Slashdot Mirror
Debt Deal Reached
Global markets are on the rise in response to a deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans on the debt. The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.
Debtor says, "I would like to borrow some money."
Creditor says, "And what do you owe now?"
Debtor: "So much I need at least 145 years to pay it back."
Creditor: "Tell me your plan."
Debtor: "I have no plan to pay it back. I will only pay the
interest."
Creditor: "You want your kids, grand kids, and great grand kids to pay it back?"
Debtor: "It will be very painful for me not to get the loan. I can print up some money if I need to."
Creditor: "You have no plan."
Debtor: "I am working on a plan to borrow a little less than usual - 10% less."
Creditor: "You have no plan to balance the budget, you plan only to keep borrowing, you print up money, you dump your debt on 3 future generations and counting, and you want us to believe you have integrity, and are worthy of credit and trust?"
Debtor: "I want what I want when I want it, and I want it right now.
Give me the loan or I will print the money!"
According to Lexington at the Economist, this whole hoopla was the Republican's fault.
the Republican House has come up with is a non-solution (since the Senate cannot buy it) to a problem entirely of the Republicans' own making. The reason for this crisis is that instead of just raising the debt ceiling in the customary way so that the government can pay the bills Congress has already run up, the Republicans decided to point a pistol at the American economy and threaten to pull the trigger if they did not get the spending cuts they wanted.
Also, I think it was horribly hypocritical of the Republicans to blame "entitlement programs" for the problems and never mentioning the wars and their action of lowering taxes during war time - that's what killed us. All the other reasons like Obama Care are just distractions - especially when you consider that it hasn't even taken effect yet. And why is SS on the table in this context? Bullshit!
Yes eventually Social Security will have to be addressed but to include it in the debt ceiling was ludicrous.
By the way, the debt ceiling allow the government to pay it's current bills and nothing more. Thinking that it allows for increasing government spending just shows how little we Americans truly understand how our government operates - myself included.
Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?
Well.
*cough*
Let me lay out the situation as best I understand it.
DEMOCRATS: Let's cut some spending (BUT NOT MEDICARE/MEDICAID/SOCIAL SECURITY) and raise taxes on the rich.
REPUBLICANS: Let's cut MORE spending, but leave taxes as is (OR LOWER THEM. THAT'D BE COOL TOO)
TEA PARTY: Cut spending. DON'T TOUCH TAXES UNLESS YOU'RE CUTTING THEM. YOU'RE CUTTING MY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT I BENEFIT OFF OF? WHAT THE FUCK MATE?
Sane Politician: Wait, didn't you say to cut spending?
TEA PARTY: Yes, but NOT the things we benefit off of.
Sane Politician: Uh.
As for raising the debt ceiling, we're like...the only country that has a debt ceiling that limits how much we can borrow. So that results in craziness every few years.
And yes, this time around the really hellhole was caused by the hardliner Tea Party senators. The normal Republicans wanted to get this shit done sooner, and the Dems were like, "fuckall we'll bend over backwards to get this shit through. Shit, we want to raise taxes, but FUCK taxes so we can get this through NOW." The Tea Party was, essentially, fanatically fighting for an ideology that doesn't really work in the real world.
If you want them to raise taxes, get more Dems in office. They may be just as crooked as the Republicans, but at least they come off as willing to raise taxes.
And no, shut up about the laffer curve. Assuming it works, and IF we're at the right side of the laffer curve, explain to me why the economy went up like a rocket back when tax rates were higher than the shithole of an economy we have now.
The actual funny part is.... You all still think there is a difference between republicans and democrats.
They've kept that thru all of this. It's outstanding. Best scam ever. Wish i'd thought of it.
Keep the population arguing over D/R while we rob them all blind. It's genius!
Oh wait... i live here too.. shit.
Of course they'd reach a deal. This is all theater. A bunch of showboating and grandstanding to get your name out there and get people hearing your soundbites while, in the end, accomplishing nothing and buckling. Spend two months saying "we spend too much!" and then agree to some bullshit "we agree to cut our expected spending over the next decade and count it as actually cutting costs" and call it "job done".
So if you're trying to balance a budget ...
That's where you went wrong in your analysis. The Republican Party has absolutely no interest in balancing the budget. This has been shown time and time again: For instance, when George W Bush took office with a slight budget surplus if you count Social Security (which you probably shouldn't), he immediately cut taxes to put the budget in a hole.
Based solely on their actions when in power, this is what the Republican Party really believes in:
1. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That's why, if you're somebody who makes their living off of investments, you pay a 15% capital gains tax, whereas if you make considerably less by working you pay a 25% income tax and a 12% FICA tax. Thanks to their actions, the tax rates are the lowest they've been since at least the 1940's.
2. Neutering or completely getting rid of any government agency that could serve as a check on corporate power. They would love to live in a world without the EPA, OSHA, MSHA, NLRB, or the SEC.
3. Getting rid of anything that smacks of aid to the poor and downtrodden. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, housing assistance, and minimum wages all come under that category.
4. Expanding the 'national security' portion of government as much as possible, preferably with large no-bid contracts for their family, friends and business associates. They like being able to spy on anybody and everybody, starting wars that they don't need to start, and taking over Latin American countries with little or no military forces to speak of.
I'm no supporter of Democrats either, but one of the biggest myths out there is the idea that the Republicans want to balance the budget when it's abundantly clear they have no intention of doing so.
I am officially gone from
It's hard to fix something without spending anything. The USA had a decade of almost unregulated Enron economics and the hole it fell into can't be patched for free.
Same individuals who paid into social security for all their working careers? The same social security fund which is actually quite liquid but the politicos keep draining it?
If social security gets cut off, refund all money paid into it plus interest to every taxpayer who isn't drawing from it.
"Work to privatize social security"
Dear god, no, no and thrice no
social care of those less fortunate souls who cannot afford to live without financial help is the moral responsibility of society as a whole (i.e the government as the body that represents the country) Otherwise the streets would be ovverun with homeless, people.
Would you really let your neighbour die through lack of food or medicines because they have no money and the government has no social security program? If so you;re a heartless bastard,
social care is an obligation, not something that government should abolish responsibility for,
About the only thing right about the summary is the spelling.
The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.
This debt crisis is entirely manufactured and artificial, the reason the country's AAA rating could be downgraded is because idiots are playing political games with our credit worthiness, and most economists think that the economy needs stimulus, not immediate cuts in spending. (Oh, and since current Congresses can't bind future Congresses, the $ 2 trillion number is also meaningless.)
This entire debt crisis is a blatant attack on the working class. Our legislators knew what was coming back when they were busy cutting taxes for the rich and funneling billions into banks. Things will only get worse from here!
Let me help you get this straight: no rating agency was seriuosly suggesting downgrading the U.S. credit rating UNTIL Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. They were a long way from worrying about whether we would have enough revenue to pay interest, even with the great recession.
That's because there is a big difference between being in a lot of debt (federal deficit) while having a job you won't lose (taxes), and starting to tell your bank you won't be making your next credit card payment not because you don't have the lower interest credit line (HELOC) to offload the debt to, but because you simply refuse to. Once you start acting irrationally (teabagger) then you become a less reliable debt issuer (borrower).
Is that clear enough now?
Someone had to do it.
There even is a reason for that: currently, the problem is that all those people with lots of money try to accumulate it.
Because the economy is bad and investing it is a sure loser. So better accumulate, just in case.
The result is that there are no investments, no hiring. And the economy stays bad.
If you tax a lot, then there is a) an incentive to have the money spent, b) the government can always build more infrastructure, give allowances to the jobless, which helps the economy. Of course, there is the added benefit that the society becomes more equal, and that the interests of everyone become more aligned, which makes for saner politics.
BTW, the rates you are citing are the marginal rates. It works like that: your first x dollars are not taxed. The next x are taxed at some rate, then the next at a higher rate, and so on until you reach the maximum rate.
You ignore history.
Society pre-Social Security was LITERALLY Dickensian! Chuck didn't make up the conditions he wrote about.
Relying on charity to SCALE is naive to the point of being not sane.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."