Obama and the Treasury explained that they might default on military salaries, but not on debt.
That depended on who he was talking to and in which context. He threatened Social Security after Boehner gave up trying to negotiate with him. He was reassuring Wall Street bankers that there wouldn't be a default behind the scenes. Whatever he was reading off the teleprompter was designed to pull a response from whoever he was talking to at the moment.
And if you took all of the money from the top income tax rates, you STILL couldn't cover this year's borrowing. At some point, continuing what you've always done, in hopes that you will get a different outcome has to be called what it is. The reason the credit was downgraded was because the politicians can't bring themselves to actually cut any spending, especially that no-show we elected President. That "rational compromise" you speak of is code-words for continuing to splurge on the credit.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party took a stand against a symbolic increase in taxes, because it is always a symbolic increase but very useful for turning conversations away from the real problem. The problem is spending. The only fix is to control spending, and only a minor portion of Congress was willing to stand strong for doing something about the real problem.
I would say the Democrats were trying to do something, but the only plan they put on the table couldn't even get out of the Democrat controlled Senate.
The way to bing health care costs under control is to train more doctors and nurses, and allow more companies to produce medical equipment. Instead, all the Democrats can think to do is busy themselves with rearranging who gets to sit in the limited number of seats as the ship is sinking.
Do you say that just because one side chose to make speeches to demonize the other, rather than put a plan, written down so that people could read it, on the table?
This begs the question of "Where do you draw the line?"
I have gas welding supplies in my residential home's garage. That a bottle of highly compressed oxygen, and a bottle of highly compressed acetylene. Handled improperly, these two bottle could make a BIG mess.
I have epoxy resins and hardeners, some of which I have to pay exhorbitant shipping costs on because it is a Class 1 poison. Nasty stuff there.
I have cans of methyl-ethyl-keytone, and other nasty solvents.
Should I be expecting the police to show up to my house and start confiscating stuff?
While its still possible to put the DeLorean together, where the hell are you going to get the flux-capacitor? Hmmm? You can't just buy some LED's in a plastic tube formed in a triangle from just anywhere, you know.
If you're got a pool with a leak and you've got two hoses, it's easier to fill it up with both hoses instead of just one. If one hose is either only slowly filling it up, or all leaking out at the same time, then another might fill in the gap to make it actually fill up. Then again, both hoses might fail to fill the pool, but two hoses will...fail better?
Except one of those hoses is attached to the neighbor's house, and he has been telling you for years to fix that damn hole in your pool. It continues to flood his yard. At what point is he justified in saying he is going to turn the water off.
The "spending" is also going to a Dept of Education, which has yet to demonstrate any effectiveness. The "spending" is also going to foreign military bases that do nothing for our economy. The "spending" is also going to fund a food stamps program that some studies indicate funds more drugs than food. The "spending" is also going to fund DHS which is just a joke by any rational estimation. The "spending" is also going to fund a DEA that spends money on expensive para-military equipment to create an underground economy for drugs and violence.
All the "spending" going to roads comes from fuel taxes, ie a use tax. The government doesn't fund normal hospitals. The federal government has no business funding schools. or firefighters. or medicare. or social security.
The federal government isn't the Great Grandfather, come to gift us with anything we'd want.
The plan Rand Paul is asking for is to have the budget balanced over 7 years. That is, we keep borrowing money for 7 years, but then Congress has its hands forced to balance the budge.
Re:Well of course it will be downgraded...
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
You are claiming that if I run a Ponzi scheme and I make sure that some of the payments actually come from a revenue stream other than investors money then it actually isn't a Ponzi scheme?
Right. We call that Amway.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Republicans have fucked this country six ways to Sunday and voters have ordered them to fuck us some more because they don't have a clue about, well, anything.
And Democrats have been innocent bystanders? That is an...interesting... perspective.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Reagan never raised taxes one single time. He didn't have the power to. That power belonged to Congress.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
This information is readily available, why do so many seem so confused?
Because their minds are to small to wrap around the idea that there are more that two wheels (federal government and federal economy) moving at the same time.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 2
You misunderstand it. You need to stop listening to JUST the talking points.
DEMOCRATS: Let's make it appear that we will cut some spending (BUT NOT MEDICARE/MEDICAID/SOCIAL SECURITY) and raise taxes on the rich. REPUBLICANS: Let's make it appear that we will cut MORE spending, but leave taxes as is (OR LOWER THEM. THAT'D BE COOL TOO) TEA PARTY: Cut spending. Really. For real. Not in 10 years, so that later Congresses can throw the cuts away. Cut the spending now, and cut it enough that we're not spending more than we're taking in, and then let's pass a Constitutional amendment to force the hand of future Congresses.
Followed by: TEA PART: YOU'RE CUTTING MY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT I BENEFIT OFF OF? WHAT THE FUCK MATE?
There were several Tea Party freshman that said they were getting calls from their Tea Party constituents saying that exact same thing. Rand Paul was being interview by Mr. Lemon on CNN last night, and said flatly that we was willing to raise taxes and increase the debt ceiling in exchange for an amendment to the budge plans that would have the Congress voting on a balanced budget amendment bill.
The idea that the Tea Party has been intransigent is just a talking point of old-guard Republicrats that dont' want to have to go back to their districts and explain that the world isn't all flowers and unicorns, and that they actually had to make some budget decisions.
Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
they have to. The campaign on "we're going to give you stuff". More entitlements. More defense spending, etc. They can't go to Washington and just say, "We're broke. The treasure chest is empty." Instead, there has to be a crisis so that they can say they had no choice.
Why doesn't anyone ever compare the tax rate to what it was before one of the biggest wars ever was fought? And the economy was going gangbusters because Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed. The fact that the Feds were able to tag a little extra drag on that doesn't mean that the drag somehow helped.
I don't disagree with you at all. But do all the exercise you want...if you're still eating like crap, you WILL stay fat. The Democrats (and a lot of the old-guard Republicans, though they won't admit it publicly) have no intention of slowing the eating, and will hide the twinkies under their bed if they can.
The cost of documenting compliance will often cost more than the compliance itself.
Visit aircraftspruce.com and look up their batteries. Compare the manufacturer, size, power capabilities. You'll find that the only difference is that the "certified" batteries come with a pile of paperwork that has had the Federal holy-water sprinkled on it. Now, compare the cost of "certified" and "experimental" batteries. It's just one example, but there are a LOT more on that website.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama and the Treasury explained that they might default on military salaries, but not on debt.
That depended on who he was talking to and in which context. He threatened Social Security after Boehner gave up trying to negotiate with him. He was reassuring Wall Street bankers that there wouldn't be a default behind the scenes. Whatever he was reading off the teleprompter was designed to pull a response from whoever he was talking to at the moment.
And if you took all of the money from the top income tax rates, you STILL couldn't cover this year's borrowing. At some point, continuing what you've always done, in hopes that you will get a different outcome has to be called what it is. The reason the credit was downgraded was because the politicians can't bring themselves to actually cut any spending, especially that no-show we elected President. That "rational compromise" you speak of is code-words for continuing to splurge on the credit.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party took a stand against a symbolic increase in taxes, because it is always a symbolic increase but very useful for turning conversations away from the real problem. The problem is spending. The only fix is to control spending, and only a minor portion of Congress was willing to stand strong for doing something about the real problem.
I would say the Democrats were trying to do something, but the only plan they put on the table couldn't even get out of the Democrat controlled Senate.
The way to bing health care costs under control is to train more doctors and nurses, and allow more companies to produce medical equipment. Instead, all the Democrats can think to do is busy themselves with rearranging who gets to sit in the limited number of seats as the ship is sinking.
Do you say that just because one side chose to make speeches to demonize the other, rather than put a plan, written down so that people could read it, on the table?
this "child" is over 230yrs old.
2-3KW Gasoline generators are dirt cheap in construction equipment stores, and you can run them several hundred meters away from the shooting site.
Or you can just screw a 6ft length of steel gas line pipe into the exhaust line to make it all but silent.
This begs the question of "Where do you draw the line?"
I have gas welding supplies in my residential home's garage. That a bottle of highly compressed oxygen, and a bottle of highly compressed acetylene. Handled improperly, these two bottle could make a BIG mess.
I have epoxy resins and hardeners, some of which I have to pay exhorbitant shipping costs on because it is a Class 1 poison. Nasty stuff there.
I have cans of methyl-ethyl-keytone, and other nasty solvents.
Should I be expecting the police to show up to my house and start confiscating stuff?
Not so quick there.
While its still possible to put the DeLorean together, where the hell are you going to get the flux-capacitor? Hmmm? You can't just buy some LED's in a plastic tube formed in a triangle from just anywhere, you know.
He was an alien that was out on parole in order to make a movie.
The US spends more money on its military than all other countries combined.
That's because we're spending money to provide those countries with their defense.
But..but...Tea Partiers are CRAZY!!
If you're got a pool with a leak and you've got two hoses, it's easier to fill it up with both hoses instead of just one. If one hose is either only slowly filling it up, or all leaking out at the same time, then another might fill in the gap to make it actually fill up. Then again, both hoses might fail to fill the pool, but two hoses will...fail better?
Except one of those hoses is attached to the neighbor's house, and he has been telling you for years to fix that damn hole in your pool. It continues to flood his yard. At what point is he justified in saying he is going to turn the water off.
The "spending" is also going to a Dept of Education, which has yet to demonstrate any effectiveness.
The "spending" is also going to foreign military bases that do nothing for our economy.
The "spending" is also going to fund a food stamps program that some studies indicate funds more drugs than food.
The "spending" is also going to fund DHS which is just a joke by any rational estimation.
The "spending" is also going to fund a DEA that spends money on expensive para-military equipment to create an underground economy for drugs and violence.
All the "spending" going to roads comes from fuel taxes, ie a use tax.
The government doesn't fund normal hospitals.
The federal government has no business funding schools.
or firefighters.
or medicare.
or social security.
The federal government isn't the Great Grandfather, come to gift us with anything we'd want.
The plan Rand Paul is asking for is to have the budget balanced over 7 years. That is, we keep borrowing money for 7 years, but then Congress has its hands forced to balance the budge.
The term you're looking for is .... Wal-Mart.
Seriously.
You are claiming that if I run a Ponzi scheme and I make sure that some of the payments actually come from a revenue stream other than investors money then it actually isn't a Ponzi scheme?
Right. We call that Amway.
Republicans have fucked this country six ways to Sunday and voters have ordered them to fuck us some more because they don't have a clue about, well, anything.
And Democrats have been innocent bystanders? That is an ...interesting... perspective.
Reagan never raised taxes one single time. He didn't have the power to. That power belonged to Congress.
This information is readily available, why do so many seem so confused?
Because their minds are to small to wrap around the idea that there are more that two wheels (federal government and federal economy) moving at the same time.
You misunderstand it. You need to stop listening to JUST the talking points.
DEMOCRATS: Let's make it appear that we will cut some spending (BUT NOT MEDICARE/MEDICAID/SOCIAL SECURITY) and raise taxes on the rich.
REPUBLICANS: Let's make it appear that we will cut MORE spending, but leave taxes as is (OR LOWER THEM. THAT'D BE COOL TOO)
TEA PARTY: Cut spending. Really. For real. Not in 10 years, so that later Congresses can throw the cuts away. Cut the spending now, and cut it enough that we're not spending more than we're taking in, and then let's pass a Constitutional amendment to force the hand of future Congresses.
Followed by:
TEA PART: YOU'RE CUTTING MY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT I BENEFIT OFF OF? WHAT THE FUCK MATE?
There were several Tea Party freshman that said they were getting calls from their Tea Party constituents saying that exact same thing. Rand Paul was being interview by Mr. Lemon on CNN last night, and said flatly that we was willing to raise taxes and increase the debt ceiling in exchange for an amendment to the budge plans that would have the Congress voting on a balanced budget amendment bill.
The idea that the Tea Party has been intransigent is just a talking point of old-guard Republicrats that dont' want to have to go back to their districts and explain that the world isn't all flowers and unicorns, and that they actually had to make some budget decisions.
they have to. The campaign on "we're going to give you stuff". More entitlements. More defense spending, etc. They can't go to Washington and just say, "We're broke. The treasure chest is empty." Instead, there has to be a crisis so that they can say they had no choice.
Why doesn't anyone ever compare the tax rate to what it was before one of the biggest wars ever was fought? And the economy was going gangbusters because Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed. The fact that the Feds were able to tag a little extra drag on that doesn't mean that the drag somehow helped.
I don't disagree with you at all. But do all the exercise you want...if you're still eating like crap, you WILL stay fat. The Democrats (and a lot of the old-guard Republicans, though they won't admit it publicly) have no intention of slowing the eating, and will hide the twinkies under their bed if they can.
The cost of documenting compliance will often cost more than the compliance itself.
Visit aircraftspruce.com and look up their batteries. Compare the manufacturer, size, power capabilities. You'll find that the only difference is that the "certified" batteries come with a pile of paperwork that has had the Federal holy-water sprinkled on it. Now, compare the cost of "certified" and "experimental" batteries. It's just one example, but there are a LOT more on that website.
I support your point.