U.S. Debt discussion

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Off topic question.... But why would Apple want to hold that much cash in their reserves? As opposed to reinvesting it or buying up other assets?

Probably because they have no idea how to invest it.

[Delthefunky]

Yeah they should totally invest it in making more annoying commercials. God I hate them.

[Azure]

The fact that so many people in the US aren't paying any taxes is probably a good as reason as any to support a flat tax on income.

20% across the board. Anyone under $25,000 in income is exempt.

Put that together with a consumption tax of say 5% federally, with things like groceries, baby clothes, pills, etc, etc being exempt, and you're probably in a much better situation that you are now.

But either way, Obama told the Republicans today that he is willing to look at tax reform and entitlement reform, and willing to write some sort of law that forces them to be accountable to making those reforms happen.

Still think the $3 trillion in cuts along with $600 billion more in revenue is the best plan going forward.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

Probably because they have no idea how to invest it.

They might have issued debt and accumulated cash because they feel the cost of borrowing will never be this good again, anticipating future plans. This is a fairly common trend in corporate America right now.

Cowperson

[Azure]

Hell the cuts are actually easy when you start breaking everything down.

The $70 billion spent on housing prisoners is a good start. Especially when you start thinking about the 'petty' crimes that will land you in prison.

It costs up to $9 billion per year just to incarcerate those that cannot afford bail, and most of those people are non-violent 'criminals.'

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

They might have issued debt and accumulated cash because they feel the cost of borrowing will never be this good again, anticipating future plans. This is a fairly common trend in corporate America right now.

Cowperson

I borrowed an extra 100k when I remortgaged, I figured the 3.75 rate I borrowed it at will be long gone in a year or two when I might want to use it.
I was planning on rebuilding part of my house, although that has gone on a back burner now as I figure 100,000 down will probably pay for most of a second house in Vancouver if interest rates hit 8% in the next year or 2.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

BTW...from my seat as an American, what is going on right now with this on Capitol Hill is flat out embarassing, and both parties, their leadership and the President should be ashamed of themselves.

This would be my feeling as well if I was living in the States, or if Canada was in the same situation. I'm far from a socialist but the fact that most Republicans care more about their wall street and oil buddies getting richer before helping their own people and country out is just sad. I could only imagine what the Founding Fathers would think of this if they had to witness this, I'm sure they would be ashamed of what they have built!

[Slava]

The Republican bill has passed, but isn't expected to pass the senate. Its expected this will pave the way for a bipartisan effort to pass at the 11th hour...

[MelBridgeman]

Well since the goverment always bails out the corporate world maybe its time for the corporate world to bail out uncle sam...apparently Apple has more cash on reserve than uncle sam

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I honestly can't see how you create non-govenment jobs without businesses making and being able to keep a lot of their money.

Why can't jobs be governmental?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The GOP with the tea party has passed 2 different proposals and might be on the verge of offering a third solution.

Reid if he gets this one through the Senate will have offered 1 solution.

That only makes sense if you see the GOP solutions as quality. If all you're offering is garbage, you're not cooperating. Quality of solutions is what matters, not quantity.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Are you sure? Obama's big spending last year didn't improve the economy and this year with far less to play with the economy has niether crashed or improved.

That's because Obama's "big" spending was on corporate bailouts. Supply-side economics. The lack of job creation reflects that the type of economic management you're advocating for is ineffective.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Spain got put on watch for a downgrade today, so even a downgraded US rating of AA would seem less risky in comparison, so there must be some funds flowing into Treasuries from that. The USD is up today too. As for the 3 Month, LIBOR is spiking a little as banks are more concerned about each other as counterparties than the US government. As a result there might be some money moving into 90-day T-bills as a result to overcompensate for the risk of a US default.

Not really sure, but just my guess from looking at what's going on.

I'd would also guess that at the moment investors are using up all the other AAA places to put their money, at some point in time they have to go back to the US and assess what that risk is worth.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Republican bill has passed, but isn't expected to pass the senate. Its expected this will pave the way for a bipartisan effort to pass at the 11th hour...

Same here.

There will be compromises on both sides, but they will pass it at the last minute.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why can't jobs be governmental?

Because the private sector can provide certain services for a lot cheaper and are a lot more efficient in the process?

Don't get me wrong, the government SHOULD still provide certain things. But as an example, the immense growth in the IRS the past few years hasn't accomplished anything economically for the US.

That's because Obama's "big" spending was on corporate bailouts. Supply-side economics. The lack of job creation reflects that the type of economic management you're advocating for is ineffective.

It is even debatable whether or not Canada did anything to help the economy with out 'stimulus.' Sure infrastructure spending does create jobs, but it is such a big help?

The recession happened because the US government got into bed with Wall Street and allowed for a perfect situation to be created where massive amounts of money were transferred from the taxpayer to big businesses throughout the US, most notably big banks.

A lot of other countries still felt the shock, but certain countries, like Canada, escaped without major, major problems. Our financial regulation was a big part of that.

So in the end, the US won't get anywhere unless they have proper regulations in place to keep problems like that from happening.

[Azure]

Interesting clause in the GOP bill.

The second stage would involve the creation of a new committee made up of 12 lawmakers from both parties and both chambers. The committee would be tasked with identifying an additional $1.8 trillion in cuts before the end of the year. If the committee made recommendations and they were adopted, Obama would be authorized to raise the debt limit into early 2013 without explicit congressional approval.

I think that is what you should go for. Force the government to adopt real cuts, and in exchange you give up the debt ceiling fight.

I find it rather hilarious how some posters here think cutting government spending is bad for the economy, when government spending is out of control, and the economy is in the crapper.

Nevermind the fact that we're talking about losing your AAA status if you don't cut up to $4 trillion over 10 years.

Either way, I'm still pretty optimistic. I think the biggest key should be in getting both parties to form a committee that spends the next year going through every single federal program, and finding more places where you can cut spending.

Considering the US is probably going to spend almost $50 trillion over the next 10 years, cuts of $3 trillion are pretty ridiculous.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why can't jobs be governmental?

Government on a whole doesn't contribute any sort of real products or services to the economy and serves more as a drain. I'm not saying that government isn't necessary but limiting the size of government would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by SebC

That only makes sense if you see the GOP solutions as quality. If all you're offering is garbage, you're not cooperating. Quality of solutions is what matters, not quantity.

Well in your opinion that GOP solutions were garbage. My opinion is that they were very good and valid solutions. When government has a spending problem spending needs to be cut. Don't get me wrong I'm not exactly in favor of increasing taxes but closing of some loopholes and expanding the taxpayer based would have been useful but that doesn't mean that the bills were "garbage".

I don't see why it's so terrible to force the government to balance it's budget. Individuals in their own households have to so why not government? I could see putting in some limited exceptions for borrowing funds but this should be the exception and not the rule.

Originally Posted by SebC

That's because Obama's "big" spending was on corporate bailouts. Supply-side economics. The lack of job creation reflects that the type of economic management you're advocating for is ineffective.

I disagree with corporate bailouts and didn't think it was a good idea. That being said how are corporate bailouts are supply-side economics. Anyway don't forget that a significant portion of Obamas big spending also were directed to states and were supposed to go shovel ready (infrastructure) projects. Projects that were not as shovel ready has he first thought and saw fit to crack a joke about it.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I don't see why it's so terrible to force the government to balance it's budget.

Bouncing cheques != balanced budget.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Bouncing cheques != balanced budget.

I swear the only reason you ever post on CP is to arrogantly shoot down anything certain posters say, no matter if they have a point or not.

Either way, the balanced budget isn't such a bad idea if its done properly. No reason the government shouldn't at least try to live within its means.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

I swear the only reason you ever post on CP is to arrogantly shoot down anything certain posters say, no matter if they have a point or not.

Preposterous.

[Jag_Gator]

Both plans stink and so do both parties. As an American living in Canada, I must say that it is quite embarrassing watching this political circus.

In order to get this debt beast under control, there has to be dramatic military cuts. There are US military bases everywhere. But none of those clowns are talking about that.

My first post btw. Hello all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jag_Gator

Both plans stink and so do both parties. As an American living in Canada, I must say that it is quite embarrassing watching this political circus.

In order to get this debt beast under control, there has to be dramatic military cuts. There are US military bases everywhere. But none of those clowns are talking about that.

My first btw. Hello all.

They are actually talking about the cuts obtained from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down.

But either way, I think you save more money by paying more attention to how much money the Pentagon throws around blindly without anyone keeping an eye on them.