Printable View
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
Well that did not take long. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Sums up my thoughts pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Waki
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.
At this point, the first bills the Treasury should not pay is the Congressional paychecks.
Ah, the latest Republican meme, "Obama has no plan!" And yet multiple sources and published articles have revealed details* 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
This entire episode is a manufactured crisis. And I find republicans fulminating about debt now to have the stink of born-again virgins about them. Two trillion-dollar off-budget wars combined with tax cuts and a new giveaway to old people? 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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Waki
I don't get it.Quote:
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.
One of the phrases in the 14th is that the debts of the United States shall not be questioned. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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. Fortunately, Obama is no Julius Caesar.
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.
If we're all gonna get hoit, I'd rather be kicked in the butt than in the groin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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:
Quote:
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.
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.
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, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Re: storming, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to get into who has been more rude and impossible? 'Cause there's plenty of that to go around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
In other words, what are you on about?
AII
These people are adults, why is this happening?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
Once the old people die we'll have more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Likely for power and influence. That's how adults play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
oops.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
No but I have been a manservant and service is its own reward. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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.
Are your parents dead yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
:laugh4: No I don't wish for anyone to die. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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:
Not to nit pick, but California pays more to the federal government than it receives from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
http://www.lazlow.com/uploaded_image...2_o-748920.jpg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
AII
Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Just like Lowering Taxes during wartime is a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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% 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.
And how does re-arguing this solve anything? Not very "adult", I must say....Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Waki
Telling the truth is very mature. Little kids fib all the time, not adults, except when it comes to spouses and cops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Hillary Clinton wants to talk to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gutmensch
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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 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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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.
the plan just passed in the house.
and then the senate voted it down i believe.
Edit: damn conflicting news
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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....
Im interested in calling the bluff.
If we defualt Im going to be spending allot more time here
DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT
It's a repeal of one particular tax and the closing of loopholesQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Or else it will just fall on the back of the middle and working class. Ho hum, rich get richer, poor get poorer
Wait, Obama has a plan? Links plz.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gutmensch
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.Quote:
Not increase taxes, but close loopholes.
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:Quote:
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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:
Certainly not. Out of work? Sorry, you have to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
AII
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
AII
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.
Sounds like paradise, I must move to the US one of these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
AII
Such an idealist. I'm a pragmatist.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
AII
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:
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)
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
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
I think this song is appropriate for the situation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBQYWCw8n_k
This song is actually good and speaks more clearly to the core of the issue.
I was thinking more along these lines.
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?
damnit. we were so close this time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I think maybe TSMG was hoping for something like the Road Warrior but with more family values.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Here's a sketch of the deal:
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.
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 *
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Agreed.Quote:
Taxes should be as simple as humanly possible, both for the individual to understand and the state to enforce.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That would be where basic economics come into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I said "we should eliminate deductions and lower rates accordingly". Read it again, think about it for awhile, then respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Not exactly true. Or, at least, not confirmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.