U.S. Debt discussion

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I personally don't think the Tea partiers were reckless in their defiance of raising the debt ceiling. They were acting on the platform they ran on and were elected on.

Non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Shasta Beast

That country needs to get out of a two party system badly. Too large and complex to put up with this partisan bullsh*t.

Two party system is the logical outcome of first-past-the-post. Getting out of the two party system would require massive constituional change.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

The money government lends out is not returned if and only if people park it in a non-taxable account. Forever.

Furthermore, the bank has to take that money and not lend it out.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Its funny there is a whole continent with little or no goverment interference, almost no taxes or services to speak of, and yet somehow Africa isn't doing so well.

Whaaaa??? What do you think happened to all the money that has been sunk into Africa? Almost a Trillion dollars has disappeared.

[HOZ]

An Opinion piece in the WASHINGTON POST

Democrats lost on virtually every issue of principle (taxes, a clean debt bill, real spending cuts) because the president insisted above all else on getting himself to the next election without another showdown. (That position became more sympathetic to those who agonized through the last week or so.)


Republicans should be cautious. The House held off the president and the Senate. It refused to raise taxes, and thereby maintained a stark and compelling distinction between the parties. It made some real, if not overwhelming, cuts. More was not possible. You can’t get Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform bill with only the House. You can't insure an adequate level of defense spending with only the House. You can’t get Medicaid and Social Security reform with only the House.
Relief is the prevalent emotion for conservatives — relief that the Tea Party didn’t divide the party, that the speaker maintained the affection and loyalty of his caucus, that taxes weren’t raised and that at least we are moving in the right direction.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Whaaaa??? What do you think happened to all the money that has been sunk into Africa? Almost a Trillion dollars has disappeared.

My point exactly, vast amounts of money have been given to the ruling class of Africa, they live in countries with little or no tax regime and little or no goverment, and an abundent pool of cheap labour, virtually no legal restraints on working conditions or the enviroment.

According to the Chicago School/Tea Party Loons this should be a recipe for economic success, this money should have been used to create companies and employment in a classic 'trickle down' model.

In reality in Africa, as in the US the rich tend to save their money and are likely to move it offshore.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So did American business expansion and success make America wealthy or did American regulation and taxation make America the country it is today?

A vast country full of abundant natural resources made the US wealthy, as it did us.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You don't know much about Africa then......

Africa for the most part is controlled by ruthless dictators, multi-national corporations, the U.N. and of course the I.M.F. (loans) running their finance/economy....

That is a whole lot of interference...

My thoughts on taxes and government jobs.....governments are notorious for not being able to manage money/people properly, and tons of waste and even corruption usually results.

The private sector tends to run their businesses more efficiently from a personnel and finance standpoint, and is much more productive. Lower taxes is always better. I was under the impression that when you increase taxes on people, you tend to get less tax revenue, because the unemployed/under-employed just don't bother to pay.

These are generally the people that run countries when there is little or no goverment oversight.

The less goverment regulation and taxation the more you leave things in the hands of oligarchs and ruthless #######s, they don't build roads or hospitals or Universities as they are only concerned with their own wealth and don't care if an effective education or transportation system is in fact imperitive to a countries economic growth.
This is what has effectively stopped Russia from achieving its potential, if they can ever get an effective democracy and legal system going there the US will find itself falling to third place in the world in short order. China on the other hand has a very effective goverment who have invested heavily in infrastrucure, education, as has the goverment in India (also socialist for much of the time since independance).

[Hemi-Cuda]

so i saw The Daily Show's take on this deal, and it appears that the democrats caved again. it's pretty sad how ineffectual Obama has been as president, he and the democratic party seem to have very little backbone compared to the republicans. he caves on his heathcare bill and it gets gutted to a shell of what it should have been, he doesn't follow through on his promise to close Guantanamo, he caves to republicans again on eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and now aside from the tea party wingnuts, the republicans get everything they want again and Obama is sitting their holding his dick

i really thought when he was elected that he could actually follow through on his campaign for change, and bring around an era of responsibility that US politics has lacked for so long. but aside from getting Bin Laden, he has come across as a very weak leader

[SebC]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

A vast country full of abundant natural resources made the US wealthy, as it did us.

There's more to it than that... lots of other places have resources, but not a lot of wealth.

IMHO a huge part of why the US has done rather well is an emphasis on science. This makes it ironic that they havea sinificant movement that is so strongly anti-science that also claims to want a strong economy. This movement is already affecting the US economy, as stuff likes stem cell research finds more welcoming hosts in places like Singapore.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by SebC

There's more to it than that... lots of other places have resources, but not a lot of wealth.

IMHO a huge part of why the US has done rather well is an emphasis on science. This makes it ironic that they havea sinificant movement that is so strongly anti-science that also claims to want a strong economy. This movement is already affecting the US economy, as stuff likes stem cell research finds more welcoming hosts in places like Singapore.

I would say over the last 150 years there is nowhere that has had the access to resources the US and Canada have, obviously inheriting a stable legal and economic system from the UK helped and without an open immigration policy in the 19th century the resources wouldn't have been exploited but nowhere else had the relatively accesable resource base.

The USSR/Russia is the only country that comes close but their resource base was virtually unreachable in Siberia and so really only exploitable in the last 60 years, the US had coal, oil and ore throughout the eastern seaboard from Texas to Kentucky to Ohio as well as a the vast food producing regions of the mid west, no other country had anything close to this wealth.

[Daradon]

I have no idea what to think about this deal. For a lot of his first term, it looked like Obama was largely ineffectual because of the massive split between the two parties and the republicans want to put up roadblocks to much of his legislation, like this current example. But now I can't help but wonder if a lot of it is his own fault or own doing. He's really gotta take the reigns on some of these issues. Disappointing, from all sides.

[gargamel]

Obama is in the unenviable position of playing chicken with a group of people who have nothing to lose. Obama caves? They get what they want. Obama stands his ground, the U.S. defaults and the economy tanks? Blame Obama because it happened on his watch, get their own guy in there, then get what they want.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Obama is in the unenviable position of playing chicken with a group of people who have nothing to lose. Obama caves? They get what they want. Obama stands his ground, the U.S. defaults and the economy tanks? Blame Obama because it happened on his watch, get their own guy in there, then get what they want.

I understand this is how a lot of people are looking at it, and I did for a while too, but now I'm not so sure. I read an article about how there was 3 ways he could bypass the house if things got real bad. I'm sure there's some emergency measures one could act. Or just call the republicans bluff and if they still refuse to make a deal let them have the egg on their faces. I'm sure it would look just as bad on them as him.

I really don't like the idea of being combative, cause that's the last the the US needs right now, but if one party (group within a party) is going to act that childish, you have to tough it out or put the screws to them somehow. It's the fact that he didn't that makes me more suspicious and upset than anything else.

[Rockin' Flames]

I've been wondering this for a while. For all those people that want a tax increase on the wealthy and big business, what income level do you classify as wealthy for a 4 person household (ie. 2 parents & 2 children)? What income level do you classify a big business as a big business and no longer a small business?

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I would say over the last 150 years there is nowhere that has had the access to resources the US and Canada have, obviously inheriting a stable legal and economic system from the UK helped and without an open immigration policy in the 19th century the resources wouldn't have been exploited but nowhere else had the relatively accesable resource base.

The USSR/Russia is the only country that comes close but their resource base was virtually unreachable in Siberia and so really only exploitable in the last 60 years, the US had coal, oil and ore throughout the eastern seaboard from Texas to Kentucky to Ohio as well as a the vast food producing regions of the mid west, no other country had anything close to this wealth.

The accessibility to natural resources in North America is, as SebC mentioned, a result of the development of science and technology.

[SeeBass]

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I've been wondering this for a while. For all those people that want a tax increase on the wealthy and big business, what income level do you classify as wealthy for a 4 person household (ie. 2 parents & 2 children)? What income level do you classify a big business as a big business and no longer a small business?

IIRC, Obama and the Democrats stated that only people with an income greater than $250,000 per year would see a tax increase under their plan. While there's obviously a huge gap between making $250k and being Bill Gates, I think by anyone's definition you're doing pretty well for yourself if you gross a quarter million per year.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

IIRC, Obama and the Democrats stated that only people with an income greater than $250,000 per year would see a tax increase under their plan. While there's obviously a huge gap between making $250k and being Bill Gates, I think by anyone's definition you're doing pretty well for yourself if you gross a quarter million per year.

This is a pretty well written article about if $250,000 should really be considered wealthy. For those who don't feel like reading it the conclusion is:

The bottom line: For folks like the Joneses -- who live in high-tax, high-cost areas, who save for retirement and college, who pay for child care to enable them to earn two incomes and who pay higher prices for housing in top school districts -- $250,000 does not a rich family make.

It just seems like the $250,000 just doesn't make sense to be the definition for wealthy. Maybe 10 - 15 years ago but not in todays environment.

[VladtheImpaler]

Anybody that depends on salary is not "wealthy", with the obvious exceptions. Upper middle class or upper upper middle class certainly, but the distance from there to "wealthy" is enormous. Not to mention, there is a big difference between a salary of $250K in Manhattan and in Fargo.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

This is a pretty well written article about if $250,000 should really be considered wealthy. For those who don't feel like reading it the conclusion is:



It just seems like the $250,000 just doesn't make sense to be the definition for wealthy. Maybe 10 - 15 years ago but not in todays environment.

That's a horrible article.

Some of the expenses incurred by couples like the Joneses may seem lavish -- such as $5,000 on a housecleaner, a $1,200 annual tab for dry cleaning and $4,000 on kids' activities. But when both parents are working, it is impossible for them to maintain the home, care for the children and dress for their professional jobs without a big outlay.

Yeah, whatever. What a load of crap.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

This is a pretty well written article about if $250,000 should really be considered wealthy. For those who don't feel like reading it the conclusion is:


It just seems like the $250,000 just doesn't make sense to be the definition for wealthy. Maybe 10 - 15 years ago but not in todays environment.

Are we talking total household income or individual salaries? A househld with two earners, one making $150k and the other making $100k (or any other combination that adds up to $250k), would not see a tax increase under Obama's proposal.

In any event, having an income of $250k or more puts one in the top 1.5% of American households (source). If that's not considered wealthy, then what is? I contend that if you can't manage your finances properly with an income of $250k or more, then you fail home economics forever considering $250k is eight times the median American household income ($31k, source).