Hookers and blow for page 2.

4/18/2011 7:02:44 PM

^^illegal wars and corporate tax loopholes

4/18/2011 7:06:24 PM

In seriousness, raising the debt ceiling will do absolutely nothing towards moving to fiscal responsibility, but it will prevent almost certain chaos in the short run. And by preventing short-term chaos, it saves the longshot chance they get shit in order.

But only after the next election. But then mid-terms will be coming, so we can't take it on then, and then 2016 will be here. So it's really a matter of delaying the day of reckoning to save the chance of getting things in order before it explodes.

4/18/2011 7:09:10 PM

^that answer makes more sense to me.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:11 PM. Reason : ^^srsly? all of it? ]

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM. Reason : fhgfgh]

4/18/2011 7:11:37 PM

The Republicans want the Americans to realize we're fucked by cutting things slowly and keeping the lights on.

The Democrats want the Americans to realize nothing so they are taken completely by surprise when the country collapses in the next few months or years.

4/18/2011 7:28:05 PM

4/18/2011 7:29:38 PM

^this is why cc cannot have great things.

4/18/2011 7:36:29 PM

Quote :

"if we've spent so much damn cash on unnecessary stuff why would raising the debt ceiling magically make us start spending money wisely? it just seems counter intuative. i mean i understand that we need more money to generate money, but i dont think i trust those in power to use that extra debt wisely. "

theoretically, electing responsible representatives. in reality, nothing really.

and i think your last portion hits the nail on the head.

like mappy said, it doesnt move us toward responsibility, but should we act responsibly, it can be a powerful tool. Just like getting a mortgage to buy a house effectively raises your personal debt ceiling. you can do it responsibly within your means, or you can be a dumb ass about it.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2011 7:36:55 PM

I, too, encourage responsible spending.

4/18/2011 7:38:49 PM

Joie, we started running a budget surplus under President Clinton after he and the Democratic party raised the top marginal tax rates on the rich from 36% to 39%.

Bush and the republicans pissed it all away.

4/18/2011 7:40:46 PM

^i've seen those figures, i know there was a surplus....

did spending decrease or did taxes increase?





[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM. Reason : ?]

4/18/2011 7:45:03 PM

Anybody have a guess at what it would take to cover deficit now? Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to know how hard the upper crust would need to be hit to bring us into the black.

4/18/2011 7:47:20 PM

hey AlaskanGrown, fuck you, this isn't the soap box

i'm not against having real discussions here in shit chat

but you can fucking bet fat black asses will be sprinkled liberally here and there

4/18/2011 7:47:43 PM

Joie, it was a combination of both.

Tax increases on the rich and cuts in military and domestic spending.

4/18/2011 7:48:24 PM

4/18/2011 7:50:12 PM

nice.



im gonna have to look this up later.
i wanna see some figures.
im not against raising taxes but i AM against irresponsible spending.


i swear yall, ive been reading up more and more about economics in the past 2-3 weeks b/c of chit chat thatn i have in a long, long time.
thanks yall

4/18/2011 7:51:00 PM

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2011 7:51:24 PM

Quote :

"So do I buy guns or butter?"

delicious buttery guns

4/18/2011 7:54:07 PM

I don't see why it can't be a combination of both. The problem with both extremes is that none of the major contributing factors get addressed. If you look at the Ryan plan they want to slash spending on things they don't like or isn't in the interests of their corporate overlords. That said, they shift the burden of medicare to the states, give even more (unfunded) tax breaks to the top 2%, and don't even touch bloated military spending. On the flip side, extreme democratic plans (not the one proposed by the president) simply call for tax hikes on the rich and corporations while not addressing entitlement (this is not an entirely evil word) spending which is a HUGE portion of the budget.

4/18/2011 7:55:37 PM

If you guys actually care at all you will take 5 minutes to read this. Educate yourself on this because this will be the most important phenomenon of our lifetime when the country collapses.

Quote :

" There Aren’t Enough Millionaires The rich can’t fund our deficits. This may sound like a liberal parody of conservative economic thinking, but let me put it out there: America’s problem is that the rich don’t have enough money. There, I said it. Let’s rumble. When it comes to the Scrooge McDuck set, the problem isn’t that they’re not rich enough, it’s that there aren’t enough rich — not enough to do what liberals want to do, anyway, which is to balance the budget by increasing taxes on them. Let’s deploy some always-suspect English-major math: There are lots of liberal definitions of “rich.” When Pres. Barack Obama talks about the rich, he’s talking about people living in households with income of more than $250,000 or more, the rarefied caviar-shoveling stratum occupied by the likes of second-tier public-broadcasting executives, Boston cops, nurses, and the city manager of Lubbock, Texas (assuming somebody in her household earns the last $25,000 to carry her over the line). Club 250K isn’t all that exclusive, and most of its members aren’t the yachts-and-expensive-mistresses types. Nonetheless, there aren’t that many of them. In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top. But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000. Which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize: Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg. But like certain other exclusive clubs, Club 250K has an inner sanctum, a special club within the club, the champagne room of socioeconomic status. And that is Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby. But the trouble for liberals is, Club 1 is really, really exclusive: Only 0.2 percent of U.S. households have incomes that high, meaning that there’s only about 200,000 of them. And like Club 250K, Club 1 is bottom-heavy: There are a lot more $1 million men than there are $6 million men. And there are a whole heck of a lot more $6 million men than there are $60 million men. You want to tax Club 1 to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying. Every time you raise the threshold for eating the rich, you get a much, much smaller serving of meat on the plate — but the deficit stays the same. The long division gets pretty ugly. You end up chasing a revenue will-o’-the-wisp. So, what about Lloyd Blankfein and Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods? What about these people? You can tax the striped pants off of them, but you won’t get enough money to balance the budget. If you’re doing it, you’re probably mostly doing it because it feels good. (And, yes, that does make you a bad person.) Correction: You can try to tax the striped pants off of them. Lloyd Blankfein and Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen have a lot of discretion about when, where, and how they get paid. Lloyd Blankfein does not look at a pay stub every two weeks and shake his head sadly, and make sad little sighing sounds; guys like that do something about it. They move to low-tax jurisdictions. They defer. They incorporate. They set up enormous trusts to keep their ne’er-do-well nephews in boat shoes and gin and political office while avoiding taxes. They lawyer up. They will play the game, and they are better at it than you are. So, how about taxing people who make less than $250,000? That’s probably whom you want to tax, since they are the ones who have the money (Counterintuitive, I know.) The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” cost the Treasury about $800 billion in forgone revenue; the Bush tax cuts for the middle class cost trillions – 2.2 of them, to be precise. Repealing all of those Bush tax cuts, for rich and middle class alike, gets you about $3 trillion — over ten years. The deficit is running from a third to almost half that every year. Will not balance. Does not compute. Just as supply-siders are naïve to think that tax cuts are going to magically empower us to grow our way out of this mess, progressives are naïve to think that there is some magically delicious pot of Lucky Charms at the end of the IRS rainbow that is going to get us out of this in some kind of obvious or straightforward fashion. No, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, but supply-side effects are real things, and jacking up tax rates to the level necessary to sustain current levels of government spending is going to have real economic consequences, some of which could in aggregate mean that you don’t collect the taxes you thought you were going to collect. This is doubly true when you already have the second-highest business-tax rate in the developed world and other significant economic challenges, like a backward K–12 education system making the work force less competitive and public infrastructure that is being neglected in favor of gimmicky political shenanigans. Capital is sensitive — it just wants to be loved! — and it will go where the love is, where it can be fruitful and multiply. Setting trillions of dollars’ worth of it ablaze on the altar of Washington’s self-importance every year is not going to get it done, and there simply aren’t enough rich people for us to pillage or enough loot to make it all work. We have finally, as the lady predicted, run out of other people’s money."

— Kevin D. Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/262045

4/18/2011 7:56:23 PM

Only retarded conservatives are the ones talking about ONLY the rich are going to be asked to solve our debt problems. This is an attempt to get people to say "well if taxing them won't solve all of our problems, they why tax them at all?" and that line of thinking simply won't work. Boo-hoo the top 2% being asked to pay what they did in the 90s when the economy was kicking ass. Oh the horror. . .

4/18/2011 8:00:21 PM

^ I don't know if you've noticed but Obama laid out his plan last week and his plan was to only tax the "rich" (those families making $250k+).


His other plan was tax code "reform" i.e. Let's get rid of tax deductions on the middle class so they pay more in taxes too. But he didn't have the balls to say taxes will go up on the middle class too. That doesnt make for a nice soundbyte. He said tax the rich, not almost everyone.

He's a fraud. You and 25% of the other white people haven't realized that yet because you're too goddam stubborn to admit you were wrong.

4/18/2011 8:04:50 PM

good read, thanks face

4/18/2011 8:09:49 PM

Yeah, "good read" from the mother-fucking National Review!

4/18/2011 8:19:10 PM

You really should read the article because it's important.

You can tax the everliving piss out of the "rich" people in this country. You can take 100% of everything they make after the first $250k. But even that won't balance the budget because our government is spending so damn much.

We will send them $2 trillion in taxes this year. That was more than enough to balance the budget in every political system in the history of the world until 2010. Now all the sudden we need $3.6 trillion to do the same thing? Have we become a vastly richer society or something? Why do you and I have to pay for politicians private airplanes, strippers, and bottles of expensive booze? Those are things we indirectly pay for because lobbyists and rich people buy them for politicians in exchange for hooking them up with tax breaks for the ultra rich and corporations.

Ask yourself why do people making $250k need to pay more taxes, why do people making $60k need to pay more taxes.... but guys making $50 million/yr need to pay less taxes? Where is the consistency. How about we just spend less until we can figure out precisely what the hell is going on in this 10,000 page tax code?

They want you to believe the govt is broke because they dont tax enough. What would any reasonable person, household, company, etc do when things are bad? Spend even more money? If they would spend LESS perhaps they wouldnt need to tax more? Not exactly a radical idea here.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM. Reason : a]

4/18/2011 8:22:24 PM

4/18/2011 8:25:17 PM

^are those both positive changes?

4/18/2011 8:26:32 PM

I'm still onboard.

4/18/2011 8:27:54 PM

^^Yes. Clinton's was bigger.

4/18/2011 8:28:37 PM

lol, i see that. i was just making sure that they weren't absolute changes

(im telling you, im not all too well versed on this stuff....but i know a little bit here and there!)

4/18/2011 8:29:37 PM

^^^^^ What a ridiculous comparison.

In the 90s we had a tech boom which resulted in a nearly unprecedented level of growth for our country (along with World War II ending and men returning to work in the 50's).

In the 2000's we were simultaneously experiencing a tech bust and a global shift in manufacturing base.

Had Bush not cut taxes, we would have had net job LOSSES, not net job gains like we actually experienced.

If Clinton hadn't raised taxes we would have had MORE job gains not less (even typing that makes me feel dumb it's so basic).


You can't prove cause and effect on flukes.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 8:30 PM. Reason : a]

4/18/2011 8:30:01 PM

ibtface

4/18/2011 8:30:12 PM

Bull. Tax cuts don't create jobs.

4/18/2011 8:31:04 PM

Let me rephrase that....tax cuts to the RICH don't create jobs.

4/18/2011 8:32:06 PM

I don't expect a troll like face to understand this but the president's plan is 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases, NOT merely "soak the rich". But continue wasting time with his talking point from the Heritage Foundation if you'd like.

4/18/2011 8:37:51 PM

The federal government just gave McDonalds, specifically, a gigantic tax break in October 2010.


McDonalds, specifically, just announced they will be hiring 50,000 workers in April, 2011.


You mean to tell me if large scale tax breaks were given to all companies, there aren't any out there who would be looking to hire more workers also?

4/18/2011 8:38:21 PM

What you are referring to is a temporary weaver from the healthcare law so they (being a giant ass company) will have time to ensure they can adequately comply. The 50,000 workers is because more McDonalds are looking to be open 24 hours. But then again don't let something like facts interfere with your nice attempt to connect the two....

4/18/2011 8:44:04 PM

Why don't you make an argument against face, I want to hear the other side of the story not some whining.

4/18/2011 8:46:22 PM

Let me explain something to you. Obama hasn't suggested a budget cut since he came into office.

That $39 billion they said they saved the other day? They got busted by the CBO two days later for fraudulent accounting. It really saved $350 million, not even 1% of the amount they lied about saving.

They can't even agree on $39 billion... a $1.6 trillion/per year (and growing deficit).... or a $14.3 trillion (and growing national debt) will never, ever be balanced or paid back.


But this isn't an argument about how we should do it or why we should do it.

This is making sure everyone understands that it can't be solved by simply taxing the "rich". Soaking the people making $250-$450k/yr might strip a family vacation, a new honda accord, or a few dinners at Outback Steakhouse... but it is not going to balance the budget.

Who needs to pay more? The ones making $60 million a year? Don't you get it... they will just find ways around paying the tax. They will mark their income as "capital gains" instead of income. They will move if they have to. They don't even really have to move, they'll probably just buy a boat slip in Ireland, incorporate in Antigua, and put the rest of their money in a tax deferred compensation plan.

(yeah rich people don't bother with 401k's, just so you know. They have way fancier retirement plans with all kinds of tax friendly rules. Study "deferred compensation plans" if you aren't aware of them, they make your 401k balance look like welfare).



But this isn't an argument about what is right and what is wrong. I am a Libertarian. First cousin of the liberal. We don't care what you smoke, if you go to church, or if you prefer fucking the same sex. We just think you should pay for your own weed and not steal it from others.

4/18/2011 8:47:29 PM

I mean they can create jobs however they want, anything to bring in more money.

4/18/2011 8:47:56 PM

The income tax is an ineffective way to collect taxes. Even if the rates are progressive (that is, higher percentage of earnings taxed the more you make), the tax itself is regressive, in that the rich are more able to understand (or hire someone that understands) and navigate the tax code. Thus, a value added flat tax of sorts, where goods used by all Americans have a lower sales tax (food, energy), and goods used primarily by the affluent are taxed at higher rates. There are no loop holes in a system like that, and it encourages saving, which we desperately need.

With that said, we're beyond the point of no return where simply redoing/raising taxes will cover the spread. We are going to have cut many government services. We need a complete reversal of foreign policy; unnecessary military bases should be sold, the wars need to be ended, and the bloated military industrial complex will have to be downsized substantially.

Additionally, entitlements (social security, medicare) have to be phased out. We can't cut those dependent on the system off as we'd have elderly dying in the streets, but it's just going to have to be accepted that those under a certain age are going to receive nothing. The FICA payroll cap of ~110,000 should be lifted - FICA will apply to the entire income.

The consequence of not addressing these two major areas - military and entitlement spending - is that our elderly literally starve to death in the streets. We are not doing them a favor by pretending there isn't a problem. I don't know how to state it more plainly and simply than that. Ignore those that say "healthcare reform" can solve our budget problems. Universal healthcare may be successfully implemented in countries that have their financial house in order, but we don't - our creditors are quickly catching on to the fact that we don't have an exit strategy. On the other side, those that claim we can simply "eliminate waste" and cut spending from NPR and PP are equally ridiculous. When China, and other countries, say "enough is enough, you guys are clearly not good for your debt, and we're done purchasing your treasuries," that's economic doomsday - either we default and the government shuts down, or the Fed starts printing, trigging a hyperinflationary event. Both would be devastating, so either our leaders get serious (and, to be clear, neither the Obama or Ryan plan are serious attempts to tackle the budget), or we watch our country suffer a spectacular depression.

4/18/2011 8:48:19 PM

Quote :

"it can't be solved by simply taxing the "rich"."

reversing the bush tax cuts solves the problem pretty much instantly

so shut the fuck up, you are wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXH5BeAAp24

4/18/2011 8:49:12 PM

Yes we can!

4/18/2011 8:49:53 PM

change

4/18/2011 8:51:00 PM

why can't we just just cut all programs by a certain percent?


its an honest question...

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 8:55 PM. Reason : after this though im backing out slowly. ]

4/18/2011 8:54:21 PM

d357r0y3r yes.

4/18/2011 8:54:25 PM

^^^^^ thats what we need. More people saying shut the fuck up, just tax people who work for a living and let us go back to doing nothing with our lives.

Allow me to get political for just a second and choose to side with not stealing from people. But then again I have morals.


2nd of all, allow me to go back to being non-political for a moment.

Taxing the rich does not balance the budget or address the cancerous spending problem this nation has as our population ages.

There will be a shrinking rich population for sure (which means even less people to tax) and there will be a shrinking middle class population for sure which means even less productive citizens (sound familiar?)


It will also speed up the collapse we are heading for. And let me be clear, doing nothing is not an option either because we will go insolvent in the near term.

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM. Reason : I come in peace, I'm not saying the Republicans have been right, they have done stupid shit also. ]

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM. Reason : a]

4/18/2011 8:57:16 PM

I can't afford to invest in gold, so I'm left to invest in what I hope will be currency: Death of Superman comics.

4/18/2011 8:58:13 PM

taxation is not stealing

if you don't like America then leave

4/18/2011 8:59:28 PM

I'd like for face to actually say something worthwhile other than "you can't solve the problem only by taxing the rich!" which no one with a brain is saying is remotely true as the only solution. Everyone should agree that both spending cuts AND revenue increases should be on the table. It's like the morons out there that think we can just drill our way out of high gas prices. Where are the "you're spending (consuming) too much" folks then? Perhaps that isn't 100% equatable but the disingenuous, hypocritical bullshit from the right is insulting by this point.

Quote :

"I want to hear the other side of the story not some whining."

Who the fuck is "whining"?

4/18/2011 9:00:58 PM