US gubmint shutdown + default + subprime sequel?

[Adrian II]

As omens go, this (http://www.thenation.com/article/161737/new-yorks-ag-takes-banks) is one very, very bad news indeed.

The year 1995 only saw a US government shutdown, this time round a debt payment default is a distinct possibility. And on top of the debt ceiling stand-off on the Hill, it seems that the US surprime crisis may be far from over and that more major banks may collapse before the year goes out.

Any wild thoughts on how we can grow our way out of this global credit mess? Cause only growth is going to save us.

AII

[Lemur]

Most businesses like stability. I think that's uncontested. So the best possible solution would be for the administration and the congress to reach as long-term of a deal as possible, showing some sort of roadmap for the next ten years or so. Anything less is going to hamper growth. (I.E., I'm not going to invest in a new bottling machine until I know how it will affect my write-offs. Or I'm not going to open a new extension to my factory. Or I'm not going to make that new round of hires. Etcetera.)

As for the subprime mess, what's to say? The bankers really went nuts using bundled mortgages as financial tools, and the risk was spread so broadly that it seems as though every financial institution is in danger. Still. Having spent eight years working with investment bankers, I can say with confidence that they make the average mafia soldier look like a model of ethical long-term thinking. And yes, the government's involvement with low-end lending didn't help, but that had a fractional impact compared with the bundling and selling of mass mortgages. Who thought that was a good idea? Oh, right, investment bankers. 'Nuff said.

I'm moderately worried. The USA has a long-term debt problem and a short-term growth problem. The most recent jobs report, for example, was negative almost entirely due to shrinking county and state payrolls. Things like that indicate that while cutting government down to a more reasonable size is a good goal, timing is everything. I fear we're looking at 1937 all over again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As omens go, this (http://www.thenation.com/article/161737/new-yorks-ag-takes-banks) is one very, very bad news indeed.

The year 1995 only saw a US government shutdown, this time round a debt payment default is a distinct possibility. And on top of the debt ceiling stand-off on the Hill, it seems that the US surprime crisis may be far from over and that more major banks may collapse before the year goes out.

Any wild thoughts on how we can grow our way out of this global credit mess? Cause only growth is going to save us.

AII

Well, if the US dives so will China, not to mention Japan and everywhere in between. In developing countries that will lead to massive unrest, as they've only been forstalling political turmoil by raising living standards. A collapse in the US will hurt Britain, as we are a trading nation that is currently mostly moving other people's money around; if our banks fall access to credit internationally becomes even harder and at that point Germany starts to suffer becasue she has an export economy.

My conclusion is that our living standards will fall nationally, the gap between rich and poor will widen and I blumen' well better finish my PhD and get a Fellowship somewhere before it gets too bad. In a glbal depression the countries who come through best will be those with the most stable political institutions, but recent evidence shows that even the US and Europe have problems in that area that we have only just woken up to and begun to fix.

It's going to be an "interesting" time to be alive, and I suggest all adult males on the forum (re)learn how to iron their trousers and polish their boots.

[Vladimir]

Growth isn't the only way out, but it is the best.

My wild thought on growth is, and will always be, the heavens. No, I don't mean horrible clothing and missionary-style sex; I mean Mars. Since we've lost ideological motivations, people are now focused on themselves. The desires to explore and expand are part of human nature. If people can be convinced that there is a reward for it (e.g. cheap energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3)) we might be more motivated to build and grow.

As silly as it sounds, exploration and colonization of Mars would lead to advances in solar energy, recycling, composites, and etc.

Growth is the answer but why grow? It's poplar to say that growth and consumerism are bad so why do it?

[Lemur]

Here's a pretty good summary (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/even-if-theres-no-default-there-will-still-be-pain/) of what will probably happen if congress refuses to re-up the debt ceiling. "Bad" doesn't begin to cover it.



[O]ne thing that can’t be ignored will be the economic shock that will result from the immediate need to cut federal spending by 44%:

The US government is the largest purchaser of goods and services on planet earth.
The government buys everything from equipment for cancer research to metal for warships to toothpicks for federal cafeterias. Suppose the governmetn had to cut 44% from its budget on 2 weeks notice? How sharp a shock would that be to the world economy?
Here’s a comparative. In the worst quarter of 2009, American consumers cut their spending by … not 44%, not even 4.4%, but 1.2%. That 1.2% drop in consumer spending helped tumble the US economy into the worst collapse since the 1930s.
The US consumer sector is even larger than the federal government sector. But it’s not unimaginably larger. US consumers spend about about $10 trillion a year. The federal government spends about $3.4 trillion.
If a cut of 1.2% from $10 trillion was an economic shock, a cut of 44% from $3.4 trillion will be a much, much, much bigger shock.


So at the very least we are talking about Recession Part Deux, if not a slide into Depression. Doubtless the aftershocks will be felt around the world. I find it very hard to believe our Congress could be that irresponsible.

[Major Robert Dump]

As long as they don't cancel Jersey Shore and we can still laugh at homeless people, America will be okay

[Vladimir]

I find it very hard to believe our Congress could be that irresponsible.

The problem is that they have been for a very long time, and it was the President who stormed out of the most recent negotiations.

I haven't read your article yet but I assume it's alarmist. Truth is that we have plenty of money to cover our discretionary expenses (social security, debt interest, medicare) so the resulting cuts would be discretionary (this always means military).

Read it.

Thought so; a lawyer from NOVA offering more opinion than news. Yes, there will be pain, which is why I hope all parties involved come to an acceptable solution.

[gaelic cowboy]

I not too sure what the problem is really here Obama says 3-1 cut to taxes and thats usually the way most people like it despite what they tell the news.

Do the Rep people really want to push this when there is a solution on the table, crashing the government is hardly likely to endear them to voters.

[Lemur]

I haven't read your article yet but I assume it's alarmist. [...] Thought so; a lawyer from NOVA offering more opinion than news.
Yeah, the blogger is a lawyer, not sure how that disqualifies him from looking at numbers. Didn't see any reference to NOVA; are you talking about the PBS show or something else?

Furthermore, the bulk of bullet points were cross-referenced from here (http://www.frumforum.com/how-to-make-2011-feel-like-1931). Frum is what conservatives used to be, and I rarely find him to be alarmist or hyperbolic.

[Adrian II]

As silly as it sounds, exploration and colonization of Mars would lead to advances in solar energy, recycling, composites, and etc.

And we don't have to wait till we get there, we can start right now.

Sadly, habit is a real bitch. I remember doing an article about a difficult transport project in the Neds some years back. One of the engineers suggested that instead of building bridges and fly-overs and stuff over some soft grounds, they should build a giant tunnel right underneath. You're out of your mind, they all said, it's too costly, we've never even done that. He said: Sure, it's gonna cost ten times the budget we have now, but over the next 25 years anybody in the whole wide world who wants a tunnel underneath a swamp, be they Scottish, Russian or Japanese, is gonna call us. Because nobody has ever done it. And we're gonna make a lot of money.

So they went and build the bridges and crap. And they still went over their budget.


Growth is the answer but why grow?

I think lemur's remarks about investment bankers go some way toward explaining why growth is in disrepute. The article I referred shows a similar reason why. But in the main it's environmentalism and sustainability what did it. They gave us guilt and disinvestment and pandaworship. Oh, and luke-warm soda's.

AII

[TinCow]

Didn't see any reference to NOVA; are you talking about the PBS show or something else?

I believe he's referring to Northern Virginia, which is known as NoVa in the DC area. It is the most prosperous of the three DC areas (the other two being DC proper and southern Maryland). If that is what he is referring to, he is using it as a disparaging term to indicate that the writer is the equivalent of a 'Washington elite' who is (1) a Democrat, (2) overpaid, and (3) so highly educated he's become stupid.

[drone]

I believe he's referring to Northern Virginia, which is known as NoVa in the DC area. It is the most prosperous of the three DC areas (the other two being DC proper and southern Maryland). If that is what he is referring to, he is using it as a disparaging term to indicate that the writer is the equivalent of a 'Washington elite' who is (1) a Democrat, (2) overpaid, and (3) so highly educated he's become stupid.
I thought the overpaid Democrat Washington elites lived in Montgomery County, MD. :inquisitive: Virginia (even NoVa) is too red-state for them.

[TinCow]

I thought the overpaid Democrat Washington elites lived in Montgomery County, MD. :inquisitive: Virginia (even NoVa) is too red-state for them.

Too Red State? Virginia went for Obama in 2008, and both of its sitting Senators are Democrats. VA has been a swing-state for the last 10 years, largely due to NoVa and the peninsula.

[Xiahou]

And on top of the debt ceiling stand-off on the Hill, it seems that the US surprime crisis may be far from over and that more major banks may collapse before the year goes out.Here's why the housing market probably won't be getting better any time soon....
https://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7812/caseshiller.jpg
It looks like there's still quite a bit of "correction" that needs to happen in real estate prices.

Any wild thoughts on how we can grow our way out of this global credit mess? Cause only growth is going to save us.I'd say the government needs to stop "helping (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/politics/13tax.html?_r=3)" so much and take their boot off the neck of our businesses. More regulations under the guise of consumer protections, Dodd-Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd-Frank), a healthcare law that reads like mad-libs, threats of energy cost increasing green-house gas regulations.... I mean, even if you think these are well-intentioned, good changes, it should be obvious that increased regulation and it's accompanying uncertainty will slow growth. Maybe under better economic times you could make the case for some of it, but why now? We're strangling an already tepid recovery.

Also, vis-a-vis the debt ceiling negotiations- I really don't think it'd be wise to raise taxes while we're teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession. Again, you might be able to make a case for higher taxes- but not now for crying out loud.

[drone]

Too Red State? Virginia went for Obama in 2008, and both of its sitting Senators are Democrats. VA has been a swing-state for the last 10 years, largely due to NoVa and the peninsula.
Everything is relative. VA is more of an old-school Southern conservative-type state, the reason we have Democrats as Senators is because the GOP put forth idiots (Allen/ Gilmore) against them. And our Dems could never be mistaken for those pinkos from Maryland! ~D

[Vladimir]

I not too sure what the problem is really here Obama says 3-1 cut to taxes and thats usually the way most people like it despite what they tell the news.

Do the Rep people really want to push this when there is a solution on the table, crashing the government is hardly likely to endear them to voters.

"Read my lips. No new taxes." Similar promises have been made and the cuts never happened. That is the danger here. It looks like one side is willing to deal but it's quicker to raise taxes so the other side doesn't have to follow through with cuts.


Yeah, the blogger is a lawyer, not sure how that disqualifies him from looking at numbers. Didn't see any reference to NOVA; are you talking about the PBS show or something else?

Furthermore, the bulk of bullet points were cross-referenced from here (http://www.frumforum.com/how-to-make-2011-feel-like-1931). Frum is what conservatives used to be, and I rarely find him to be alarmist or hyperbolic.

Sorry Lemur; making a reference to Northern Virginia. It's that he's echoing the party line and is trying to set a certain mood.

[Vladimir]

I think lemur's remarks about investment bankers go some way toward explaining why growth is in disrepute. The article I referred shows a similar reason why. But in the main it's environmentalism and sustainability what did it. They gave us guilt and disinvestment and pandaworship. Oh, and luke-warm soda's.

AII

Lemur gave an excellent example of how and illustrates what is holding our economy back. I hate thinking this but one of the good things about the polarized past is that it motivated people to build things, regardless of how destructive those things were.


I believe he's referring to Northern Virginia, which is known as NoVa in the DC area. It is the most prosperous of the three DC areas (the other two being DC proper and southern Maryland). If that is what he is referring to, he is using it as a disparaging term to indicate that the writer is the equivalent of a 'Washington elite' who is (1) a Democrat, (2) overpaid, and (3) so highly educated he's become stupid.

:laugh4:

Easy there. It's easy to read too deeply into text. ~;)

[Centurion1]

I believe he's referring to Northern Virginia, which is known as NoVa in the DC area. It is the most prosperous of the three DC areas (the other two being DC proper and southern Maryland). If that is what he is referring to, he is using it as a disparaging term to indicate that the writer is the equivalent of a 'Washington elite' who is (1) a Democrat, (2) overpaid, and (3) so highly educated he's become stupid.

Hey I live in Southern Maryland and we are one of the few red voting areas of Maryland. We are wealthy simply because of the military. It is a flying navy town and because it is a majority of flyers you know that there are alot of officers who are decntly paid and also because so many test projects are conducted on that base you have tons of engineers. You also have well paid contractors and plenty of lawyers. This creates the nucleus that allows other wealthy social supports like doctors and luxury businesses. As someone else stated when the government makes quick cuts the first thing it does (rather stupidly especially when in a war) is cut the military. People don't realize that war makes this country quite a bit of money and provides a hell of a lot of jobs both unskilled and skilled. If the base shut down where I lived (while unlikely its the most important testing base on the east coast) the entire county would just die and dry up. And that is thousands of high paing jobs as well as low paying millions upon millions of dollars.

also we arent part of the DC area :tongue:

[Strike For The South]

Good books always come out during these sorts of times

So there's that

[InsaneApache]

If the US goes tits up it;s nucular.

[Greyblades]

...Why? How does depression = nuclear war

[Samurai Waki]

I think he means global economic meltdown...

[Husar]

No, the US will nuke everybody else becuz there the best and if that is about to change they will have to make everybody else worse real quick.

[Major Robert Dump]

Hey I live in Southern Maryland and we are one of the few red voting areas of Maryland. We are wealthy simply because of the military. It is a flying navy town and because it is a majority of flyers you know that there are alot of officers who are decntly paid and also because so many test projects are conducted on that base you have tons of engineers. You also have well paid contractors and plenty of lawyers. This creates the nucleus that allows other wealthy social supports like doctors and luxury businesses. As someone else stated when the government makes quick cuts the first thing it does (rather stupidly especially when in a war) is cut the military. People don't realize that war makes this country quite a bit of money and provides a hell of a lot of jobs both unskilled and skilled. If the base shut down where I lived (while unlikely its the most important testing base on the east coast) the entire county would just die and dry up. And that is thousands of high paing jobs as well as low paying millions upon millions of dollars.

also we arent part of the DC area :tongue:

The problem with this is that it is all reliant on the government. It has no application to normal business and commerce, because it is neither.

[rory_20_uk]

If the US goes tits up it;s nucular.

Think it through. Suddenly the world's reserve currency is worthless. Why trust the Euro, pound or yen? Best keep liquid assets... erm. What exactly? And who is going to sell it?

If one relatively small institution can cause market paralysis, the biggst one in the world going belly up with uterly destroy the world as we know it.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

Think it through. Suddenly the world's reserve currency is worthless. Why trust the Euro, pound or yen? Best keep liquid assets... erm. What exactly? And who is going to sell it?

If one relatively small institution can cause market paralysis, the biggst one in the world going belly up with uterly destroy the world as we know it.

~:smoking:

That's an excellent point because as of now, no one, not even China, is in a position to take the dollar's place. I'm sure they'll smarten up though.

[rory_20_uk]

If the dollar went, let's not forget the Rinimbi looses about 1 TRILLION dollars of foreign reserves just like that. It also looses the market for most of its manufactured goods. Perversely, the Rinimbi is strong because the dollar is. Until China's economy grows to be much larger internally it is as vunerable as everyone else.

~:smoking:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

If you can't stay afloat, go under. Simple Business 101.

[rory_20_uk]

Another one is "don't lend to insolvent people".

The whole point of a "free market" is a system where there is multiple redundancy so if one thing goes there are many others to pick up the slack and systems are corrected early. neither of these have happened.

So, a more appropriate adage is: owe the bank £1000, you're in trouble. Owe the bank £10,000,000 the bank is in trouble.

The system has no redundancy and debt has been given to those who have no realistic way of repaying it for too long. But for "natural selection" to take its course would bring down the system all together.

~:smoking:

[Samurai Waki]

Maybe investing in gold wasn't such a bad idea after all...

[ICantSpellDawg]

As omens go, this (http://www.thenation.com/article/161737/new-yorks-ag-takes-banks) is one very, very bad news indeed.

The year 1995 only saw a US government shutdown, this time round a debt payment default is a distinct possibility. And on top of the debt ceiling stand-off on the Hill, it seems that the US surprime crisis may be far from over and that more major banks may collapse before the year goes out.

Any wild thoughts on how we can grow our way out of this global credit mess? Cause only growth is going to save us.

AII

Burn this whole thing to the ground. Let's start from scratch.

[edyzmedieval]

Most likely they will come up with a solution, but right on the brink. I don't expect to see any agreement on the debt cap before the last days of July.

[rory_20_uk]

That is not a solution. It is merely putting off having to make a solution.

Judicious cuts and tax rises to, y'know, get more money than spent would be a solution and then pay off part of the National debt occasionally.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is not a solution. It is merely putting off having to make a solution.

Judicious cuts and tax rises to, y'know, get more money than spent would be a solution and then pay off part of the National debt occasionally.

~:smoking:

Yes, well, going through this every few months makes it look increasingly like the US is run by children, and stupid ones at that.

[Samurai Waki]

Yes, well, going through this every few months makes it look increasingly like the US is run by children, and stupid ones at that.

Looks? I'm sure a group of chimps could do a better job, and if not at least we could laugh at their shennanigans-- politicians are never cute, and their shannigans usually involve cocaine and dead hookers...

[Lemur]

Best headline yet: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined (http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/)

[gaelic cowboy]

Best headline yet: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined (http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/)

It's almost like there debating who should get to cut the first slice of cake while the visigoths are bashing the gates in.

[Beskar]

Let's scrap all debt and currency and bring in the one-world government with its one-world currency with a completely new economic system where the global state cannot go into debt. Along with other economic reforms, all the issues will be solved almost instantly.

[rory_20_uk]

Erm, I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you are stating that there would then be no lending, it would change nothing.

China's municipalities are in massive debt due to their lending. It changes the name, not the outcome.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

This is pretty good:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70

[Vladimir]

This is pretty good:


As an adult conservative American Cristian I find Regan worship deeply uncomfortable. Me and the Gipper go way back but he did give congress a blank check to spend as much as they wanted on social/domestic issues if they gave him a blank check on defense.

He's right, of course, but also bears some of the responsibility.


Let's scrap all debt and currency and bring in the one-world government with its one-world currency with a completely new economic system where the global state cannot go into debt. Along with other economic reforms, all the issues will be solved almost instantly.

I really want to believe you're joking as if I attack your position you'll retreat to the barricades.

[Beskar]

Erm, I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you are stating that there would then be no lending, it would change nothing.

China's municipalities are in massive debt due to their lending. It changes the name, not the outcome.

~:smoking:


I really want to believe you're joking as if I attack your position you'll retreat to the barricades.

My comment was in partial jest, as in, I think ultimately a united government with a single currency, along with world-wide economic reforms including a total economic reboot would solve so many issues present in the current global market.

As for "There would be no lending", that would be a folly, as I think you said yourself earlier Rory, owing $1000 to the bank, you are in trouble, the owing $10,000,000 to the bank and the bank is in trouble. Economic reform would include provisions for banks to lend what it can afford to lend. If this came alongside social shift in how we spend/treat money a credit crunch or similar would never occur.

If a global government with a balanced budget sheet came into play as well, with funds for "Rainy Day", then it changes the outcome of the global climate. If a bank ends up bankrupting, the other banks would simply fill the void of where it fell and there would be no threats to the stability of the government/nation, as we have seen in Greece, USA and other places.

The reason for global government is because the Eurozone is a joke if all the different countries are singing from different song sheets, and thus so would be the world if there was just a unified currency.

As for a unified currency, the benefits of that is pretty common sense and would go into a different argument.


As for my comment in jest, there is no way that such a revolution would occur unless some random cataclysm event occurs. People are too self-interested in their own stocks to create a new world which would solve a great many of the old worlds wrongs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My comment was in partial jest, as in, I think ultimately a united government with a single currency, along with world-wide economic reforms including a total economic reboot would solve so many issues present in the current global market.

As for "There would be no lending", that would be a folly, as I think you said yourself earlier Rory, owing $1000 to the bank, you are in trouble, the owing $10,000,000 to the bank and the bank is in trouble. Economic reform would include provisions for banks to lend what it can afford to lend. If this came alongside social shift in how we spend/treat money a credit crunch or similar would never occur.

If a global government with a balanced budget sheet came into play as well, with funds for "Rainy Day", then it changes the outcome of the global climate. If a bank ends up bankrupting, the other banks would simply fill the void of where it fell and there would be no threats to the stability of the government/nation, as we have seen in Greece, USA and other places.

The reason for global government is because the Eurozone is a joke if all the different countries are singing from different song sheets, and thus so would be the world if there was just a unified currency.

As for a unified currency, the benefits of that is pretty common sense and would go into a different argument.


As for my comment in jest, there is no way that such a revolution would occur unless some random cataclysm event occurs. People are too self-interested in their own stocks to create a new world which would solve a great many of the old worlds wrongs.


Command economy and one, unoposed, government?

No thanks, at least the current mess allows for despotic regimes to be removed by other regimes. Reform almost never comes from within the system, so a unified system will never be reformed. This is, I believe, another problem with the EU, lack of political opposition. The Torys were basically called anti-semnites for pulling out of the pro-EU centre-right coalition in the EU parliament.

[Beskar]

@PVC

I never mentioned anything about a command economy? I don't even believe in a command economy? I cannot really address this point since I am unable to grasp where it has came from.

As for One Government, the main despotic regimes visible around the world are the main problem. Having a united democratic government would be far superior to ridding tyranny due to being able to act decisively and swiftly. Since my proposal of a world government would be federal and in a sense, similar scope to Belgium where the world could continue and government doesn't have much of a part to play, if at all, in the scheme of things. There wouldn't be many issues.

Think of things that plague this world. Country X having human rights abuses, Country Y being very hostile and arming themselves with nukes, Country Z who cannot even do basic maths and decimating their own economy. All that would be done away with in a simple way, since there would be a universal charter of human rights which everyone would be made to stick to and they cannot weasel themselves out of it. United World which could swiftly deal with despots who rear their ugly heads without spending tons of time at a conference table, trying to organise "who will contribute what".

[Vladimir]

My comment was in partial jest, as in, I think ultimately a united government with a single currency, along with world-wide economic reforms including a total economic reboot would solve so many issues present in the current global market.

As for "There would be no lending", that would be a folly, as I think you said yourself earlier Rory, owing $1000 to the bank, you are in trouble, the owing $10,000,000 to the bank and the bank is in trouble. Economic reform would include provisions for banks to lend what it can afford to lend. If this came alongside social shift in how we spend/treat money a credit crunch or similar would never occur.

If a global government with a balanced budget sheet came into play as well, with funds for "Rainy Day", then it changes the outcome of the global climate. If a bank ends up bankrupting, the other banks would simply fill the void of where it fell and there would be no threats to the stability of the government/nation, as we have seen in Greece, USA and other places.

The reason for global government is because the Eurozone is a joke if all the different countries are singing from different song sheets, and thus so would be the world if there was just a unified currency.

As for a unified currency, the benefits of that is pretty common sense and would go into a different argument.


As for my comment in jest, there is no way that such a revolution would occur unless some random cataclysm event occurs. People are too self-interested in their own stocks to create a new world which would solve a great many of the old worlds wrongs.

I almost hate to say it given the recent attack but maybe Norway should run the world. It seems like they're able to do this effectively and responsibly.

[Beskar]

I almost hate to say it given the recent attack but maybe Norway should run the world. It seems like they're able to do this effectively and responsibly.

Norway is a very responsible country from what information I know. So obviously taking from the best aspects of various countries such as Norway would be a good idea.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm really impressed with Boehner, he is negotiating really well. He knows that Obama cannot let this default happen, but he is still returning to the table to show him that a deal is possible. I have a feeling that this deal is going to be really good - increased 1+trillion in revenues while lowering tax rates and "simplifying" tax codes plus an additional 3+trillion cut to the debt over 10 years. 4+ plus in debt reduction over 10 years without "raising" taxes. This will most likely happen this week.

Or we could get a forced 44% cut instantly. Either way, this government is going to be slashed mercilessly and funding will be forced to go to necessary functions rather than the fluff. The government should be privatizing services at this point.

When will they understand that nobody owns their own property? We are merely renting from the government under the guise of "taxes". Any privatization would be under a similar agreement. The government still owns everything and controls critical functions through regulation, why not charge people rent instead of running it yourself? Generate revenue, create growth potential... Win,Win

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm really impressed with Boehner, he is negotiating really well. He knows that Obama cannot let this default happen, but he is still returning to the table to show him that a deal is possible. I have a feeling that this deal is going to be really good - increased 1+trillion in revenues while lowering tax rates and "simplifying" tax codes plus an additional 3+trillion cut to the debt over 10 years. 4+ plus in debt reduction over 10 years without "raising" taxes. This will most likely happen this week.

Or we could get a forced 44% cut instantly. Either way, this government is going to be slashed mercilessly and funding will be forced to go to necessary functions rather than the fluff. The government should be privatizing services at this point.

When will they understand that nobody owns their own property? We are merely renting from the government under the guise of "taxes". Any privatization would be under a similar agreement. The government still owns everything and controls critical functions through regulation, why not charge people rent instead of running it yourself? Generate revenue, create growth potential... Win,Win

Profit does not equal better. There are many systems and services which cannot be properly utilized with a system of competition due to practical reasons. Without competition, no growth can be formed, even if there is lots of profit to be had.

Of course, why am I even bothering to say any of this. You are so off the deep end in thinking that the man who is holding the country hostage to satisfy some ideology is "impressive" and that somehow there is no private property in America anymore. Reality check bro.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What happens when you stop paying property taxes? We're all renters, my friend. How am I off the deep end on this issue? What do you think is going to happen to our country? We are already bankrupt, but other nations have been afraid to call us on it. I'm open to increased taxes generally, especially for salaries over 250k, but I know that the government will just squander it in the form of pay raises for employees and programs which are already paid too much, rather than use it for anything bold or necessary. I recognize that our ability to increase our credit limit is just a way to further compound how screwed we are. It's only a matter of time before we are forced to liquidate. We should not increase our debt limit unless we can get spending under control. It is responsible govenrment to push this to the brink now, while we still have options rather than later, when we inevitably wont. People are just afraid of "brinksmanship", but "politics" has only put us in the poor box.

I'm an extremist in my moderation. Politically I am within the margin of error. I like balance, but balance does not exist here.

[jirisys]

Well; you see my friend; you are taking your army to the forest for an ambush. The problem is not "paying property taxes", but the taxes (or more moderately, the effects themselves). It is a silly concept. To have to pay money for something that is your possession for the only reason that it's in the government lands.

Boehner is just an *******. Why not simply disregard whatever petty republican wishes for this single and only instance. Throw 'em to the craphole for this single and only decision, and solve any problems you have. If he doesn't want high taxes for the rich, then **** him.

Or simply, make a quick referendum on what to do. You will see that it's going to be pretty one-sided.

America doesn't need a filibuster right now.

~Jirisys ()

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why don't you tell us what America needs?

[jirisys]

Why don't you tell us what America needs?

Because few people, if any; know that.

One can know what it doesn't need at a given time.

~Jirisys ()

[ICantSpellDawg]

That reply made no sense gramatically, but I think I got the point.

I was using the property tax thing as an example of why, when the government sells a function, it still owns the land and the function (and the right to charge rent through "taxes"), even though others are working it and paying the government money. This creates growth potential in private sector. For example, the post office is almost completely irrelevant. If anyone is still dumb enough to send things through the mail, they should pay more to do it and convert their bulk correspondence to digital. This would increase the volume of fedex and UPS while saving the federal government 10 billion per year. Additionally, post offices have prime real estate which would net the government untold billions, for sale over time as the economy picks up. There is no reason to have these stupid fossils sitting in the best areas of towns. They are taking away from tax revenue potential and they no longer even serve the interests of the poor - they are a tumor on the taxpayer with no added value. Add more computers to library's if lower income people need to send correspondence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That reply made no sense gramatically, but I think I got the point.

I was using the property tax thing as an example of why, when the government sells a function, it still owns the land and the function (and the right to charge rent through "taxes"), even though others are working it and paying the government money. This creates growth potential in private sector. For example, the post office is almost completely irrelevant. If anyone is still dumb enough to send things through the mail, they should pay more to do it and convert their bulk correspondence to digital. This would increase the volume of fedex and UPS while saving the federal government 10 billion per year. Additionally, post offices have prime real estate which would net the government untold billions, for sale over time as the economy picks up. There is no reason to have these stupid fossils sitting in the best areas of towns. They are taking away from tax revenue potential and they no longer even serve the interests of the poor - they are a tumor on the taxpayer with no added value. Add more computers to library's if lower income people need to send correspondence.

A better plan would be to reform the Post Office and get it working so that it can undercut FedEx etc. and become a useful service again. The Postal Service is like the road and rail network, it's existence is a anecessary part of the country's infastructure. So is the Health Service - which is, incidentally, someone Americans pay for twice, in taxes and insurrence.

Get rid of the US mail and the US government would have to subsidise another carryier to bring down prices and ensure it didn't go under.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's not true. Price mail correctly for the desire and cost of service. 45 cents a stamp doesn't reflect a sensible cost. If people began to see that their mail was too costly to send when postage hit a dollar, 2 dollars, maybe they would use some sense and invest in electronic methods. Otherwise, if the mail really needed to go out, maybe the dollar would be worth it. Ups and fedex would appreciate the growth in function and volume

[gaelic cowboy]

That's not true. Price mail correctly for the desire and cost of service. 45 cents a stamp doesn't reflect a sensible cost. If people began to see that their mail was too costly to send when postage hit a dollar, 2 dollars, maybe they would use some sense and invest in electronic methods. Otherwise, if the mail really needed to go out, maybe the dollar would be worth it. Ups and fedex would appreciate the growth in function and volume

The reason mail is a 45 cent has nothing to do with sensible costs, it is a fundamental part of the governance of any country being able to communicate with official correspondence to any region under it's control.

UPS and Fed Ex would still end up being given federal money to keep the ability to send an letter from Alaska to DC.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ok, how much would it cost to open up Fedex availability in certain parts of Alaska and Puerto Rico? I think we are at the point where that is a weak argument. In the mid 1900's that held plenty of water, now we spend this much money in order to make sure that the Federal government can ship confidential and secret correspondence to the middle of nowhere? The post office serves as a job provider - an unnecessary welfare donor. It pays people money for a service that is no longer necessary.

Why does Ireland still have a post office? You can travel to anywhere in Ireland in around 4 hours. I'm saying that sacred cows need to be slaughtered. There is waste in government because we fail to re-evaluate needs. We see "post office" and everybody knows that we need one, except that they don't know why we need one.

[ICantSpellDawg]

double post

[gaelic cowboy]

Why does Ireland still have a post office? You can travel to anywhere in Ireland in around 4 hours. I'm saying that sacred cows need to be slaughtered. There is waste in government because we fail to re-evaluate needs. We see "post office" and everybody knows that we need one, except that they don't know why we need one.

Well part of the reason is we use the post office for different things over here, we have things like Post Office banking and Social Welfare payments renewal of Passports etc etc there is a myraid of things.

However those things are not the reason we have a Post Office it really does still come down to official communication between citizens, we would still have to suplement the private sources of mail and we would still require them to open offices all over the place in order to do business.

I am open to having a private mail service but it would have to still engage with the existing universal service obligations and it would have to have offices at pretty much all the same locations give or take a few more(considering the latest population increase here they prob need extra ones)

UPS an Fed Ex likely don't want to have to offer any of these services to be honest, there quite happy with the lucrative chunks they have already, then we have the problem that if any of them went bust it creates messy problems with the service while new vendors are sourced.








On an historical note the British system of government here was subverted through interception by IRA agents in the sorting offices in London and Dublin, they knew what the British were doing before the Governor General had even read it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well part of the reason is we use the post office for different things over here, we have things like Post Office banking and Social Welfare payments renewal of Passports etc etc there is a myraid of things.

However those things are not the reason we have a Post Office it really does still come down to official communication between citizens, we would still have to suplement the private sources of mail and we would still require them to open offices all over the place in order to do business.

I am open to having a private mail service but it would have to still engage with the existing universal service obligations and it would have to have offices at pretty much all the same locations give or take a few more(considering the latest population increase here they prob need extra ones)

UPS an Fed Ex likely don't want to have to offer any of these services to be honest, there quite happy with the lucrative chunks they have already, then we have the problem that if any of them went bust it creates messy problems with the service while new vendors are sourced.

On an historical note the British system of government here was subverted through interception by IRA agents in the sorting offices in London and Dublin, they knew what the British were doing before the Governor General had even read it.

In the United States, we have separate SS offices that rent out space in private buildings. I can't think of anything other than passports that private companies couldn't do better and more profitably. Before anyone says "not everything is about profit", save it for an argument about social security. What the hell IS about profit or efficiency or sustainable growth?

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK there was a massive outcry when large postoffices that contained little more than open space to line up waiting for the tills. Most of these have been replaced with small counters in shops. They do the same job in a lot less space.

Some have claimed the network must remain in place as some elderly can not use computers - rather than solutions to the problem, keep everything the way it is...

There are few things that have to be sent through the post. Most of the rest is either historically sent through the post or people think it would be nice to have sent in the post. The former category can be sent via email. The latter can be sent at what the item costs to send.

I can send a 30kg parcel anywhere in the UK. It will be picked up from my doorstep at a set point. I purchase it online and print the label myself. This service costs £5. Not bad, I think. I've sent 400g through Royal Mail having to go to a post office and the rest of the hassle for roughly the same cost.

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

usps handles passports as well and also other paperwork. like selective service

[Beskar]

Vince Cable made a few comments on this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14267091

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In the UK there was a massive outcry when large postoffices that contained little more than open space to line up waiting for the tills. Most of these have been replaced with small counters in shops. They do the same job in a lot less space.

Some have claimed the network must remain in place as some elderly can not use computers - rather than solutions to the problem, keep everything the way it is...

There are few things that have to be sent through the post. Most of the rest is either historically sent through the post or people think it would be nice to have sent in the post. The former category can be sent via email. The latter can be sent at what the item costs to send.

I can send a 30kg parcel anywhere in the UK. It will be picked up from my doorstep at a set point. I purchase it online and print the label myself. This service costs £5. Not bad, I think. I've sent 400g through Royal Mail having to go to a post office and the rest of the hassle for roughly the same cost.

~:smoking:

That doesn't cover government post, does it?

[Lemur]

Looks like a compromise is not happening, and it's down to brinksmanship. Sad, really. A little perspective (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e2014e8a1d63fa970d-.gif

[Papewaio]

From the interview I saw on the news today... the Speaker of the House sounds like he wants his airtime.

Is he running for president?

I want the US to get their heads around this. To pay up. To keep their AAA credit rating, to not rock the boat of the world economy (although on news of this the Aussie dollar seems to have gone up not down).

I for one would like to see my government back in surplus in the next two years, despite paying $25 a ton on carbon and raising the tax free threshold to $18k. USA playing silly buggers is not , is not going to win any friends. If anything it's going to go down worse then invading Iraq. Sure push up petrol prices and kill a dictator. The implosion of the GFC was bad, but primarily the blame lies with corporations (lack of oversight by the gov isn't good, but isn't the to blame). A self created GFC II over party politics one will go down like a turd in a pool. Problem being this pool is the world economy and the long term damage will be:

AAA rating will dip making interest rates on loans to the US go up. The consequence is that it will be even harder to service debt.
Today the FX is primarily about swapping US currency. Shake that confidence and another (EU or Chinese) will take steadily over, it won't be immediate, but over time oil, gold and other contracts will be moved across.
What does a currency that is less in demand do? Well like any commodity to sell the same amount it dips in value or the contraction will have to remove more cash from the system. Essentially it amounts to the same thing. It becomes harder for the US to service overseas debts as the value of the currency goes down.
Part of the power of power is confidence. Markets run on confidence. To much brinkmanship even if it doesn't go over the brink is going to put a dent in the US economy as investors start to rethink their portfolios. Once this trend starts, it will become a long term strategy. China may not sell up its bonds, but it may slow down how many it buys. This again will have a knock on effect on the US governments budget.

I wonder how much it would cost to make an iPhone in the US?

[drone]

Aside from shotguns/ammo/canned foods, where should I put my money if the default happens? Gold is already expensive enough as is. I'm assuming we are in for rampant inflation, right?

[Lemur]

No idea. I only do long-term investing, never play the market. That's for people with far more disposable attention and energy than I have.

A good point about why a default (and the resulting recession) may be good politics (http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/07/dept-of-very-very-obvious-observations.html) for the GOP:

If in fact the debt limit is not raised well beyond the August 2 target date, and the economy suffers the severe blow that experts, Democratic politicians, and most Republican politicians believe is likely to happen -- the dissenting Republican politicians such as Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and Louie Gohmert (and other insiders) will not, in fact, admit that they were wrong about it. Instead, they will blame Barack Obama for implementing the debt limit badly. And they will do so no matter how he implemented it [...]

What's more, and this is only slightly less obvious and slightly less certain, they will almost certainly not be penalized within the GOP for being wrong. Indeed, what's far more likely is that if, as virtually all economists and budget experts currently insist, failure to raise the debt limit causes economic disaster, the likely effect within the GOP will be to enhance the prospects of those who claim that the experts don't know what they're talking about -- and any post-limit disaster will be considered yet another sign that the experts don't know what they're talking about. So really there's no downside for the GOP, and no reason they should accept any compromise. Driving America's economy into the ditch will only help them re-take the White House and the Senate.

[Beskar]

Looks like a compromise is not happening, and it's down to brinksmanship. Sad, really. A little perspective (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2):

That reminds me of that website ages ago which said "Can you fix the economy?" and there was lots of different options and laws, and realistic things.

I remember me, Louis, HoreTore and a few others fixing the economy by 2014 because we repealed the Bush tax cuts and removed perks of the Mega-rich, while at the same time expanding pensions, healthcare, R&D (also increase in Nasa funding) and infrastructure investment (like american autobahns). So safeguarding and creating an awesome america for everyone.

Then other forum users (republican minded) wanted to decrease taxes (!) and increase military spending, etc and killed the nation by 2012.

[gaelic cowboy]

What's more, and this is only slightly less obvious and slightly less certain, they will almost certainly not be penalized within the GOP for being wrong. Indeed, what's far more likely is that if, as virtually all economists and budget experts currently insist, failure to raise the debt limit causes economic disaster, the likely effect within the GOP will be to enhance the prospects of those who claim that the experts don't know what they're talking about -- and any post-limit disaster will be considered yet another sign that the experts don't know what they're talking about. [/ind]So really there's no downside for the GOP, and no reason they should accept any compromise. Driving America's economy into the ditch will only help them re-take the White House and the Senate.

It's almost Orwellian, no I take that back it is Orwellian.

Do these fellas have cotton wool in there ears or summit.

[Husar]

Well, sending things to the government electronically is nice, and I'd like to do it, but concerning ELENA(electronic transmission of your tax sheets etc.) has been dumped here over concerns of data security and our customs had their system hacked etc. it may be a nice thing for the future, but if it isn't done well and secure you might find your whole financial data on some hacker's site someday. It would also require you to have it all in electronical form on your compter and I'm not sure how safe exactly home firewalls are, our customs used one(wanted to save money...) when they got hacked...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah that game is dead easy. Slap a VAT on the American economy problem 33% solved. Slash and burn the tax cut laws, job done. But that is apparently socialist sound financial policy. So it's like cheating, really.

[Samurai Waki]

You know... I was getting worked up about this; then I decided that no matter how angry I was going to get, the only thing I could really do is piss and moan, and get on with my day. So, whatever, if it's economic armageddon if this thing doesn't go through, guess I'll just smoke a cigar... drink a few tumblers of bourbon, and get on with life in one fashion or another-- I even did the responsible thing and told my Congressman to get off his :daisy: and start working with his opposition, but I digress. Either way, even if I lose my job, or get a pay cut, or a tax increase... I'll still probably be better off than most other people in the world.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good observation, Lemur. I also fail to see the downside for the GOP. We are prepared to shoot this hostage, im surprised. On the one hand, the failure of the united states will be in the hands of a democrat, on the other, spending will be cut by 44 percent. America will be radically redefined and there was no other way to do it. Give us what we want or prepare for an end to life as we know it. Or not, and they were lying to us, in which case we are stronger for it. It is a triple win and I don't even have kids yet! quadruple win!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good observation, Lemur. I also fail to see the downside for the GOP. We are prepared to shoot this hostage, im surprised. On the one hand, the failure of the united states will be in the hands of a democrat, on the other, spending will be cut by 44 percent. America will be radically redefined and there was no other way to do it. Give us what we want or prepare for an end to life as we know it. Or not, and they were lying to us, in which case we are stronger for it. It is a triple win and I don't even have kids yet! quadruple win!

You are detached from reality, many Americans will be driven into poverty if spending is cut by 44%, and it will be the fault of the Republicans. Failure to agree to closing tax loopholes is madness at this juncture. America will not be "radically redefined" unless you your defintion of that is "bankrupt" which I suppose would be "radical".

Further, deliberately failing to service a debt is immoral, I'm surprised the "Christian" Republicans would do so for purely political reasons.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right, we're all going into poverty. I don't buy the doomsday scenario. I want spending cuts of 20 to 30 percent of government. We could just steam roll out of iraq and afghanistan, slash federal employee wages, sell off land which the government owns. My personal credit is perfect, literally. I have no respect for the debt obligations incurreds hundreds of miles away by individuals who do not represent my interests. Don't bring religion into this. Floating a deficit of 44% to pay for crap we don't need on the backs of our children isn't the most ethical choice.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Additionally, credit markets will make it more expensive to borrow money. Maybe the money that we borrow will be geared toward spurring growth in excess of interest, transportation, creating public use internet networks, creating an educational system that works; rather than spending it on gaining the votes of poor people and the elderly who rely on the governments for handouts

[Lemur]

Good quote for the day (http://blog.oup.com/2011/07/triumph-of-politics/): "America is the only country in the world that that has the luxury of creating an economic crisis when there isn’t one."

[Banquo's Ghost]

So, if I have read this aright:

The Republicans table a bill in Congress designed to embarrass the Democrats when rejected in the Senate, but the Congressional Budget Office sends it back because the sums are massively wrong. Next day, the Republicans (having taken their shoes and socks off this time, belatedly recognising that sums are hard) push the same bill forward only for their own party to scupper it and hang their leader out to dry.

Meanwhile the Democrats laugh themselves stupid (er) in the same way that someone going over a thousand metre waterfall laughs at the misfortune of the other fellow, because the other fellow is in the bow and somehow that's better.

I wonder how the head of the Chinese Sovereign Investment Funds explains that to the Party bosses.

[Adrian II]

So, if I have read this aright:

The Republicans table a bill in Congress designed to embarrass the Democrats when rejected in the Senate, but the Congressional Budget Office sends it back because the sums are massively wrong. Next day, the Republicans (having taken their shoes and socks off this time, belatedly recognising that sums are hard) push the same bill forward only for their own party to scupper it and hang their leader out to dry.

Meanwhile the Democrats laugh themselves stupid (er) in the same way that someone going over a thousand metre waterfall laughs at the misfortune of the other fellow, because the other fellow is in the bow and somehow that's better.

I wonder how the head of the Chinese Sovereign Investment Funds explains that to the Party bosses.

I guess that sums it up, unless another member knows more than we do.

I can see one - and only one - advantage to this episode: from now on American members on this board will have a hard time criticising the EU over its bumbling and indecisiveness.

But that's lame. Let me put it more productively: what unites politicians across the Atlantic seems to be a tendency to put one's own interest above that of the whole, which is a sure sign of a breakdown of societal trust.

I blame it on unfettered capitalism. Unfettered capitalists will probably blame it on the likes of me.

QED

AII

[phonicsmonkey]

A guy from Citibank was quoted saying something like "asking what happens after the US defaults is like asking what happens after you commit suicide"

and that's about it really.

the whole world is watching aghast as the US government turns the gun on itself and pulls the trigger.....but what they don't know is that its carcass is going to fall on them and crush them

[Tellos Athenaios]

I wonder how the head of the Chinese Sovereign Investment Funds explains that to the Party bosses.

Well that did not take long (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14341626). More of the expected really: won't want to push the USA over the edge, but all the same would dearly love to vent a kick or two under the table.

[tibilicus]

So, if I have read this aright:

The Republicans table a bill in Congress designed to embarrass the Democrats when rejected in the Senate, but the Congressional Budget Office sends it back because the sums are massively wrong. Next day, the Republicans (having taken their shoes and socks off this time, belatedly recognising that sums are hard) push the same bill forward only for their own party to scupper it and hang their leader out to dry.

Meanwhile the Democrats laugh themselves stupid (er) in the same way that someone going over a thousand metre waterfall laughs at the misfortune of the other fellow, because the other fellow is in the bow and somehow that's better.

I wonder how the head of the Chinese Sovereign Investment Funds explains that to the Party bosses.

Sums up my thoughts pretty much.

Does anyone know realistically when all doom is certain? With 4 days to go and the complete disarray of the GOP it seems like there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not pro Obama but if anyone holds him to account over the GOP they're fools. Essentially controlling not even a whole branch of the federal government, the GOP is holding the country hostage. Not like a cool calm headed hostage taker either more a downbeat desperate kind of man who doesn't even know what his next actions will be himself.

It's really sad to see a party which once championed the American people being held to ransom by the nutters in its rank and file who have such a small proportion of seats in the lower chamber and yet wield such apparent out of proportion power. All this clarifies what I've thought for a while, US politics is really quite ill and perhaps this event might be the tough medicine it needs to make the lawmakers realise its the people of the nation they're meant to serve, not just those who they owe their election too.

[Samurai Waki]

Makes you wonder-- if the 14th Amendment is the card Obama has up his sleeve. He needs the Congress to make a fool out of itself first, so he can legitimize the move... unconstitutional or not, the courts can fight that out later...

[Vladimir]

Makes you wonder-- if the 14th Amendment is the card Obama has up his sleeve. He needs the Congress to make a fool out of itself first, so he can legitimize the move... unconstitutional or not, the courts can fight that out later...

I hope that's his plan because he's leading from the back, way back, back with the logistic clerks and coffee machines. It would be nice to know he has a plan.

Banquo summed it up quite nicely. The whole process is embarrassing. The only party that wants to make much needed cuts started off blatantly political and now they can't manage themselves. The opposition doesn't want to play ball (maybe due to the farcical opening) and the chief executive is chillin' with his homies.

[drone]

At this point, the first bills the Treasury should not pay is the Congressional paychecks.

[Lemur]

It would be nice to know [Obama] has a plan.
Ah, the latest Republican meme, "Obama has no plan!" And yet multiple sources and published articles have revealed details (http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/blitzers-blog-too-late-to-resurrect-the-deal/?hpt=sr_mid)* of the offers he was making to Boehner in private meetings. Enough details, in fact, to dismay the liberal base and make his left-wing allies in Congress get all snippy with him. Sounds like there were concrete offers on the table, which rather undermines the talking point du jour, "He has no plan!" Yawn.

This entire episode is a manufactured crisis. And I find republicans fulminating about debt now to have the stink of born-again virgins (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23254178/ns/health-sexual_health/t/born-again-virgins-claim-rewrite-past/) about them. Two trillion-dollar off-budget wars (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html) combined with tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts) and a new giveaway to old people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D)? Is the president republican? Yay! Oh, now the president is a democrat? HERESY! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

-edit-

* From one of many sources: "We did learn some intriguing details about the debt ceiling negotiations in recent days. Both President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were ready to anger their respective bases in order to work out a deal. To the dismay of many Democrats, President Obama was ready to support cuts in entitlement spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He was ready to support what’s called 'means testing' – meaning that richer people would have to shell out more for health benefits under Medicare than poorer people. The president is also apparently ready to adopt a new cost-of-living increase formula that effectively would result in reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits. When I interviewed Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont the other day, he made it clear he hated those proposals."

[Beskar]

Makes you wonder-- if the 14th Amendment is the card Obama has up his sleeve. He needs the Congress to make a fool out of itself first, so he can legitimize the move... unconstitutional or not, the courts can fight that out later...


The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) holding that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.[1]

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

I don't get it.

[Lemur]

I don't get it.
One of the phrases in the 14th is that the debts of the United States shall not be questioned (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/). You could take that to mean that debt must be serviced, no exceptions, and if congress won't do it, the executive must. Needless to say, this interpretation has never been tested in court.

Who knows? Congress has already abdicated its warmaking powers. Maybe they're incapable of handling the purse as well. Shades of Cato and the optimates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger). Fortunately, Obama is no Julius Caesar.

[Vladimir]

Lemur offering suggestions during meetings hardly constitutes a plan. "Being ready to support" is the same as preparing to move. He is the one who stormed out of these meetings* and neither he nor his mouthpieces have put forward a concrete budget proposal. Instead he is trying to scare old people by stating that we won't be able to pay social security while intoning what he may support.

He's great at speeches and rhetoric, but far from a leader with a concrete plan.

*I don't remember the date.

[Adrian II]

I hope that's his plan because he's leading from the back, way back, back with the logistic clerks and coffee machines. It would be nice to know he has a plan.

Banquo summed it up quite nicely. The whole process is embarrassing. The only party that wants to make much needed cuts started off blatantly political and now they can't manage themselves. The opposition doesn't want to play ball (maybe due to the farcical opening) and the chief executive is chillin' with his homies.

If we're all gonna get hoit, I'd rather be kicked in the butt than in the groin.

In historic terms, I would have hoped for a gracious retreat from 250 years of unadulterated growth and expansion instead of a head-on collision with reality.

I find myself miraculously in agreement with today's Berlingske, a conservative paper from Denmark:


The best way of reducing the mountain of debt in the long term would be for the western world to strengthen its global competitiveness by introducing structural reforms. That would allow the necessary growth to be generated primarily through exports. ... This assumes, however, that consumers in Asia, for example, buy more goods and that the Asian countries' exchange rates reflect their new economic strength. We must now get used to the fact that reducing our debts - both state and private - will take a long time and that economic growth will be slowed down for years. People must change their expectations of the future accordingly. That will be very hard, but unfortunately there is no other way.

[Vladimir]

Real men take it in the Jimmy.

As in your article: Exports are nice but they need buyers. It's time for us to chill out for a while until the baby boomers pass from this life. This is the best course due to our structure and responsibilities.

[Lemur]

Lemur offering suggestions during meetings hardly constitutes a plan.
Making detailed offers in private meetings sounds like something you do when you're serious about reaching an agreement. Passing a bill that nobody but the Tea Party will support (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/john-boehner/bipartisan-support-cut-cap-and-balance-john-boehne/), on the other hand, is un-serious. Let's say President 44 wrote up all of the offers he has made to Boehner and put them out on the web in a PDF. Do you think that would change anything? Bring us any closer to a deal? Didn't think so. The republicans are fully aware of what compromises 44 is willing to make.


He is the one who stormed out of these meetings* and neither he nor his mouthpieces have put forward a concrete budget proposal.
Re: storming, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to get into who has been more rude and impossible (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-boehner-obama-phone-cal20110729,0,7696232.story)? 'Cause there's plenty of that to go around.


Instead he is trying to scare old people by stating that we won't be able to pay social security
A sudden and unplanned 44% reduction in federal budget means many will have to do without. Debt service must be paid. Soldiers must be paid. So I don't know how unrealistic it is to eye Social Security and say, "You're going to have to wait a bit while this gets sorted out."

[Adrian II]

It's time for us to chill out for a while until the baby boomers pass from this life.

Wouldn't you rather wait until Venus is in conjunction to our Ascendant? The energy of Venus in conjunction adds grace to our undoing and stimulates our self-projection.

In other words, what are you on about?

AII

[Strike For The South]

These people are adults, why is this happening?

[Vladimir]

Making detailed offers in private meetings sounds like something you do when you're serious about reaching an agreement. Passing a bill that nobody but the Tea Party will support (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/john-boehner/bipartisan-support-cut-cap-and-balance-john-boehne/), on the other hand, is un-serious. Let's say President 44 wrote up all of the offers he has made to Boehner and put them out on the web in a PDF. Do you think that would change anything? Bring us any closer to a deal? Didn't think so. The republicans are fully aware of what compromises 44 is willing to make.

Re: storming, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to get into who has been more rude and impossible (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-boehner-obama-phone-cal20110729,0,7696232.story)? 'Cause there's plenty of that to go around.

A sudden and unplanned 44% reduction in federal budget means many will have to do without. Debt service must be paid. Soldiers must be paid. So I don't know how unrealistic it is to eye Social Security and say, "You're going to have to wait a bit while this gets sorted out."

Again, offers, however detailed, do not constitute a plan. You've so much as admitted that the Republicans are the only side that has submitted a detailed plan. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. "Un-serious" is unconvincing.

Let the President write up not just his offers, but a comprehensive plan. As you stated, he has not. What I think it would change is irrelevant. If one side brings a soccer ball to a basketball game, mock them, and bring your own ball.

Again you reference a loony article that reflects your personal biases. Spare me the feigned outrage. As I recall, he made it quite clear during a speech that Social Security checks would not go out; likely in an effort to frighten the largest and most active voting block as a part of his "appeal to the people" (if he used those words).

You're unwilling do directly admit that as impractical as the Republican plan may be, that it is the only one out there. "Dead on arrival," proposals, and phone calls are as much of the game as the plan you despise.


Wouldn't you rather wait until Venus is in conjunction to our Ascendant? The energy of Venus in conjunction adds grace to our undoing and stimulates our self-projection.

In other words, what are you on about?

AII

Once the old people die we'll have more money.


These people are adults, why is this happening?

Likely for power and influence. That's how adults play.

[Vladimir]

oops.

[Lemur]

"Un-serious" is unconvincing.
Okay, here's my "detailed plan": you give me all of your worldly possessions and become my manservant for life without pay. There. That's a detailed plan. Is it serious, or a joke? Have you ever attended a real negotiation in your entire life?

[Vladimir]

Okay, here's my "detailed plan": you give me all of your worldly possessions and become my manservant for life without pay. There. That's a detailed plan. Is it serious, or a joke? Have you ever attended a real negotiation in your entire life?

No but I have been a manservant and service is its own reward. ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right, we're all going into poverty. I don't buy the doomsday scenario. I want spending cuts of 20 to 30 percent of government. We could just steam roll out of iraq and afghanistan, slash federal employee wages, sell off land which the government owns. My personal credit is perfect, literally. I have no respect for the debt obligations incurreds hundreds of miles away by individuals who do not represent my interests. Don't bring religion into this. Floating a deficit of 44% to pay for crap we don't need on the backs of our children isn't the most ethical choice.

44% cut Tuff, on August 3rd. What do you think they'll cut? Social Security? Health Care? The Federal support that keeps the likes of Alaska and California afloat?

Maybe they'll cut the army by 44%, that would be fun, all those PTSD'd GI's without jopbs or prospects.

The decifit is not 44% though, it is 11%, 44% is just the money that the Fed won't have if it can't borrow to meet costs. I agree that you need to restructure but if the US cannot service it's debts it will be unable to borrow next year at anything like sensible rates, its world standing will be trash and on the level of a Bannana Republic.

The defecit will go up, there will be deeper cuts, more people will lose their jobs, tax revenue will fall, there will be more cuts, people will lose their jobs...

If you want to know what happens when you can't service your debts ask Greece.

If you want to know what a sudden "rebalancing" of the economy causes for those with the rug pulled out from under them, ask the North of England.

As far as religion goes, the Tea Party brings it into everything so I feel justified in calling it. By the by, abandoning the poor and vulnerable to their fate is also immoral and explicitely un-Christian.

[Adrian II]

Once the old people die we'll have more money.

Are your parents dead yet?

AII

[Banquo's Ghost]

Are your parents dead yet?

AII

I'm a baby boomer and filthy rich. I am unsure as to whether I should live or die for the Vladimir plan to work.

[Vladimir]

I'm a baby boomer and filthy rich. I am unsure as to whether I should live or die for the Vladimir plan to work.

:laugh4: No I don't wish for anyone to die. ~;)

Depends. I'm really interested to see the numbers on baby boomer's contribution to growth and revenue vs. burden on the economy. The Social Security crunch, rising costs for Medicare, and rising health care costs can be attributed to the aging boomer population. I know boomers contributed a great deal to growth, prosperity, and scientific achievement for the last several decades. To not veer too sharply off topic, these costs are part of the reason for the current budget crunch and I wonder what the budget situation will look like once they've passed. Or, even the economy for that matter. I don't know how much death taxes will contribute to federal revenue but they may mask the true economic picture.

My boomer parents are still alive. I have a lot of respect for my father's work ethic but he often expressed a belief that just because he was an American he was entitled to a certain standard of living. He's a retired steelworker, which, is a great profession that paid well but became less competitive over time.

BTW: I'm kinda honored that you two replied in tandem to my post. :jumping:

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Federal support that keeps the likes of Alaska and California afloat?

Not to nit pick, but California pays more to the federal government than it receives from it.

http://www.lazlow.com/uploaded_images/2987025203_fc2c517522_o-748920.jpg

[Adrian II]

:laugh4: No I don't wish for anyone to die. ~;)

Thank goodness, I was afraid we would have to say goodbye to Banquo's Ghost in orde to cash in on that ancestral estate, those old socks full of guineas hidden underneath his drinks cabinet and the Columbian gold stashed behind Arnold K. Toynbee's 12-volume A Study of History in the blue room.

AII

[Xiahou]

These people are adults, why is this happening?Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.

[Samurai Waki]

Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.

Just like Lowering Taxes during wartime is a good idea.

[Xiahou]

Frankly, it looks like we're already headed towards a double-dip recession. The first quarter growth was just revised down to 0.4%. The second quarter initial numbers are a tepid 1.3% (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/29/3803502/economy-grew-at-weak-13-percent.html) and likely to be revised down later as well. If you think raising taxes is the solution to this problem.... see my earlier post. Higher taxes would further damage the economy and likely result in lower tax revenue. I'm afraid you're going to have to hold off on your redistribution of wealth until we're in better economic times.

Just like Lowering Taxes during wartime is a good idea. And how does re-arguing this solve anything? Not very "adult", I must say....

[a completely inoffensive name]

A mature response

Telling the truth is very mature. Little kids fib all the time, not adults, except when it comes to spouses and cops.

A) His characterization of "tax hikes" is completely wrong.
B) He is clearly attacking the Democrats for "living in a fantasy land" when the Republicans are asking for a Constitutional Amendment in order to America to not get downgraded.
C) It comes out of no where to what I saw as a facetious comment from Strike (I don't think he really just called Congress a bunch of adults), so I can only assume it came from partisan frustration.


The American system was designed by the founders to be a place of compromise, it's what allowed the Constitution to be approved in the first place. The Republicans, specifically the Tea Party branch is acting antiamerican by outright refusing to compromise, choosing instead to sabotage the standing and strength of the nation for ideological purity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Frankly, it looks like we're already headed towards a double-dip recession. The first quarter growth was just revised down to 0.4%. The second quarter initial numbers are a tepid 1.3% (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/29/3803502/economy-grew-at-weak-13-percent.html) and likely to be revised down later as well. If you think raising taxes is the solution to this problem.... see my earlier post. Higher taxes would further damage the economy and likely result in lower tax revenue. I'm afraid you're going to have to hold off on your redistribution of wealth until we're in better economic times.

Except they were not raises on individual tax rates. Obama's proposal had all revenues coming from closing corporate and individual tax loopholes. No rates were raised.

[Xiahou]

The American system was designed by the founders to be a place of compromise, it's what allowed the Constitution to be approved in the first place. The Republicans, specifically the Tea Party branch is acting antiamerican by outright refusing to compromise, choosing instead to sabotage the standing and strength of the nation for ideological purity.Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0) wants to talk to you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0) wants to talk to you.

Complete strawman. This isn't a matter of them disagreeing and arguing. Tea Party is refusing to vote for anything. Boehner walks out 3 times. OBama gives a plan with a money ration of 3 cuts to 1 increase in revenue and gets walked out on.

This is playing the "starving the beast" tactic to the utmost extreme. And you need to do better if you want to be in the right.

EDIT: Alright, I gotta stop being an ass.

[Xiahou]

Let's take a step back shall we? Boehner's plan roughly cuts $900bn over the course of ten years for an equivalent, but immediate increase in the debt ceiling. Do you realize that if all those cuts were made immediately, -this year- we would still be running a deficit for the year? So, at best case, he's talking about trimming a 10th of our current annual deficit. Do you also realize that the "down the road" cuts are non-binding because the current Congress can't pass legislation that ties the hands of subsequent ones.

So basically, what you have is $22bn of cuts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/john-boehner-debt-plan_n_911519.html) in the 2012 budget, in return for a $900bn increase in the debt ceiling. Obama and Reid have called that "dead on arrival". You call him "antiamerican" for proposing it. Who's being unreasonable and unwilling to compromise? When it comes to cutting the deficit, Boehner's plan barely even registers yet the Democrats would have you think they want to throw grandma off a cliff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U).

[HopAlongBunny]

Ready for a conspiracy theory?

I thought so. Pull up a chair.

The gov't is going to pull a GM style restructuring. Social Security is actually cash-flow positive as long as the gov't pays interest on the bonds it holds as securities. A "technical default" will necessitate hard decisions; since not paying interest to foreign holders would be catastrophic the gov't will short shrift domestic holders (not all of course). As gov't programs become cash starved due to missing interest payments, the "weak cash sucking programs" will be restructured any way the gov't likes. The burden of adjustment will come to rest where it always ought to. On the poor, elderly, and most needy of the population.

Just my humble opinion ;p

[a completely inoffensive name]

Let's take a step back shall we? Boehner's plan roughly cuts $900bn over the course of ten years for an equivalent, but immediate increase in the debt ceiling. Do you realize that if all those cuts were made immediately, -this year- we would still be running a deficit for the year? So, at best case, he's talking about trimming a 10th of our current annual deficit. Do you also realize that the "down the road" cuts are non-binding because the current Congress can't pass legislation that ties the hands of subsequent ones.

So basically, what you have is $22bn of cuts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/john-boehner-debt-plan_n_911519.html) in the 2012 budget, in return for a $900bn increase in the debt ceiling. Obama and Reid have called that "dead on arrival". You call him "antiamerican" for proposing it. Who's being unreasonable and unwilling to compromise? When it comes to cutting the deficit, Boehner's plan barely even registers yet the Democrats would have you think they want to throw grandma off a cliff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U).

The Republicans are still being the unreasonable ones. Obama and the Democrats are justified in calling it dead on arrival. Here is the problem. Boehner's plan would have the debt ceiling only extended for the equivalent of a few months. It will become an issue again just in time for the 2012 election. Obama wants a plan that will at least extend the debt ceiling past the 2012 election so that this issue does not become a campaign issue and so a longer term plan can be implemented.

Moody's has been saying that neither the Republican plan nor Reid's own plan would stop Moody's from going ahead with a credit downgrade for the US because they are not comprehensive enough.

The youtube video you linked to seems to be about Paul Ryan's plan, not the current plan proposed by Republicans, so I don't see how that is relevant to the statement you imbedded it in.

Obama's plan had 1.6 trillion dollars in cuts. 700 billion more than Boehner's plan, and in return he wanted to close loopholes. Not increase taxes, but close loopholes. This is a solid, very long term and much more important conservative plan since the revenues would only amount to 1.2 trillion. Tea Party said no because it was Obama plain and simple. They won't work with Obama and they have made it their mission statement to make a blanket opposition to everything he does and says. Again, this is not how the government was envisioned to work. The minority power is to force a compromise that will make sure that the will of the minority is not trampled upon. The will of the minority is not being trampled upon because obama gave 1 trillion in discretionary cuts and 680 billion in cuts to social programs, the programs that conservatives want cut the most. To continue to refuse, reject and hold the economic standing as a hostage is anti-american because it goes against what the system was designed for.

The Boehner plan is simply political fodder that they know is not meant to be legitimate. The goal of the plan is to have it pass the house, let the democrats kill it and give themselves the ability to say, "we tried" to their constituents and the country. Even then, the Tea Party was giving them hell because they didn't want any sort of plan passed because they want the default to come to force massive cuts to fulfill their ideological purity.

What they could have done is have Boehner and Reid both pass their plans, then go about with the process of "reconciliation" to work out the details and merge the two bills. But they didn't, after the Boehner bill barely passed by 8 votes, they went and immediately killed the Reid plan to egg him on to kill Boehner's plan in the Senate.

This has been the plan and it shows how much of a joke the Republican's have been "trying".

1. Obama gives plan.
2. Boehner walks out and flat out rejects it.
3. Boehner comes up with his own plan that he knows is not good enough for the health of the country because Moody's and other credit rating agencies says it isn't good enough.
4. Boehner says he wants his plan done or the US will default.
5. Boehner gets his plan passed in the one place he knows he can get it passed.
6. Boehner then provokes the Democrats into killing his bill.
7. Republicans ride the frustration of the default to power by saying they were the only ones with a plan.

The Republicans are playing politics pure and simple and they are acting as the victims when it is clear they are the aggressors.

If Obama and the Democrats were being the unreasonable ones here, why did the Republicans kill the Reid's plan instead of trying to merge it into a bipartisan plan. Why did the Republicans have to postpone Boehner's plan until today even though they have a 240 person majority in the house? They could have passed their own plan 3 weeks ago but they didn't.

The writing is on the wall.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who cares. We can all pretend that we know what will happen, but none of us do. We know what will likely happen, but don't tell me you arnt a bit curious to see what a total collapse of civilization looks like. Get off of your high horses and let go a little bit. Especially if you don't have kids."The writing is on the wall" you sound like lemur talking about the united states turning into a 1 party democratic state when the republicans collapse and nobody votes with them any more unless they move left. And then the tea party stuff went nuts and republicans took back the house. Literally a year and a half after that prognostication. Nobody on here knows what they are talking about. The democratic plan is to keep borrowing until we magically figure out how to be the most promising country on earth again. Hot potato is over, were all holding a potato.

[Centurion1]

the plan just passed in the house.

and then the senate voted it down i believe.

Edit: damn conflicting news

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who cares. We can all pretend that we know what will happen, but none of us do. We know what will likely happen, but don't tell me you arnt a bit curious to see what a total collapse of civilization looks like. Get off of your high horses and let go a little bit. Especially if you don't have kids.

No, I want a future. I want an education. I want a job. None of this will happen if civilization collapse. Do you realize that the state of nature is actually the most vicious state of humanity? Kiss your rights goodbye.

[Centurion1]

Don't be so melodramatic. I mean my god the collapse of civilization........... lol.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't be so melodramatic. I mean my god the collapse of civilization........... lol.

I don't really think civilization will collapse lol. US at most will just have to decide what it can pay and ditch the rest. Which isn't good but it isn't world ending.

I am just saying he really doesn't know what he is talking about when he says he wants to see the world burn. Unless TSM is The Joker....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Im interested in calling the bluff.

[Strike For The South]

If we defualt Im going to be spending allot more time here

DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT

[Strike For The South]

Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.

It's a repeal of one particular tax and the closing of loopholes

Or else it will just fall on the back of the middle and working class. Ho hum, rich get richer, poor get poorer

[Xiahou]

Obama's plan had 1.6 trillion dollars in cuts. Wait, Obama has a plan? Links plz.

Not increase taxes, but close loopholes.Those are the same thing. If you used to be able to deduct (for example) your mortgage payment, and now you can't... your taxes have gone up. This isn't really that complicated. IIRC, some of the "loopholes" bandied about are about equipment depreciation. This would be a disincentive to new purchases for businesses. Allow me to reiterate- new taxes aren't a good idea in a stagnant economy. Businesses are still grappling with the fallout from Obamacare, they don't need this heaped on as well. Our tax code, is a mess- we should eliminate deductions and lower rates accordingly.. but that's a discussion for another time.


The Republicans are still being the unreasonable ones. Obama and the Democrats are justified in calling it dead on arrival. Here is the problem. Boehner's plan would have the debt ceiling only extended for the equivalent of a few months. It will become an issue again just in time for the 2012 election. Obama wants a plan that will at least extend the debt ceiling past the 2012 election so that this issue does not become a campaign issue and so a longer term plan can be implemented.Indeed- having the debt ceiling come up again before the election is the last thing Obama wants. It could be very damaging to him politically. Both sides are playing politics with this looking to either blame the other if things fall apart or to take credit if something gets done. In either case, they're both trying to control the narrative and neither are negotiating in good faith. If anything, it's the House GOP freshmen who have been the best about being principled on the issue. They made campaign promises to vote against any new taxes and some ran on voting against any debt ceiling increase. Like it or not, they're keeping their word and doing what they ran on. :shrug:

[Major Robert Dump]

You shouldn't be able to deduct your mortgage.

You shouldn't be able to get credits for breeding.

You shoudln't be able to deduct interest on student loans.

You shouldn't get a flat credit because you are poor, thereby getting more back than you paid in.

I don't really consider any of those loophole, I just consider them stupid.

[Adrian II]

I'm sick and tired of this blame game. For God's sake starve the beast, when you're done I'll give all you Yanks a meal and a coupe euros to get by this winter.

AII

[Ironside]

Allow me to reiterate- new taxes aren't a good idea in a stagnant economy. Businesses are still grappling with the fallout from Obamacare, they don't need this heaped on as well. Our tax code, is a mess- we should eliminate deductions and lower rates accordingly.. but that's a discussion for another time.

Might not be the best option, but if you're going to pay something back quickly it's most certainly worth it. Say that a total 10% tax increase costs about 0,5% in yearly growth. You only earn money the first 20 years then.

While the example numbers are made up, it's not some fantasy numbers.
May I remind you that there's nations with more than 50% (up to 100%) higher taxes than the US? It might be argued that the much higher taxes has slowed down their growth, you're still talking about 50% increases causing perhaps a 1% slowdown.

[rory_20_uk]

Taxes should be as simple as humanly possible, both for the individual to understand and the state to enforce.

The UK has a hideous system. The biggest recent tinkerer was dear old Gordon, but he's not alone.

Everyone should start off being theoretically paid a sum of money. If you earn nothing this is pretty much all you get. You'd be very limited to where you can live and your disposable income is close to zero. You probably won't have enough money to have kids. Want to prosper? Do some work.
There is certainly no unemployment allowance. Everyone is effectively paid that - and we can scrap all the infrastructure that is employed in doling it out and ensuring people get the right amount. Want to work? Great. Go to a recruitment agency or online.
Then there is a period where tax is zero. Earning is always worthwhile. The most menial jobs mean you earn that much more money.
Then you collate all money that is coming in from basically all sources and whack it into a calculation that taxes on a slowly increasing scale.

No nasty jumps where earning more can mean getting less
No cunning "earn little and then get the money as dividends from your own company" crap. If you get the money you sum it up.

Very simple to instigate.
No complex forms to complete to work out what exactly one is going to get. The cost of instigating and sorting out the system would be a lot less.
No "incentives" not to work as the benefits lost are greater than the money earned. No U shape where people get stuck as to bother isn't worth it.
A hell of a lot less bureaucracy at the other end.

Needs fine tuning? I'm sure. The payment to everyone would have to be monthly as those that need it both will generally be poor at budgeting and not be able to wait until the end of the year.

There are few countries that need such a radical overhaul. With clarity it will be a lot easier to see how exactly to go about balancing the budget.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

There is certainly no unemployment allowance.

Certainly not. Out of work? Sorry, you have to die.

If people have kids and then lose their job, well, it's like driving while drunk. They all die.

I can see this idea going very far.

AII

[rory_20_uk]

Did you bother to read the part that everyone gets off with money to start with? I know it was a very long bit I wrote... Third sentence in? Skim that bit to get to something to bash?

The point was that to ensure that there is no effective tax of 80%+ when one starts work one keeps one's benefits and then earns more. If you earn a large salary obviously you get taxed a lot more than this and so you still PAY net taxes. The point of giving it to everyone is for simplicity.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Did you bother to read the part that everyone gets off with money to start with? I know it was a very long bit I wrote... Third sentence in? Skim that bit to get to something to bash?

The point was that to ensure that there is no effective tax of 80%+ when one starts work one keeps one's benefits and then earns more. If you earn a large salary obviously you get taxed a lot more than this and so you still PAY net taxes. The point of giving it to everyone is for simplicity.

~:smoking:

I see. Sorry, but that isn't formulated very clearly there. You didn't say who provides the basic income.

The source of basic income would be the state?

What you are talking about is a popular notion in many European countries, the "shared base income", no? In that case I totally agree. It would cut a humongous amount of red tape, and more importantly it would cut a lot of hassle and worries for individual citizens.

AII

[rory_20_uk]

I'm probably using the wrong terminology, but yes, basic income would be from the state. Good to hear that lots of other countries manage to instigate this. What a shame the UK isn't amongst them.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

I'm probably using the wrong terminology, but yes, basic income would be from the state. Good to hear that lots of other countries manage to instigate this. What a shame the UK isn't amongst them.

~:smoking:

No no, it's just popular among the perverted pinko commie Left. It hasn't been introduced anywhere yet, not that I know of.

AII

[rory_20_uk]

Odd that it's pinko. With a defined payout it can be easily adjusted as is a lot more difficult to cheat than the current system, plus has far fewer overheads, allowing for a small state. Few systems let people literally starve to death, and this seems to be the simplest way to both prevent starvation and encourage work. The fast efflux of workers from non-jobs in the state bureaucracy would also help make the country more economically effective, as the labour market would be expanded and less overheads to pay their state wages.

But then what Civil Servant is going to put forward a plan to sack probably thousands of their colleagues and make some powerful enemies in the meantime?

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Odd that it's pinko. With a defined payout it can be easily adjusted as is a lot more difficult to cheat than the current system, plus has far fewer overheads, allowing for a small state. Few systems let people literally starve to death, and this seems to be the simplest way to both prevent starvation and encourage work. The fast efflux of workers from non-jobs in the state bureaucracy would also help make the country more economically effective, as the labour market would be expanded and less overheads to pay their state wages.

But then what Civil Servant is going to put forward a plan to sack probably thousands of their colleagues and make some powerful enemies in the meantime?

~:smoking:

In the Neds we have a welfare scheme (called Wajong) for young people who are unable to work fulltime due to a handicap, either physical or mental. They receive a very modest basic income from the state, they must declare any money they make for themselves and this amount is then partially deducted from next month's income. Works very well because these people get time to find their niche, which is often difficult in view of their handicap, in order to become productive members of society. One girl I know, who has episodes of borderline behaviour about once every two months, is on this scheme and she does lots of low-paid jobs like giving extra lessons in maths to migrant kids, editing and distributing a church newspaper and organising musical events for her church.

AII

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are completely nuts. There are quite a few people who would not work if their needs were being met with free money, free health care, free internet, free food. Today, everyones needs are being met, we just hear everyone complaint about debt and other rich world problems. Our poor have cable tv and the ability to get free emergency care, government food, free education, free library services. Now the government has to give them additional checks every month? Where does the gov get this money, adrian asked? The reason people are "hearltess" in this country is because those hearts have been stolen by freeloading, drug abusing trash who already have their needs and more met for free, yet have the audacity to demand more. The people we need to look out for are those who work hard and have the same living standards as the useless parasitic trash. Those people I feel for, the ones who actually pay the emergency room bills, pay taxes and still can't make ends meet. Those people I worry about.

[Adrian II]

The reason people are "hearltess" in this country is because those hearts have been stolen by freeloading, drug abusing trash who already have their needs and more met for free, yet have the audacity to demand more.

Sounds like paradise, I must move to the US one of these days.

AII

[rory_20_uk]

You guys are completely nuts. There are quite a few people who would not work if their needs were being met with free money, free health care, free internet, free food. Today, everyones needs are being met, we just hear everyone complaint about debt and other rich world problems. Our poor have cable tv and the ability to get free emergency care, government food, free education, free library services. Now the government has to give them additional checks every month? Where does the gov get this money, adrian asked? The reason people are "hearltess" in this country is because those hearts have been stolen by freeloading, drug abusing trash who already have their needs and more met for free, yet have the audacity to demand more. The people we need to look out for are those who work hard and have the same living standards as the useless parasitic trash. Those people I feel for, the ones who actually pay the emergency room bills, pay taxes and still can't make ends meet. Those people I worry about.

Such an idealist. I'm a pragmatist.

Feed 'em, else they'll turn to crime which costs more.
Education as more will get better jobs (UK education system is a mess - free, streamed education. Some leave school at 14 to get apprenticeships others study to get a degree and a skilled job).
Proper healthcare is far less expensive than the USA's model. A large portion of the workforce is unfit to work. Am I saying free cosmetic surgery or fertility treatment? No, just the use of cheap drugs to fix the simple things that massively reduces the costs in Emergency clinics.

The cheques replace almost all other benefits. People just get the one. That's it. It'd easily be cheaper than the convoluted mess we've currently got. For example, in the UK, locking up a criminal for 1 week is something like £1,000. Suddenly a system that gives a lot less to keep people out of jail is a snip - if against ideology.

You work, you get more disposable income for things like cable TV and so on. No poverty trap such is the case in the UK and USA where to work a bit means loss of healthcare (USA) or benefits (UK), meaning you get less money.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right, so we give them a check and then, when they spend it or trade it for anything other than basic needs, we let them starve and refuse them medical care? No. We write them another check, and another. Noble, but that's not pragmatism

[Adrian II]

Right, so we give them a check and then, when they spend it or trade it for anything other than basic needs, we let them starve and refuse them medical care? No. We write them another check, and another. Noble, but that's not pragmatism

This is fun, two misanthropes discussing what to do with mankind. My money is on Rory.

AII

[rory_20_uk]

Currently, in the UK we have a system where people view Sky TV as a "necessity" - and ironically one that they can afford on benefits but not by working for the jobs that they are capable of doing. We are a long way from anyone starving to death.

Refusing medical care is more expensive than giving it out. But then I would tightly combine NHS and private services rather like how one goes to a restaurant. A la carte is one price, other things there is a surcharge; the reason why I drive a Ford and not a Nissan GT-R.

Those roses that rise from the manure should be cultivated by meritocratic Grammar Schools, University Bursaries and then proceed to do whatever they choose. Those that get good jobs will end up paying vast taxes, providing a fantastic ROI. Drop the pretence that we can afford or need 50% going to increasingly bastardised universities. Get out of school earlier and do something useful. Often that will be a mix of working and training.

One Microbiology Consultant I worked with left school at 16 and worked for ICI. With them he did his A levels, then BSc, then MSc. This model should be far more the norm.

And yes, of course those with money will ensure their thick little darlings will do better than a poor stupid person. The rich can always purchase success, justice and pretty much everything else if they are rich enough. If one can think of a way of negating this, then fine. But I can't.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

OK, for Tuff only the stupid poor are undeserving. For Rory the stupid rich are undeserving as well.

+1 for Rory

AII (told you so)

[Prodigal]

Obama has acting like Bush on weed for a number of years, & the "tea party" should read the "dog in manger" from Aesop's fables. Other than that I for one think the whole global economy thing is a Great Idea

[Adrian II]

And it's official: Steve Jobs now has more cash ($76.2 billion) than the US government ($73.8 billion).

Oh the chillun, think of the poor chillun.. :rolleyes:

AII

[Major Robert Dump]

I think this song is appropriate for the situation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBQYWCw8n_k

[ICantSpellDawg]

This song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAvEiLpboqk) is actually good and speaks more clearly to the core of the issue.

[Adrian II]

I was thinking more along these lines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX0ZV0hLEc0).

[Fisherking]

I hate to rain on this parade of peace and good will but I heard they had reached a settlement by compromise.

Dose anyone have the details? Or were you just hoping for a meltdown?

[ICantSpellDawg]

damnit. we were so close this time

[Lemur]

Dose anyone have the details? Or were you just hoping for a meltdown?

damnit. we were so close this time
I think maybe TSMG was hoping for something like the Road Warrior (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDQp8puUn0) but with more family values.

Here's a sketch of the deal (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/negotiating-all-but-done-for-27-trillion-deficit-reduction-deal-now-comes-the-selling.html):

The agreement looks like this: if the super-committee tasked with entitlement and tax reform fails to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that passes Congress, the “neutron bomb” goes off, -- as one Democrat put it -- spending cuts that will hit the Pentagon budget most deeply, as well as Medicare providers (not beneficiaries) and other programs.

If the super-committee comes up with some deficit reduction but not $1.5 trillion, the triggers would make up the difference.

So it’s a minimum $2.7 trillion deficit reduction deal.

And the debt ceiling will be raised by $2.4 trillion in two tranches: $900 billion immediately, and the debt ceiling will be raised by an additional $1.5 trillion next year – either through passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which is unlikely, or with Congress voting its disapproval.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmm...that bastion of global stability and sanity, China, does not hold the world ransom with silly wars and global financial meltdowns, do they?


* doesn't even bother to read the agreement anymore, looks up Beijng's telephone number instead *

[ICantSpellDawg]

China holds a little over one trillion of U.S federal debt. Not even 10% of the total. I'm not sure why everyone is so crazy about it.

[Centurion1]

China holds a little over one trillion of U.S federal debt. Not even 10% of the total. I'm not sure why everyone is so crazy about it.

Media hype regarding the evil Chinese holding america by the nuts. 1 trillion is quite a bit though lets be honest and it could screw up up if they came knocking.

[Beskar]

Taxes should be as simple as humanly possible, both for the individual to understand and the state to enforce.

Agreed.

[Lemur]

Less taxes = Less income = greater deficient = ??? = More money and out of debt!
There is such a thing as the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), which demonstrates that too-high taxation drives people into tax avoiding behaviors, lowering the overall take. So in some situations, lowering taxes really does increase revenues. However, some people take this as a fundamental truth, that lower taxes will always produce more money, a thought so illogical and self-evidently false that it's kinda hard to argue with.

Historically, we're at very low levels of taxation right now. So arguing that further tax cuts will yield more revenue has more to do with posturing and dogma than anything empirical. The Bush tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts), which heavily favored high-income earners and investment revenue, failed to yield a significant gain in revenues, which would indicate that the U.S. was already at or below the optimal point on the curve.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is such a thing as the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), which demonstrates that too-high taxation drives people into tax avoiding behaviors, lowering the overall take. So in some situations, lowering taxes really does increase revenues. However, some people take this as a fundamental truth, that lower taxes will always produce more money, a thought so illogical and self-evidently false that it's kinda hard to argue with.

Historically, we're at very low levels of taxation right now. So arguing that further tax cuts will yield more revenue has more to do with posturing and dogma than anything empirical. The Bush tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts), which heavily favored high-income earners and investment revenue, failed to yield a significant gain in revenues, which would indicate that the U.S. was already at or below the optimal point on the curve.

We are only at historically low tax levels for the wealthy. General taxes for the middle class are higher than they have ever been if you look at the last 200 years. Tax rates for the poor and wealthy are at historic lows.

[Centurion1]

Less taxes = Less income = greater deficient = ??? = More money and out of debt!



Agreed.

That would be where basic economics come into play.

[Xiahou]

Less taxes = Less income = greater deficient = ??? = More money and out of debt!I said "we should eliminate deductions and lower rates accordingly". Read it again, think about it for awhile, then respond.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Media hype regarding the evil Chinese holding america by the nuts. 1 trillion is quite a bit though lets be honest and it could screw up up if they came knocking.

More specifically, the issue is not China but the fact that there is so much debt that it can seriously mess up your exchange rates. That in turn makes it hard to finance if the markets decide to appreciate the USA on less favourable terms, or if someone decides to go an play with a $1tn lever of course.

[PanzerJaeger]

There is such a thing as the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that too-high taxation drives people into tax avoiding behaviors, lowering the overall take. So in some situations, lowering taxes really does increase revenues. However, some people take this as a fundamental truth, that lower taxes will always produce more money, a thought so illogical and self-evidently false that it's kinda hard to argue with.

Historically, we're at very low levels of taxation right now. So arguing that further tax cuts will yield more revenue has more to do with posturing and dogma than anything empirical. The Bush tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts), which heavily favored high-income earners and investment revenue, failed to yield a significant gain in revenues, which would indicate that the U.S. was already at or below the optimal point on the curve.

Not exactly true. Or, at least, not confirmed.

There was an anticipated dip in revenues directly after the cuts (made much worse by the 9/11 recession), but they shot up dramatically during the latter half of the Bush presidency and exceeded those of the Clinton years until the financial collapse, which, of course, had nothing to do with rates. Revenues are also anticipated to grow dramatically (inflation adjusted) within the next decade based on the Bush rates if and when the economy rebounds. This would indicate that there was still room on the curve for beneficial revenue growth when Bush made his cuts.

[jirisys]

Not exactly true. Or, at least, not confirmed.

There was an anticipated dip in revenues directly after the cuts (made much worse by the 9/11 recession), but they shot up dramatically during the latter half of the Bush presidency and exceeded those of the Clinton years until the financial collapse, which, of course, had nothing to do with rates. Revenues are also anticipated to grow dramatically (inflation adjusted) within the next decade based on the Bush rates if and when the economy rebounds. This would indicate that there was still room on the curve for beneficial revenue growth when Bush made his cuts.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Impact_of_Bush_Tax_Cut_Extension.png

I'm sorry, were you wrong?

~Jirisys ()

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm sorry, were you wrong?

~Jirisys ()

I'm not sure that graph is making the point you think it is.

The budget deficit relates to spending, while tax rates impact revenues. Even if revenues are very high, higher spending will result in a deficit, which is what occurred during the Bush years.

Even in your graph, you can clearly see the jump in revenues effecting the deficit after the the tax cuts - which is clearer in this one.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/u-s-federal-government-revenue-current-inflation-gdp.jpg

[Centurion1]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Impact_of_Bush_Tax_Cut_Extension.png

I'm sorry, were you wrong?

~Jirisys ()

Jsiriys blocked me for asking if he was a troll so he can't read this :rolleyes: but here are a few points.

Is that a projections graph? Are you bringing into this mere speculation? And then for even greater joy are you bringing in speculation without even the source from which this graph sprung?

Not to mention that budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is not what is being discussed here. The issue being discussed is the governments tax revenue over time when faced with tax cuts.

All you are saying is that the government is spending more money over time, more than they bring in. SMH

I'm sorry is everything you just posted nonsensical?

[Major Robert Dump]

Well now that the country has been saved all those wealthy corporations can finally start creating some jobs with all that extra money they have!!!!!

PS. I find it funny that the medicare cuts come from providers not beneficiaries. So the amount of care to the elderly remaines the same, the government just re-imburses providers less which means in return they raise prices for everyone else to compensate. Classic Washington bait-and-switch.

PSS. I'm adding this because it's funny and this is the closest thread I can find. Electric company wants to raise rates by @$6 per month per household in order to recuperate millions in investments they have recently made. I don't hink they understand the meaning of the word investment.http://www.newsok.com/article/3589753

[drone]

Even in your graph, you can clearly see the jump in revenues effecting the deficit after the the tax cuts - which is clearer in this one.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/u-s-federal-government-revenue-current-inflation-gdp.jpg
I'm willing to wager that these extra revenues are capital gains taxes brought in by the housing bubble and have little to do with "benefits" from the Bush tax cuts. Just as the ~2000 hump in revenues is attributed to capital gains from the tech bubble.

[jirisys]

Jsiriys blocked me for asking if he was a troll so he can't read this :rolleyes:

Oh my, do you just really ask me that? Well my little centaur, IIRC, you once said I blocked you because you disagreed with me, now because you dared to insult me with such obscene and uncalled for question. Think of the Children!
Make up your mind will ye.

I posted the graph because I thought it was pretty, and I didn't care to make a point, I just wanted to see all you politically correct people try to destroy an unexistent point.

So I just posted it, put up a question which no one answered, and now I'm off to do naughty things with my hands and some moisturizer. My coital relationships are doing so well right now.

So analize the graph yourselves, I don't even care really.

Now I'm off. On my magic pedophiliac mustache carpet!

~Jirisys ()

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm willing to wager that these extra revenues are capital gains taxes brought in by the housing bubble and have little to do with "benefits" from the Bush tax cuts. Just as the ~2000 hump in revenues is attributed to capital gains from the tech bubble.

Capital gains certainly played a part, but a large portion of the revenue gain was from corporate income taxes, which had little to do with housing and plays into the supply side argument. Of course, the impact of tax rates - positive and negative - play a distant second fiddle to the greater trajectory of the economy.

***

So the deal is done. Who won? Or... more accurately, who lost the least (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-debtdeal-20110801,0,3101001.story)?



Let's be sure to attach the word "tentative" to the debt ceiling deal that members of Congress will begin debating Monday — and then will accept or reject. Given official Washington's tendency throughout this process to take one step forward and two steps back, none of us should be shocked to see still more clumsy footwork.

But for now, let's pretend that the accord announced Sunday night will hold together and become law. If so, we will be pleased to forget for a while the fear about a potential debt default. This deal settles that threat for now, and also makes a down payment on reducing future deficits. Both good.

Perhaps most important for the long run, the American people emerge from this process much more aware that the enormity of their government's borrowing — another day, another $4 billion — threatens the future prosperity of their children and their nation.

If you've followed the twists and turns of recent weeks, you know the genealogy of this plan: It's descended from the bill that House Speaker John Boehner eked through his chamber Friday.

In many ways, the architecture of this deal reflects Republican designs. Think back to early 2011 and the earliest discussions of a need to acknowledge the nation's stratospheric increase in debt by raising the legal limit on that borrowing. Democrats wanted a "clean" hike in the debt ceiling, nothing attached.

Instead, President Barack Obama and Democratic legislative leaders now have agreed to linking that hike to companion trillions of dollars in future deficit reductions. The Democratic demand for tax increases, once evidently non-negotiable, has been pushed to a later debate. Democrats also ceded their previous insistence that a debt ceiling settlement now take the whole ugly topic out of play until after the 2012 election. Not going to happen. The two-phase process that the president described Sunday night follows different protocols than Boehner's framework but has much the same net effect: The debt debate will remain front and center well into the 2012 election cycle. We had supported the Boehner bill for just this reason. A two-phase process keeps the pressure on pols of both major parties. As they ask voters for support, they cannot hide from the dizzying escalation of this nation's debt.

We wish we could guarantee that the enforcement mechanisms built into this deal really would force a bicameral committee, and then the full Congress, to agree on much more dramatic deficit reductions several months from now. That discussion could turn to possible revenue increases, and almost certainly will focus on entitlement programs. That has to be. Without reform, those programs will implode. Come the actual time to cut them, though, many members of Congress will be looking for escape hatches.

Nor is there assurance that the nation's stellar credit rating, which suppresses the cost of borrowing all these trillions, will survive this deal intact. Ratings agencies may decide that Washington just doesn't have the moxie to drop the national debt to an affordable level. On Friday, Moody's Investors Service expressed disappointment over the "limited magnitude" of the emerging deal's spending cuts: "Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating," the agency warned.

One other, probably beneficial impact: The long to-and-fro of this process will deprive both parties of attack lines they had been practicing for the 2012 campaign season. Democrats had planned to exploit the proposal from Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to reshape Medicare. Republicans often dismiss this line of attack as "Medi-scare," and accuse Democrats of "playing the Granny card." But how can Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to trim Medicare when their own president proposed cuts to Medicare during the debt ceiling negotiations? Similarly, Republicans will have a hard time saying Democrats alone wanted to raise taxes now that we all know Boehner at one point agreed in principle to hundreds of billions in revenue hikes.

Reforming entitlements, raising revenues — those tactics and many more will come into play if this nation is to unwind its debt. Remember, that debt would continue to grow even if this deal does pass as negotiated.

The so-called "supercommittee" of Congress that would be tasked with the second phase of deficit reductions at least would have ideas it could plagiarize. The president never acted on the December recommendations of his bipartisan fiscal commission. Similarly, bipartisan proposals from the Senate's Gang of Six and from the recent congressional talks chaired by Vice President Joe Biden await action.

No, official Washington has no shortage of ideas. What it lacks is enough spine to make the difficult choices that would extract the U.S. from its dance with the debt devil.

If the deal announced Sunday night is a first step in that crucial rescue, terrific. But, at best, it's only one step in a very long journey.

[jirisys]

I'd imagine the republicans, you can't shoot this kidnapper but you have to save the hostage (the country), so you try not to get daisied as much, but make em not kill the hostage.

~Jirisys ()

[Centurion1]

Oh my, do you just really ask me that? Well my little centaur, IIRC, you once said I blocked you because you disagreed with me, now because you dared to insult me with such obscene and uncalled for question. Think of the Children!
Make up your mind will ye.

I posted the graph because I thought it was pretty, and I didn't care to make a point, I just wanted to see all you politically correct people try to destroy an unexistent point.

So I just posted it, put up a question which no one answered, and now I'm off to do naughty things with my hands and some moisturizer. My coital relationships are doing so well right now.

So analize the graph yourselves, I don't even care really.

Now I'm off. On my magic pedophiliac mustache carpet!

~Jirisys ()

UMMMMMM,

A. You said welcome to my ignore list. as a result you cannot see posts I make regarding you.

B. Don't post worthless things if you "know" they are meaningless.

C. Your question was directed towards saying PJ was incorrect with the usage of your graph as proof on why. This is the only way what you posted can be construed.

D. Now I am wondering if you understand English. What precisely does pedophilia have to do with you blocking me. In fact what precisely is the connection between pedophiles and trolls?

E. I "analized" (awkward spelling when you talk about pedophiles, dirt things, moisturizer, and your hands) the graph and told you what it really meant and why it was worthless.

F. Where exactly is this obscene and uncalled for question?

G. I am running out of letters so this is my last point. Did you realize you posted a worthless and meaningless graph and to backtrack you are now playing off as not caring? There is a question; please inform if you find it "obscene and uncalled for."

PS I am not a centaur i'm just gonna chalk this up yet again to poor spelling I suppose.

[Ironside]

Not exactly true. Or, at least, not confirmed.

There was an anticipated dip in revenues directly after the cuts (made much worse by the 9/11 recession), but they shot up dramatically during the latter half of the Bush presidency and exceeded those of the Clinton years until the financial collapse, which, of course, had nothing to do with rates. Revenues are also anticipated to grow dramatically (inflation adjusted) within the next decade based on the Bush rates if and when the economy rebounds. This would indicate that there was still room on the curve for beneficial revenue growth when Bush made his cuts.

Very questionable. Based on the nice 2007 budget and of the estimated tax loss (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html), those tax cuts would've needed to cause a yearly growth of 0,57% by itself to starting to pay itself off this year, a decade later (that is, it would still take about a decade until the state gained anything on these tax cuts= 2020).

This is the US PPP GDP growth (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/US_GDP_per_capita_change.PNG) over the years. And I'm not seeing that extra 0,6% there. Rather the opposite.

[Furunculus]

There is such a thing as the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), which demonstrates that too-high taxation drives people into tax avoiding behaviors, lowering the overall take. So in some situations, lowering taxes really does increase revenues. However, some people take this as a fundamental truth, that lower taxes will always produce more money, a thought so illogical and self-evidently false that it's kinda hard to argue with.

Historically, we're at very low levels of taxation right now. So arguing that further tax cuts will yield more revenue has more to do with posturing and dogma than anything empirical. The Bush tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts), which heavily favored high-income earners and investment revenue, failed to yield a significant gain in revenues, which would indicate that the U.S. was already at or below the optimal point on the curve.

not forgetting its close association with supply side economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Relationship_with_supply-side_economics

taxation at a level over 40% has been shown to have a serious impact on long-term growth potential.

http://ime.bg/uploads/OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf

[Fisherking]

not forgetting its close association with supply side economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Relationship_with_supply-side_economics

taxation at a level over 40% has been shown to have a serious impact on long-term growth potential.

http://ime.bg/uploads/OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf


And this part tell us that government trying to spend us out of problems doesn’t work either:

An empirical analysis of the data from 23 OECD countries (Gwartney et al.20) shows
a strong negative relationship between both (a) the size of government and GDP
growth and (b) increases in government expenditures and GDP growth. A 10
percentage point increase in government expenditures as a share of GDP is
associated with approximately a one percentage point decline in the growth rate of
real GDP. An analysis of a larger data set of 60 countries reinforces the conclusions
reached by analyzing the OECD countries. After adjustment for cross-country
differences in the security of property rights, inflation, education, and investment,
higher levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP exert a strong
negative impact on GDP growth.

[Vladimir]

Spending out of a recession doesn't help but it makes a nice band-aid while the economy heals.

[Lemur]

Spending out of a recession doesn't help but it makes a nice band-aid while the economy heals.
Um, government spending is supposed to be a "band-aid while the economy heals." That's the whole concept. Government spending doesn't create long-term wealth; everybody knows that, or ought to. But when demand dries up, the only entity that can temporarily soften the blow is the guvmint.

Per ejemplo, the last jobs report was dismal. Not because the private sector didn't grow -- it did -- but because all of the states and counties are slashing their payroll as stimulus funds go bye-bye. This suggests that now is not the greatest of all possible times to dig into fiscal austerity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America has a short-term growth problem and a long-term debt problem. There's no reason why we can't address both in turn. Going gonzo in debt right now strikes me as counterproductive. Of course, if now is the only time we can address debt, then we'll do what we gotta do. I guess the combination of a recession and a Dem administration makes this the time to do it? Hmm.

I read somewhere that Germany has a sixteen-year plan to deal with restructuring its debt and deficits. Knowing the krauts, I expect they'll pull it off flawlessly. Calling for a balanced budget right now, on the other hand, strikes me as calling for another recession.

Cutting spending endangers the recovery. Significantly raising taxes endangers the recovery. Most economists would say that this is the time when you take a deep breath and deal with deficits until the economy is back on track. We'll see how this plays out, however Maybe our economy can handle constriction in the federal state and county guvmint budgets. Maybe. If so, then release the doves and put John Philip Sousa on the gramaphone.

[Centurion1]

Um, government spending is supposed to be a "band-aid while the economy heals." That's the whole concept. Government spending doesn't create long-term wealth; everybody knows that, or ought to. But when demand dries up, the only entity that can temporarily soften the blow is the guvmint.

Per ejemplo, the last jobs report was dismal. Not because the private sector didn't grow -- it did -- but because all of the states and counties are slashing their payroll as stimulus funds go bye-bye. This suggests that now is not the greatest of all possible times to dig into fiscal austerity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America has a short-term growth problem and a long-term debt problem. There's no reason why we can't address both in turn. Going gonzo in debt right now strikes me as counterproductive. Of course, if now is the only time we can address debt, then we'll do what we gotta do. I guess the combination of a recession and a Dem administration makes this the time to do it? Hmm.

I read somewhere that Germany has a sixteen-year plan to deal with restructuring its debt and deficits. Knowing the krauts, I expect they'll pull it off flawlessly. Calling for a balanced budget right now, on the other hand, strikes me as calling for another recession.

Cutting spending endangers the recovery. Significantly raising taxes endangers the recovery. Most economists would say that this is the time when you take a deep breath and deal with deficits until the economy is back on track. We'll see how this plays out, however Maybe our economy can handle constriction in the federal state and county guvmint budgets. Maybe. If so, then release the doves and put John Philip Sousa on the gramaphone.

This is if you believe in a Keynesian economic policy which the USA has subscribed to for decades. This does not make it right.

Government spending is like band aid infected with AIDS

[Xiahou]

Um, government spending is supposed to be a "band-aid while the economy heals." That's the whole concept. Government spending doesn't create long-term wealth; everybody knows that, or ought to. But when demand dries up, the only entity that can temporarily soften the blow is the guvmint.Do you think that still applies if all the additional government spending is borrowed money? Think about it- deficit spending means the government must sell bonds to spend the money. To sell bonds, someone has to be buying bonds. Buying treasury bonds ties up money that could otherwise have been invested elsewhere in the economy.

If the additional spending was coming from a government "rainy day" fund, I think what you say would be correct. But all the borrowing is bound to have a crowding out effect on private investments.

[Subotan]

Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.

The logic behind that is that lower taxes compel firms to invest and take on more workers. This is not strictly accurate. Although it allows firms to take on more workers, it does not compel firms to take on more workers. The reason that unemployment is so high and growth is so low at the minute is because firms in the States were able to lay off huge amounts of workforce whilst experiencing huge productivity gains by forcing the remaining workers to work harder better faster stronger for fewer and longer. These productivity gains have allowed firms to stay in the black as demand has plummeted; indeed, many firms are now sitting on lots of liquidity which they could choose to expand their business with.

But they haven't! This is because demand has not yet expanded enough to compel firms to expand supply to meet that increased demand. Low taxes aren't doing enough to keep demand up (And, as an aside, all the gains in living standards tha Americans should have from lower taxes are offset by pricier healthcare than the rest of the world). Whilst tax hikes might at first glance seem to reduce demand yet further, this is not necessarily the case. The marginal propensity to consume of the super-rich is low; if you're poor and you get a tenner, you're more likely to go out and spend it immediately than a rich person is. Likewise, taking a tenner off a poor person is more likely to affect their consumption than it is the rich person. By taxing the rich (who, as has been said, are often sitting on piles of cash as well as having done very well over the past decade), in order to redistribute to the poor (E.g. studies have shown that food stamps and unemployment benefit are the single most effective means of increasing wealth in the economy, per $ spent by the government) demand can be increased, and the deficit can be brought down.

[Lemur]

Government spending is like band aid infected with AIDS
Vivid!


[D]eficit spending means the government must sell bonds to spend the money. To sell bonds, someone has to be buying bonds. Buying treasury bonds ties up money that could otherwise have been invested elsewhere in the economy.
Sure, this is something economists have been arguing about for decades. Remember when it looked like we'd be buying back all of them government bonds in the '90s? There was a lot of panic about what effect not having government debt would do. Seems so naive and quaint at this reserve.

Absolutely, government debt gobbles up some investment capital. What effect does this have? Who knows? People buy bonds for stability, so I would imagine that a lot of that money would pour into other "safety" investments. Commodities would probably shoot up, as would muni bonds.

If I had to choose between deficit spending intended to prop up the economy vs. doing nothing (or worse, a 44% unplanned constriction in fed funds), I'd pick the deficit. For now. Long-term it's unsustainable, of course, but nobody in their right mind is arguing that we should continue deficit spending indefinitely. Short term problem: growth. Long-term problem: debt.

[Subotan]

This is if you believe in a Keynesian economic policy which the USA has subscribed to for decades. This does not make it right.

whaaaaaattt

[Centurion1]

whaaaaaattt


Through the 1950s, moderate degrees of government demand leading industrial development, and use of fiscal and monetary counter-cyclical policies continued, and reached a peak in the "go go" 1960s, where it seemed to many Keynesians that prosperity was now permanent. In 1971, Republican US President Richard Nixon even proclaimed "we are all Keynesians now".[18] However, with the oil shock of 1973, and the economic problems of the 1970s, modern liberal economics began to fall out of favor. During this time, many economies experienced high and rising unemployment, coupled with high and rising inflation, contradicting the Phillips curve's prediction. This stagflation meant that the simultaneous application of expansionary (anti-recession) and contractionary (anti-inflation) policies appeared to be necessary, a clear impossibility. This dilemma led to the end of the Keynesian near-consensus of the 1960s, and the rise throughout the 1970s of ideas based upon more classical analysis, including monetarism, supply-side economics[18] and new classical economics. At the same time, Keynesians began during the period to reorganize their thinking (some becoming associated with New Keynesian economics); one strategy, utilized also as a critique of the notably high unemployment and potentially disappointing GNP growth rates associated with the latter two theories by the mid-1980s, was to emphasize low unemployment and maximal economic growth at the cost of somewhat higher inflation (its consequences kept in check by indexing and other methods, and its overall rate kept lower and steadier by such potential policies as Martin Weitzman's share economy).[19]


There was a lack of consensus among macroeconomists in the 1980s. However, the advent of New Keynesian economics in the 1990s, modified and provided microeconomic foundations for the neo-Keynesian theories. These modified models now dominate mainstream economics.

FDR also obviously followed to a form of Keynesian economics as well. I never said any of the people using it were necessarily purists nor that it was an unbroken chain of proponents of the theories of Mr. Keynes but at least some form of Keynesian policy was used. There was a break in the 80's when it fell out of favor following the economic failures of the 1970's and altered theories came to prominence in the 1990's till now which I believe would alone constitute the term "decades"

so yeah....... pretty easy stuff to find out on your own so that you don't have to be corrected trying to correct me. :clown:

[Subotan]

It has only become mainstream within the past three years or so. Prior to that point, from about 1982 onwards, "Keynesian" was practically a pejorative.

[Centurion1]

It has only become mainstream within the past three years or so. Prior to that point, from about 1982 onwards, "Keynesian" was practically a pejorative.

False. New Keynesian theories came to prominence in the 1990's. And even Reagan's supply side economics ironically had some Keynesian trappings when he put the oodles of money he had into Defense.

[Strike For The South]

What nation does not subscribe to some level of Kensyian economics?

[Major Robert Dump]

Call me paranoid, but the appearance of Giffords at the end of this debalce proves to me that this was all a manufactured incident, particularly if ones considers we had the exact same dance with the budget a few months back.

This is Washington's way of reminding us that they are on control. The appearance of Giffords was Washington's way of reminding us that Washington cares. During this pre-planned crisis, Washington and their cronies likley got richer, as Congress is exempt from insider trading laws.

[Xiahou]

The deal itself is a total sham from what I've seen of it. The only real cuts are the cuts that take place in 2012. And they amount to about 2/10ths of one percent of federal spending. If trimming a fraction of a percent from our bloated government nearly collapsed civilization as we know it.... we're pretty well screwed aren't we? As so often is the case with Congress, this was a meaningless gesture.


Remember when it looked like we'd be buying back all of them government bonds in the '90s? There was a lot of panic about what effect not having government debt would do. Seems so naive and quaint at this reserve.It's worth noting that even in the glorious 90's we were only running a surplus if you didn't count entitlements. In reality our budget problems were still mounting even then.

[PanzerJaeger]

The deal itself is a total sham from what I've seen of it. The only real cuts are the cuts that take place in 2012. And they amount to about 2/10ths of one percent of federal spending. If trimming a fraction of a percent from our bloated government nearly collapsed civilization as we know it.... we're pretty well screwed aren't we? As so often is the case with Congress, this was a meaningless gesture.

Indeed. :shame:

If there is any solace to be had, it's that this whole ordeal seems to have seriously damaged Obama in the leadership department and sidelined the planned summer 'Mediscare', which will hopefully contribute to the election of a new president more willing to seriously address spending. We'll see if it lasts, or if he gets a bump for at least averting default (not that he had anything to do with it).

[Furunculus]

Representative Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, said: "This deal is a
sugar-coated Satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see."

Lol. Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth!

[Vladimir]

With Satan fries on the side: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/02/pelosi_debt_deal_a_satan_sandwich_with_satan_fries_on_the_side.html

[Lemur]

Interesting read -- from a certain perspective (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party/index.html), the Tea Party's insistence on a showdown over the debt ceiling is just another episode in a long history of Southern exceptionalism.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/01.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/02-1.jpg

Contradicting the mainstream media narrative that the Tea Party is a new populist movement that formed spontaneously in reaction to government bailouts or the Obama administration, the facts show that the Tea Party in Congress is merely the familiar old neo-Confederate Southern right under a new label. [...] From the earliest years of the American republic, white Southern conservatives when they have lost elections and found themselves in the political minority have sought to extort concession from national majorities by paralyzing or threatening to destroy the United States. [...]

The debt ceiling crisis is the latest case in which the radical right in the South has held America hostage until its demands are met. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to appease the Southern fanatics. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress chose not to follow their example and instead gave in. In doing so, they have encouraged the neo-Confederate minority in Congress to find yet another opportunity in the near future to extort concessions from America's majority by sabotaging America's government.
Kinda over-the-top, but an interesting read.

[Fisherking]

In response to this I propose that the North East secede. :laugh4:

[Centurion1]

Interesting read -- from a certain perspective (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party/index.html), the Tea Party's insistence on a showdown over the debt ceiling is just another episode in a long history of Southern exceptionalism.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/01.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/02-1.jpg

Contradicting the mainstream media narrative that the Tea Party is a new populist movement that formed spontaneously in reaction to government bailouts or the Obama administration, the facts show that the Tea Party in Congress is merely the familiar old neo-Confederate Southern right under a new label. [...] From the earliest years of the American republic, white Southern conservatives when they have lost elections and found themselves in the political minority have sought to extort concession from national majorities by paralyzing or threatening to destroy the United States. [...]

The debt ceiling crisis is the latest case in which the radical right in the South has held America hostage until its demands are met. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to appease the Southern fanatics. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress chose not to follow their example and instead gave in. In doing so, they have encouraged the neo-Confederate minority in Congress to find yet another opportunity in the near future to extort concessions from America's majority by sabotaging America's government.
Kinda over-the-top, but an interesting read.

I find this article ignorant and annoying. Maybe the party finds itself disgusted with the actions of the democratic party and decided to finally do something and actually do what they tell their constituents. I am tired of this being treated as such a disaster that the democrats and Obama managed to avert. His constant description of the proponents of what just happened as radicals annoys me quite a bit. I do not see myself as a radical yet I am glad they did what they did. Not to mention the south has not always been a bastion of conservative thought especially in the early days of the republic.

[Lemur]

I find this article ignorant and annoying.
Annoying I can see. Ignorant? The Tea Party has members in every state, but there's a definite regional flavor to the movement, as demonstrated by the makeup of the Tea Party Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus). The author ain't wrong about that. And he's absolutely correct that when the South doesn't get its way, it has a longstanding history of starting fights (http://www.scv674.org/SH-Introduction.htm).

None of which is to say that I agree with the article, but it's a worthwhile read.

[PanzerJaeger]

Annoying I can see. Ignorant?

More like disingenuous. To try and inject regionalism into the debt debate reflects both an understanding of history and a willingness to distort it to make a contrived point.

Obviously Tea Party types were more likely to actually win elections in districts that were solidly Republican from the outset, as all they had to do was win primaries - which requires more enthusiasm but fewer votes. The fact that a majority were elected from the solid South reflects the dominance of the Republican party more than any special enthusiasm for the Tea Party. The same phenomenon can be seen in the Northeast where extremely liberal lawmakers often represent conservative, working class districts. Voting (D) is so engrained in the culture - usually because of past or present union activity - that all a liberal has to do to win is win the primary.

The Tea Party is based far more in Southwestern libertarianism than traditional Southern conservatism, which is more concerned with social rather than fiscal issues. The fact that Tea Party candidates were able to win elections more easily in the South doesn't actually demonstrate a stronger concentration of support, but a stronger Republican establishment. Nationally, about 40% of voters in the 2010 elections nominally supported to the movement, and the intensity of that support (http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/11/tea-party-support-by-state.html) had no real regional correlation.

Definitely an interesting read though. It's never a bad thing to look at a situation from a completely different perspective.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Although there were no revenue increases this time, we are crazy if we think that the bush tax cuts aren't going to get the chopping block and be replaced by a new tax cut plan sponsored by the Obama admin. They know that puppy is a gonner, and that's why democrats are relatively content to let these cuts in.

[Lemur]

Nationally, about 40% of voters in the 2010 elections nominally supported to the movement, and the intensity of that support (http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/11/tea-party-support-by-state.html) had no real regional correlation.
Not to quibble, but 40% is way outside every poll I've seen on the subject. Most polls peg Tea Party support at somewhere around 14%-13% of the electorate. Moreover, the poll that that blog links to doesn't back up the assertion. Kinda strange.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not to quibble, but 40% is way outside every poll I've seen on the subject. Most polls peg Tea Party support at somewhere around 14%-13% of the electorate. Moreover, the poll that that blog links to doesn't back up the assertion. Kinda strange.

Support, favorability, or membership? The three are different, but often get confused. Support and favorability (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147635/tea-party-movement.aspx) have always outstripped membership by quite a bit. Favorability maxed out at 39% in Gallup and, iirc, got a bit over 40% in some other polls at the height of the movement's positive intensity during the run up to the 2010 elections.

Good catch. The author of the blog probably used support and favorability interchangeably. Actual support was more like 30% instead of 40%.

[Papewaio]

I thought in the US only 40% of the electorate vote.

If the Tea Party is 13-14% of the electorate and they all vote, then they would form around 35% of the voters. (.14/.4)

[Centurion1]

I thought in the US only 40% of the electorate vote.

If the Tea Party is 13-14% of the electorate and they all vote, then they would form around 35% of the voters. (.14/.4)

40% of the voters.

[Tellos Athenaios]

40% of the voters.

Yes, let me get this straight: 40% of the voters, you say. Who supposedly are only 40% of the electorate, according to Papewaio. So the means 0.4*0.4 == 0.16, i.e 16% of the electorate, no?

[Lemur]

Well, the polling I've seen consistently pegs Tea Party self-identification at between 14% and 13% of the voting electorate. So make of that number what you will.

[Papewaio]

I think definitions are in order.
Electorate: All who can vote.
Voters: All who did vote. Of which approx 40% of the Electorate do so.
Voting Electorate = Voters.

So it the Tea Party is only 14% of the voters, are they 40% of the Republican vote?

[Lemur]

So it the Tea Party is only 14% of the voters, are they 40% of the Republican vote?
The party-identification breakdowns I have seen are all taken from people who have voted. So they are samples of the estimated 40% of the voting public. So when 27% say they are Republican, that's 27% of the 40%. Likewise the numbers I've seen for self-identified Tea Party members, who are consistently pegged at 14%-13% of the voting population, the 40% we're talking about.

How solid are we on that 40% number, anyway?

[Papewaio]

If there is a large group 14% who are voting lockstep, that is more then enough to make a huge impact when elections are often won by less then a couple of percent.

Much like the impact teeny bopper purchases have on which music is considered most popular because they vote as a hivemind.

An organised actively voting block of voters will first be able to chose their candidate and then get him into office... much easier if the number of voters is a low percentage.

Personally if you have the right to vote in an election and don't do so, you forgo the right to bitch and moan about the state of your town/city/state/country. If the candidates all suck, then vote out the incumbent at the minimum.

[Lemur]

Hah, that's my prime directive at the ballot box -- unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, vote against the incumbent. Of course, these WI ballots often don't tell you who the incumbent is. So as much as I may want to vote out the current county water commissioner, I wind up having to go with the more interesting last name. I AM THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY!

[PanzerJaeger]

If there is a large group 14% who are voting lockstep, that is more then enough to make a huge impact when elections are often won by less then a couple of percent.

Keep in mind the vast majority of Tea Party voters were solid Republican votes before the movement began and their electoral success largely had to do with a shift in independent voters away from the Democrats. Their intensity does have a major impact on primaries, though, and can even be detrimental as was seen in a number of senate elections during the 2010 cycle.

That's what I was talking about earlier in relation to the regional support for the Tea Party. They ran candidates all over the country and enjoyed varied levels of support that were not particularly regionally correlated, but those candidates had a higher chance of winning in the South because more districts in the South are predisposed to pull the lever for (R) regardless of the name in front of it.

[Strike For The South]

PJ is basically right but I would like to point out Goldwater conservativism only cuaght on in the south becuase it was suicide to be George Wallace on a national stage

The shift from "Segragation now, Segragation Tommorow, Segeragation forever" to "Keep government off my medicare" is a well documented one here in dixie and its one outsiders dont trully understand

To see how the dont understand, let's see how many times Im called ignorant in the succeeding posts

[Subotan]

The Tea Party is based far more in Southwestern libertarianism than traditional Southern conservatism, which is more concerned with social rather than fiscal issues.
Really? Then why are Republican state legislators working like Japanese beavers across the country to restrict abortion rights across America? Why is Michelle Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party "Movement", so concerned with homosexuals? Why did the Tea Party mobilise to protest the "Ground Zero Mosque", the mosque-that-wasn't several blocks from the WTC site? Leaving aside particular criticisms of these various positions, it's disingenous to claim that the Tea Party is primarily a fiscally conservative movement; after all, why did they want to their legislators to take action that would have caused America's interest on its debt to skyrocket if they were fiscally conservative?


The fact that Tea Party candidates were able to win elections more easily in the South doesn't actually demonstrate a stronger concentration of support, but a stronger Republican establishment.
I thought the Tea Party was anti-GOP establishment.

[Furunculus]

with all this whingeing about tax cuts and america being undertaxted i feel it is time to introduce a little adam smith:

http://adamsmith.org/files/tax-paper-final(1).pdf

[Ronin]

Really? Then why are Republican state legislators working like Japanese beavers across the country to restrict abortion rights across America? Why is Michelle Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party "Movement", so concerned with homosexuals? Why did the Tea Party mobilise to protest the "Ground Zero Mosque", the mosque-that-wasn't several blocks from the WTC site? Leaving aside particular criticisms of these various positions, it's disingenous to claim that the Tea Party is primarily a fiscally conservative movement; after all, why did they want to their legislators to take action that would have caused America's interest on its debt to skyrocket if they were fiscally conservative?


it always seemed to me that the tea party is a movement primarily fueled by conservative views on social issues (abortion, gays), a serious racial bias against the current president and also fiscal concerns.
Of course the first 2 reasons are not particularly politically correct in this day and age, so the people that are taking charge of the movement pushed the fiscal aspect of it forward.
Of course there are people in the movement motivated only by fiscal issues and nothing else, but the type of rhetoric that is used to inflame the majority of the tea party base is pretty transparent regarding its bias on social issues.
In other words....the pundits might be talking about fiscal matters, the crowd is not necessarily there for that.

[Lemur]

[I]t's disingenous to claim that the Tea Party is primarily a fiscally conservative movement; after all, why did they want to their legislators to take action that would have caused America's interest on its debt to skyrocket if they were fiscally conservative?
Because the Tea Party is primarily an anti-tax movement (http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html), not a fiscal conservative movement. Important distinction. Also, I'll be very curious to see if the Tea Party continues with anything like its current energy when there's no longer a Dem in the White House. I suspect the answers is "no."

[Adrian II]

Annoying I can see. Ignorant? The Tea Party has members in every state, but there's a definite regional flavor to the movement, as demonstrated by the makeup of the Tea Party Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus). The author ain't wrong about that. And he's absolutely correct that when the South doesn't get its way, it has a longstanding history of starting fights (http://www.scv674.org/SH-Introduction.htm).

None of which is to say that I agree with the article, but it's a worthwhile read.

How about this then? Now there's an interesting break-down to complement yours.

Greek Americans (http://www.economist.com/node/21524887)

[drone]

How about this then? Now there's an interesting break-down to complement yours.

Greek Americans (http://www.economist.com/node/21524887)
I don't know what mess New Mexico has gotten itself into, but Virginia and Maryland/DC are high on that list because they host the federal government. The article using Virginia as it's prime example is questionable at best. Yes it does receive a disproportional amount of federal dollars... location, location, location.

[Vladimir]

Yea, they include Virginia and Maryland side-by-side. New Mexico and Arizona like to claim the cost of covering medical bills for illegals is a problem. There are also quite a few important military bases in New Mexico so they may be affected the same as Virginia and Maryland.

[Centurion1]

it always seemed to me that the tea party is a movement primarily fueled by conservative views on social issues (abortion, gays), a serious racial bias against the current president and also fiscal concerns.
Of course the first 2 reasons are not particularly politically correct in this day and age, so the people that are taking charge of the movement pushed the fiscal aspect of it forward.
Of course there are people in the movement motivated only by fiscal issues and nothing else, but the type of rhetoric that is used to inflame the majority of the tea party base is pretty transparent regarding its bias on social issues.
In other words....the pundits might be talking about fiscal matters, the crowd is not necessarily there for that.

Hey you guys Ronin is right. If someone is of African descent and you disagree with his politic then you are a racist. Disagreeing with Obama is equivalent to being one step away from being Imperial Grand Wizard in your local KKK chapter.

And btw, having a conservative view on Abortion is not politically incorrect except maybe whatever world you inhabit.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hey you guys Ronin is right. If someone is of African descent and you disagree with his politic then you are a racist. Disagreeing with Obama is equivalent to being one step away from being Imperial Grand Wizard in your local KKK chapter.

And btw, having a conservative view on Abortion is not politically incorrect except maybe whatever world you inhabit.

You're using some thick blinders if you think the Tea Party movement almost turning into lynch mobs at its large gatherings and yelling racist epithets is merely "disagreeing with a black man's politics."

[Subotan]

And btw, having a conservative view on Abortion is not politically incorrect except maybe whatever world you inhabit.
Of course not. The issue arises when those views are forced onto other individuals.

[Ronin]

Hey you guys Ronin is right. If someone is of African descent and you disagree with his politic then you are a racist. Disagreeing with Obama is equivalent to being one step away from being Imperial Grand Wizard in your local KKK chapter.
when an entire mainly white and right wing political movement shows up almost overnight, and it just happens to coincide with the rise of a part-black presidential candidate....excuse me if I can add 1+1 together.
also disagreeing with politics is one thing....to do so by implying that the other guy is not really an American but a Kenyan, or a secret Muslim is a completely different beast.
But I must be mistaken...I saw plenty of coverage on tea party rallies and they are clearly not racist....all those signs must have been a terrible mistake.


P.S. - and if the Imperial Grand Wizard of the local KKK chapter is marching down the street with his face uncovered he is at the very least being honest....that's an advantage over closet cases.
and P.S.2 - Isn´t the fact that in some of those places there exists a local chapter of the KKK telling enough?

[Koga No Goshi]

when an entire mainly white and right wing political movement shows up almost overnight, and it just happens to coincide with the rise of a part-black presidential candidate....excuse me if I can add 1+1 together.
also disagreeing with politics is one thing....to do so by implying that the other guy is not really an American but a Kenyan, or a secret Muslim is a completely different beast.
But I must be mistaken...I saw plenty of coverage on tea party rallies and they are clearly not racist....all those signs must have been a terrible mistake.


P.S. - and if the Imperial Grand Wizard of the local KKK chapter is marching down the street with his face uncovered he is at the very least being honest....that's an advantage over closet cases.
and P.S.2 - Isn´t the fact that in some of those places there exists a local chapter of the KKK telling enough?

Exactly. If you want opposition to a black President to be understood as political, then keep it political. 4 years of demanding birth certificates and claiming he's a white-hating Christian-Muslim-Socialist-Communist-Kenyan can only be understood one way.

[drone]

Welcome back, Koga. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Really? Then why are Republican state legislators working like Japanese beavers across the country to restrict abortion rights across America? Why is Michelle Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party "Movement", so concerned with homosexuals? Why did the Tea Party mobilise to protest the "Ground Zero Mosque", the mosque-that-wasn't several blocks from the WTC site?

Well, the Tea Party is not a single cohesive movement and it is not entirely clear whether Michelle Bachmann actually speaks for them, or has decided that she speaks for them. However, as I mentioned, the vast majority of Tea Party members were conservative republicans before the movement started, so there will naturally be overlap in their views on social issues. Also, as with most movements, many of the local groups have taken steps to cleanse their membership of some of the more socially liberal voices and have moved towards a more traditional, although radicalized, platform of social issues that span beyond the founding principles.

All that being said, the Tea Party did begin as an all-encompassing movement focused solely on government size and spending in reaction to the Stimulus bill, bailouts, Cap & Trade proposals, and the Affordable Care Act. Despite the movement into social policy by some of the groups, the overarching mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement) of the movement is still ostensibly focused on fiscal issues.



The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor.[12] Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the acronym "Taxed Enough Already".[13][14]




Leaving aside particular criticisms of these various positions, it's disingenous to claim that the Tea Party is primarily a fiscally conservative movement; after all, why did they want to their legislators to take action that would have caused America's interest on its debt to skyrocket if they were fiscally conservative?

Because, as Lemur's article highlighted, they are not particularly knowledgeable about the intricacies of fiscal policy. That does not mean that they are not very fiscally conservative. They simply have a limited understanding of the negative externalities involved in abruptly cutting spending in broad swathes.


I thought the Tea Party was anti-GOP establishment.

They are. Inter-party distinctions mean little in solid districts. Whoever makes it out of the primary gets elected as the opponent gets no consideration.

[PanzerJaeger]

Exactly. If you want opposition to a black President to be understood as political, then keep it political. 4 years of demanding birth certificates and claiming he's a white-hating Christian-Muslim-Socialist-Communist-Kenyan can only be understood one way.

Not really.

Barack Obama is very different than every other American president in many more ways than his race. His background is highly untraditional for our ruling class, which makes him particularly subject to conspiracy theories about it. If he had been white with the same background, I would wager the same kind of attacks would be levied against him.

[Papewaio]

It's a catch-22 situation that will require some smart thinking + hard work + belt tightening... but only at the right spots.

Reducing government spending can have the same effect on the economy as raising taxes. There are plenty of private businesses getting their check or a portion of it from the government in some manner. So if too much is cut quickly then a lot of private businesses will feel the pain as much if not more then a tax rise would have done... at least with a tax on business it only comes out of the net, cut's on spending are hitting the bottom line.

Looks like a few more like this one are needed:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/ashton-carter/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not really.

Barack Obama is very different than every other American president in many more ways than his race. His background is highly untraditional for our ruling class, which makes him particularly subject to conspiracy theories about it. If he had been white with the same background, I would wager the same kind of attacks would be levied against him.

I really doubt if he was white he would still be called a Kenyan. Take off them shades man.

[PanzerJaeger]

I really doubt if he was white he would still be called a Kenyan. Take off them shades man.

Oh I bet he would if he was a first generation son of a Kenyan and he had a funny sounding name.

People seem to forget that nearly the exact same rhetoric was lobbed against Carter and Clinton by the far right - weak, socialist, un-American, plotting to bring the country down. The only variation this time is the foreigner angle, which of course wouldn't have worked against a Mr. James Earl Carter or a Mr. William Jefferson Clinton. You couldn't find a couple of more WASP-sounding names if you tried. Of course, both men also had their own equally appalling rumors circulated that President Obama does not have to contend with. For example, the idea that Clinton had people killed in Arkansas briefly crossed over from far Right circles into the mainstream consciousness just as the birth certificate issue did for Obama. And of course on the other side GWB had to deal with the Truther movement which also went mainstream.

The polar extremes on both sides look for any perceived weakness or angle to exploit and run with it. Barack Hussein Obama is quite possibly the lowest of low hanging fruit. How many Americans do you know with a name like that? And didn't we go to war twice in the Middle East to take out another Hussein? It's just too easy not to exploit, but that exploitation is based more in the great American tradition of spreading vicious and unfounded rumors about political opponents than racism. Its essence is that he is different, not that he is black.

Now, that is not at all to say that there aren't people out there who dislike the man because he's black, but the idea that the greater political opposition to the man expressed in movements like the Tea Party is based solely on race is based on unfounded (and easily refuted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html)) assumption, and you know what they say about making assumptions.

***

I happened to come across this refutation (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/03/kilgore_lind_tea_party/index.html) of Michael Lind's piece that Lemur posted earlier on Google News.




Michael Lind is a very smart and wonderfully erudite writer with a bit of an obsession. His understanding of the deeper cultural wellsprings of American history and politics has left him, as a sort of side effect, with an abiding fearful hostility toward a particular group of people, the "Anglo-Celtic" Southerner. Lind sees them everywhere in our politics as a baleful, disturbing presence spreading bacilli of violence, bigotry and religious fanaticism. And in his recent Salon essay arguing that the Tea Party movement is an essentially Southern phenomenon, his prejudices blind him to a rather important and unprecedented phenomenon: the virtual disappearance of geography as a significant factor in the ideological character of the Republican Party.

***

Moving beyond Lind's own narrowly defined "proof" for Southern domination of the Tea Party, the whole idea is preposterous if you look at the actual spread of the Tea Party in its 2009-2010 heyday. Tea Party-affiliated candidates won heavily contested Republican Senate nomination contests in Alaska, Utah, Colorado, Nevada and Delaware; gubernatorial primaries in New York, Colorado and Maine; House primaries in Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, New York and New Jersey. Notable Tea Party political heroes include Bachmann of Minnesota, Sarah Palin of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Chris Christie of New Jersey. The crucible of Tea Party influence over the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process is in Iowa. Even some ostensibly Southern or quasi-Southern Tea Partyers aren't Southern in any cultural sense, including the Cuban-American Marco Rubio of Florida, and the Pauls, father and son, from Pittsburgh, Pa.

[Koga No Goshi]

Welcome back, Koga. :bow:

Thank you sir. It's been a long time.


Not really.

Barack Obama is very different than every other American president in many more ways than his race. His background is highly untraditional for our ruling class, which makes him particularly subject to conspiracy theories about it. If he had been white with the same background, I would wager the same kind of attacks would be levied against him.

And this has to do with erasing grassroots "Teabaggers" showing up in large numbers and yelling racial epithets... how?

The Tea Party pretty much earned its reputation as a general reactionary movement of privilege-minded white Americans from how it has behaved, comported itself, AND its political stances. It's not one bit of them taken out of context, it's their entire identity at this point.

As Pap pointed out, I doubt a white candidate would have the n-word thrown around about him at Tea Party rallies. But no, race has nothing to do with it at any level.

[Koga No Goshi]

Welcome back, Koga. :bow:

Thank you sir. It's been a long time.


Not really.

Barack Obama is very different than every other American president in many more ways than his race. His background is highly untraditional for our ruling class, which makes him particularly subject to conspiracy theories about it. If he had been white with the same background, I would wager the same kind of attacks would be levied against him.

And this has to do with erasing grassroots "Teabaggers" showing up in large numbers and yelling racial epithets... how?

The Tea Party pretty much earned its reputation as a general reactionary movement of privilege-minded white Americans from how it has behaved, comported itself, AND its political stances. It's not one bit of them taken out of context, it's their entire identity at this point.

As Gutmensch pointed out, I doubt a white candidate would have the n-word thrown around about him at Tea Party rallies. But no, race has nothing to do with it at any level.

[PanzerJaeger]

And this has to do with erasing grassroots "Teabaggers" showing up in large numbers and yelling racial epithets... how?

This seems to be based on some documented event(s). Factual accounts are great. Before I respond, can you link to some of those accounts that document the use of racial epithets by 'large numbers' of Tea Party members so we have a basis for the discussion?

[Koga No Goshi]

How about the fact that Palin and McCain had to be called upon multiple times to address this issue in their gatherings? You do remember that?

McCain did eventually (after MUCH public pressure to say something over a fairly long period) address this in his appearances and told people to stop with the Muslim terrorist characterizations, but if Palin ever did the same, I'm unaware of it. This was a big enough issue in national level Presidential campaigns that two frontrunners had to be called on to say something about it, and you want to construe it as just some tiny dismissable fringe? Okay.

[PanzerJaeger]

How about the fact that Palin and McCain had to be called upon multiple times to address this issue in their gatherings? You do remember that?

The issue that then candidate Obama was black? :inquisitive:

Also, the Tea Party did not exist during the 2008 campaign. :shrug:

Again, if we're going to have a solid discussion of the issue: Before I respond, can you link to some of those accounts that document the use of racial epithets by 'large numbers' of Tea Party members so we have a basis for the discussion?

[Koga No Goshi]

http://houstontps.org/audio/4995.jpg

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20072_large.jpg

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/3444736449_a55b5c6067.jpg

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/racist_tea_party.jpg

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/tea_party.jpg

http://snotrockets.net/images/racist13.jpg

Do a simple google image search. It reveals pages and pages. We aren't making this up.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also, the Tea Party did not exist during the 2008 campaign. :shrug: Ron Paul supporters say try again.

[PanzerJaeger]

http://houstontps.org/audio/4995.jpg

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20072_large.jpg

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/3444736449_a55b5c6067.jpg

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/racist_tea_party.jpg

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/tea_party.jpg

http://snotrockets.net/images/racist13.jpg

Do a simple google image search. It reveals pages and pages. We aren't making this up.

Actually, a google image search of 'tea party racist' reveals far less than a page of actual racist signs, with pages and pages of the same signs over and over among other unrelated images. Rather amazing for a group numbering in the hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. Maybe I'm not using the right terms?

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is often not really evidence at all (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html). You see, an actual analysis of Tea Party signage suggests a completely different picture. I know for a fact that the fellow in your first picture was ejected from that event, kicked out of his local Tea Party organization, and publically denounced by various Tea Party umbrella groups.

Do you have any actual evidence of 'large numbers' of Tea Partiers using racial epithets against Obama or anyone else?

Certainly you're not trying to claim that a few isolated incidents are representative of the greater collective? Under such conditions, one could easily claim that those against the Tea Party are racists themselves.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgV3PZkJmk4&feature=player_embedded#at=39

[Koga No Goshi]

I could just as easily turn around and say your defense of the Tea Party is based on circumstantial or anecdotal cases of where they're actually coherent or avoiding overtly radical or offensive rhetoric, because with a fragmented group like this there's always wiggle room for someone to do exactly as you are doing, and merely flicking your wrist to wave off the unsavory character of the party as just a fringe minimal element.

Let's put it this way PanzerJaeger... when you have to routinely conduct damage control because people who support your cause are always showing up with signs alluding to wishing for Kennedy solutions or making racially charged denouncements of the President, that says something. Of course the Tea Party isn't going to put "we have a lot of people who hate blacks" in its official charter for me to pull out and show you. So what? All you are doing is spin doctoring something that is pretty obvious to anyone who's paid the least bit of attention to the movement (and isn't a staunch supporter of it.)

I also find it interesting that you harp on anecdotal evidence and your entire handwaving of signs you can see at Tea Party events involves pointing out ONE incident where a particularly offensive sign bearer was thrown out. Like that's not defending your position about the overall Tea Party based off one cherrypicked anecdote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

-sticks fingers in ears- lalalalalallalala

[PanzerJaeger]

I could just as easily turn around and say your defense of the Tea Party is based on circumstantial or anecdotal cases of where they're actually coherent or avoiding overtly radical or offensive rhetoric, because with a fragmented group like this there's always wiggle room for someone to do exactly as you are doing, and merely flicking your wrist to wave off the unsavory character of the party as just a fringe minimal element.

This feels quite a bit like an appeal to ignorance. You're making the claim, you need to prove it. So far, you've offered some very limited anecdotal evidence that is disputed by at least one statistical analysis. I can find limited anecdotal evidence that paints nearly any large group of people in all sorts of negative lights.

Is that it? Have you ever been to a political rally? Crazy people write crazy things on signs. You'll have to do considerably better if you want to portray the six signs you posted as representative of the feelings of the entire movement.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/ringobushitler17.jpg


Let's put it this way PanzerJaeger... when you have to routinely conduct damage control because people who support your cause are always showing up with signs alluding to wishing for Kennedy solutions or making racially charged denouncements of the President, that says something. Of course the Tea Party isn't going to put "we have a lot of people who hate blacks" in its official charter for me to pull out and show you. So what? All you are doing is spin doctoring something that is pretty obvious to anyone who's paid the least bit of attention to the movement (and isn't a staunch supporter of it.)

And yet, you saying it is the case does not make it so. :shrug:

I'm still waiting for evidence of 'large numbers' of Tea Partiers using racial epithets or any other widespread demonstration of Tea Party racism. It is somewhat difficult to refute evidence you haven't even provided.



I also find it interesting that you harp on anecdotal evidence and your entire handwaving of signs you can see at Tea Party events involves pointing out ONE incident where a particularly offensive sign bearer was thrown out. Like that's not defending your position about the overall Tea Party based off one cherrypicked anecdote.

Actually, I've gone considerably beyond that in offering a source that directly refutes your 'six signs = Tea Party sentiment' line of reasoning. But really, what else can I do? You've offered nothing but anecdote, and thus I must respond via anecdote. Double shrug for you. :shrug: :shrug:

[Koga No Goshi]

You believe as you like, Panzer. You're resorting to burden of proof arguments in the realm of political charcterizations which is a really bad application of logic and most likely just a means to 'win' an argument in the face of overwhelming common sense. After all, I could pull out a hard stat that 85% of Tea Party people dislike blacks and you could say "oh but that's not racism." It's fairly clear in the exchange here that this is your style given that you could not even concede that Obama being called out as a Kenyan or Muslim has anything to do with race at all and tried to make some ridiculous dismissal that the same would happen to anyone with an unusual family heritage... the fact that few Americans would even ask where a white candidate's grandparents came from is just beside the point, right?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Your demand for evidence is a clever way to support your denial because everyone knows that polls never give the truth about the breakdown of groups. Especially when it comes to their thoughts.

Any sort of poll that would try to find out how much racism there is in the organization is going to be immediately worthless due to responder bias. No one comes out and tells Rasmussen that they don't want the black man in the white house because that sentiment is recognized by all as being on the losing side in history.

Oh yeah, no one is racist against the illegal hispanic immigrants were just don't like them taking our jobs even though all of our European ancestors did the same thing...

When it comes to how large groups in society operate and think, everyone that is not part of the group knows what it really is. Those within the group only know what they want it to be. Everyone knows that there are black haters in the tea party and it is what drove it to become big in 2008 despite Bush committing the same economic policies without any sort of peep besides the Ron Paul supporters.

[Koga No Goshi]

Exactly. If the Tea Party legitimately is about fiscal responsibility first and foremost, it should have been a reaction to the two Bush terms... not to Obama's presidency.

That simple fact alone invalidates any claim that their opposition is purely political or only in response to Obama's political stances and nothing else.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This really says it all about the mental loops you are making here.


It's just too easy not to exploit, but that exploitation is based more in the great American tradition of spreading vicious and unfounded rumors about political opponents than racism. Its essence is that he is different, not that he is black.

So they don't degrade him because he is black, they degrade him because of his differences. And the difference they specifically pick out, is his black background. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


So when the first gay president comes in, all the protestors calling him an AIDS infested faggot are not homophobes, they are just taking advantage of his different lifestyle.

[Koga No Goshi]

This really says it all about the mental loops you are making here.



So they don't degrade him because he is black, they degrade him because of his differences. And the difference they specifically pick out, is his black background. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


So when the first gay president comes in, all the protestors calling him an AIDS infested faggot are not homophobes, they are just taking advantage of his different lifestyle.

But you'd have to prove that they said it and if there are signs saying that at any big gathering, they wouldn't count.

See what I did there?

[a completely inoffensive name]

But you'd have to prove that they said it and if there are signs saying that at any big gathering, they wouldn't count.

See what I did there?

Of course silly me. There is no such thing as a radical/racist/prejudiced group because no matter what people in it say, there are similar statements in all the other big groups so they must actually be on the level because every single poll says that they don't consider themselves to be radical/racist/prejudice.

I mean, the KKK at its heart is actually just a southern heritage club, I mean sure there are statements that are out there in its demonstrations all the time but it isn't anything that is not seen in other groups as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

You believe as you like, Panzer. You're resorting to burden of proof arguments in the realm of political charcterizations which is a really bad application of logic and most likely just a means to 'win' an argument in the face of overwhelming common sense. After all, I could pull out a hard stat that 85% of Tea Party people dislike blacks and you could say "oh but that's not racism." It's fairly clear in the exchange here that this is your style given that you could not even concede that Obama being called out as a Kenyan or Muslim has anything to do with race at all and tried to make some ridiculous dismissal that the same would happen to anyone with an unusual family heritage... the fact that few Americans would even ask where a white candidate's grandparents came from is just beside the point, right?

Prove to me that the vast majority of left wingers are not communist, anti-american, anti-semetic lunatics. Here are a bunch of signs from an anti-war rally on March 20, 2010 that vaguely reinforce my assertion.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Ringo_008.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_0883.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Ringo_004.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_3185.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_3129.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_3104.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_3098.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_3079.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_2996.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_2981.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_0877.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_0868.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_0862.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/IMG_0852.jpg

Surely you can see the weakness of your position?



Your demand for evidence is a clever way to support your denial...

Really? :dizzy2:

Is it really that obtuse to ask for evidence of racism before applying the label to such a wide swath of people? When did supposition replace proof as the basic standard on which we base factual discussions?

There is a name for such unprovable known-knowns. Faith.

[Koga No Goshi]

We gave you proof, signs at almost any large gathering of note. It's not the bearded covered with pins Vietnam vet crazies who just go from one political event to another as lifers who have crazy signs. It's pretty normal everyday people attending Tea Party rallies. There is also any number of statements of vitriol and even exhortations to violence and a whole pool of rhetoric from Tea Party supporters about white slavery and anti-Obama statements that fuse into a miasma of anti-black, anti-african character attacks calling him a Kenyan Muslim and everything else.

And of COURSE the established leadership of the Tea Party as such is going to, at least when cornered on the issue in front of a camera or interview, denounce racism. Their ability to do that is really the only thing that keeps the keel of the Tea Party movement at all microscopically above the moral highground of such lovely groups as the Westboro Baptists.

And all you've got is a burden of scientific evidence excuse for how signs and such can't be taken as any indication of a group's sentiment or as an indication of a motivating factor for at least a good portion of that group-- even if those signs show up rather consistently, enough to create regular media controversy which has to be constantly damage controlled.

At this point it's like Gutmench said, you are plugging your ears and playing rhetoric games. That's all you are doing.

As for "America-hating" on the left and such, that is what the right ROUTINELY accuses the left of all the time, in EVERY political cycle anyway. Bush was 8 years of being called a terrorist-sympathizing America hater anytime you opposed ANYTHING Bush wanted, whether it was invading Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 or allowing him to wiretap phones and spy on e-mails with a blank check. So I have no idea what you think you are bluffing by saying "well what if we take signs from the left and draw conclusions from it." The political right in America doesn't need signs or care about signs, they say the left is a bunch of anti-American un-American pseudo Americans all the time as a constant, regular part of their rhetoric. Without proof and without substantiation of any kind, just because it's a useful divisive bit of rhetoric.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Really? :dizzy2:

Is it really that obtuse to ask for evidence of racism before applying the label to such a wide swath of people? When did supposition replace proof as the basic standard on which we base factual discussions?

There is a name for such unprovable known-knowns. Faith.

You just blatantly ignored my reason why it is a joke you are asking for evidence. The fact is the Tea Party is not a wide swath. They are WASPs. Mostly middle aged to elderly.

Like I said, the KKK is just a southern heritage group because of the same logic you are applying.

It's called calling a spade a spade. And it doesn't mean that the goals the tea party wants are "bad" but they are motivated by hateful and disgusting reasons.

[PanzerJaeger]

So I have no idea what you think you are bluffing by saying "well what if we take signs from the left and draw conclusions from it." The political right in America doesn't need signs or care about signs, they say the left is a bunch of anti-American un-American pseudo Americans all the time as a constant, regular part of their rhetoric. Without proof and without substantiation of any kind, just because it's a useful divisive bit of rhetoric.

:laugh4:

Seriously? That statement is literally dripping with hypocrisy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

:laugh4:

Seriously? That statement is literally dripping with hypocrisy.

What is the Fox news equivalent for the left? If you say MSNBC, I would have to say try harder.

[PanzerJaeger]

You just blatantly ignored my reason why it is a joke you are asking for evidence. The fact is the Tea Party is not a wide swath. They are WASPs. Mostly middle aged to elderly.

Like I said, the KKK is just a southern heritage group because of the same logic you are applying.

No, there is easily provable (http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm) evidence (http://www.kkk.bz/howtoget.htm) that the KKK is a racist organization. Why can't you come up with similar evidence against the Tea Party? Show me a Tea Party platform that declares America a white nation.


It's called calling a spade a spade.

Yikes. That wouldn't be my choice of words. :laugh4:


What is the Fox news equivalent for the left? If you say MSNBC, I would have to say try harder.

I do not understand.

Koga just got done exhorting me for challenging his signage=sentiment argument, and immediately ranted about the Right using signs to mischaracterize the Left without proof! Funny stuff. :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

:laugh4:

Seriously? That statement is literally dripping with hypocrisy.

Obama bashing on a line that frequently wanders WELL into purely racially-based cuts on his character is a common trait of the Tea Party. It's what lands them in headlines constantly.

Play all the rhetoric games in your own head that you please, it doesn't change that fact.

If you dislike that portrayal of the Tea Party I propose you take it up with them, rather than spending your time futilely trying to convince people on internet forums with rhetoric circles that they didn't actually hear all that offensive racist rhetoric or see those signs, they were just imagining it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, there is easily provable (http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm) evidence (http://www.kkk.bz/howtoget.htm) that the KKK is a racist organization. Why can't you come up with similar evidence against the Tea Party? Show me a Tea Party platform that declares America a white nation.
That is just one website. I can find a bunch of other websites for liberals and tea partyers that say the same thing. Doesn't mean the group as a whole is all about that.



Yikes. That wouldn't be my choice of words. :laugh4:

Thank you for just proving my point.

[Koga No Goshi]

No, there is easily provable (http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm) evidence (http://www.kkk.bz/howtoget.htm) that the KKK is a racist organization. Why can't you come up with similar evidence against the Tea Party? Show me a Tea Party platform that declares America a white nation.



Yikes. That wouldn't be my choice of words. :laugh4:



I do not understand.

Koga just got done exhorting me for challenging his signage=sentiment argument, and immediately ranted about the Right using signs to mischaracterize the Left without proof! Funny stuff. :laugh4:

You are trying to make us prove a claim that the Tea Party in its official public statements or in its express charter has said someting racist. We made no such claim. We said that there is most definitely racism in the ranks of the Tea Party movement. I believe that would be a straw man, but I'll be kind and say you were simply inventing or shifting goalposts.

I don't need to prove anything is in their charter nor do I even need to pull up hard stats to claim there is racism in the Tea Party movement. One sign at one rally is more than enough, but when it's a lot of signs at a lot of rallies, and a lot of rhetoric from a lot of members...