pays 16% of the taxes, but has 22% of the income.
$33,000 to $67,000 has 20% of the income, but pays 11% of the taxes.
You are already looking at a highly progressive tax structure.
Wouldn't you know it, the top 10% paid almost exactly 70% of the taxes, although earning only 46% of the income.
Probably because they're already paying a far higher precentage than everyone else.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
All data from the IRS, raw data links on the page.
The bitter "get up/get down" battle, which has polarized the nation's funk community, is part of a long-running battle between the two factions, rooted in more than 35 years of conflict over the direction in which the American people should shake it.
Strangely appropriate. I wish it wasn't funny.
Your numbers are about correct for 2008. I am not contesting the reasonableness of the current situation either way. My problem is when demagogues such as Obama try to portray these people as greedy freeloaders who aren't paying their "fair share" when their tax burden is already quite disproportionally progressive.
Note also the historical trend from that page. Since 1980 (from before Reagan, starting in the Carter years) the top 5% have gone from paying 36% to 58% of income taxes, while their income has gone from 21% to 34%. Notice the expanding gap between income earned and taxes paid, was 15%, and is now 24%. We have become steadily more progressive over the years, and Obama still says they're not paying their "fair share."
It's pure unabashed class warfare demagoguery.
That is quite the loophole that needs to be closed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's the one who has threatened that people might not get their checks.
The other side (which includes some Democrats) is trying to get him to accept a plan that will have some hope of putting this country back on track to solvency.
And you have to promise to keep her off TV.
If we confiscated the ENTIRE net worth of the Forbes 400 richest people in America, we would get $1.4 trillion, barely enough to cover the 2010 deficit.
Then we're left screwed for next year because we will not have gotten our spending under control.
high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are defined by the very body in question. Of course it only applies to regular folk. Haven't you heard, the king/Queen can do no wrong.
How are they fucked over if they have an income high enough to not need social security payments?
seriously, it's no different from paying t axes all your adult life to have it wasted on a bike path that goes nowhere constructive while you road you lice on has pot holes galore and should have been resurfaced years ago. Its no different from paying for insurance all you life and never getting sick.
It's equally obtuse just to throw out a large "pricetag" number (1-3 trillion) without mentioning that this spending occurred over a decade. When compared to Mandatory Spending (which spends over 2 trillion a year), the wars didn't cost a "hell of alot of money" in comparison. Though yes, they're a decent chunk of change.
The "tax break" on "jets" was part of Obama's own stimulus plan. What a hypocrite.
The "tax break" was really accelerated depreciation on private aircraft, all the way down to two-person, single-engine Pipers, not just big jets. The company still pays in full, but they get to write off the depreciation faster. This was meant to spur jobs in a very delicate industry that was still reeling from 9/11 and had been hit very hard by the recession because their regular customers were too worried about spending that kind of money in that economic environment.
It worked, too. Orders shot up and jobs were saved all across the country. The government probably made more tax revenue from the jobs and airplane manufacturers than it lost on the depreciation.
And we do have tax breaks for washing machines in the form of energy saver tax credits and rebates.
If they don't authorize it by law, then any debt above the current authorized amount is simply not valid and can be questioned. Right now they're trying to authorize more debt by law so that further debt will be valid and not questioned. It doesn't say we can't default on payments on the current debt.
The Constitution is really very simple. It's people twisting it to mean what they want as opposed to what's in the text that makes it complicated.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
An order of magnitude can make a big difference. As far as I can tell, your MPs have about as much staff as one of our Representatives, so about all ours have time for is to look at the topic of the correspondence and return the form letter for that topic.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
They aren't simple fixes at all because they aren't fixes at all.
Almost everything in your list would do more harm then good while not even remotely addressing the reasons they might be problems in the first place.
But the reason your government is ignoring you might be because you come off as a loon. Stop bombing brown people? serious;y, is bombing whites, blacks, or yellow people magically ok or something? And yes, your government is ignoring you because most of what is on you list has been happening longer then a decade- despite you activities with the government..
Our money IS debt. That means we pay our bills... with debt. We use Our Visa to pay Master Card. How then do we pay Visa? With our Discover Card.
If you're the deeply interested type watch The Money Masters.
If you are short on time watch Money As Debt.
Until we fix what our money IS, we'll be doing this over and over, and at faster rates and with bigger sums.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
So many posts like the score:5 up top are weak minds towing their party line. They can't see the writing on the wall. Thing's *have* to change. The way I see it, we have few options going forward:
-cut spending, pay down debt. escape.
-raise debt ceiling, continue towards financial oblivion.
Afaict most of the US debt is denominated in US dollars so the US governement also has the option of "printing" their way out of it (either directly or by ordering the federal reserve to lend money to them at a defined rate).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
There is a reason long-term capital gains taxes are lower. One, it's incentive to invest, which keeps companies going, which keeps and makes jobs. Second, capital gains have already gone through business taxes and have taken a hit for inflation. A lower tax rate compensates for these built-in losses to investments.
I'm rich and invest $1 million in an average stock. It made 10% in a year and I pull out the $100,000 profit. I pay my full 35% income tax on that, $35,000, for a supposedly realized profit of $65,000.
But what about inflation? The 2.3% inflation rate carved $23,000 of the value out of my $1 million in that year. After taxes my inflation-adjusted profit is only $42,000. The government, through its inflationary monetary policy and taxes, just effectively took 58%.
Now let's do it with the 15% capital gains tax. I make $100,000, tax is $15,000, inflation loss is $23,000, I get $62,000. The government, through inflation and taxes, took 38%, a bit higher than my income tax rate, but at least in the same ballpark so as to make sense.
This inflation compensation doesn't count much in normal non-invested income because you make it this year, you spend it this year. Investments can get killed by inflation as shown above, so capital gains tax eases that. This makes investment, a necessary driver of our economy and the source of almost everybody's retirement funds, more attractive.