• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.

This may surprise you but the debt has nothing to do with money we haven't spent yet.

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
 
Last edited:
yes. far better if they go out of business so that all of their employees lose their jobs! plus we get the side benefit of higher costs-of-living for poor people. yay!

False choice. Really it is. :coffeepap
 
for those interested, the talks are stuck right now in about this location:

the president wants 2.4T to get him thru the next election

the gop is amenable but insists on d4d, dollar for dollar

they thus are all working furiously, angrily, tensely and dominated by personal hatreds, trying to come up with that 2.4

they say they have found about 1.7 they can agree on

1.1T "discretionary"

200B mandatory, described as cuts to "military pensions" or "farm subsidies"

200B medicare

200B saved interest payments

beyond that, they must come with about 700B more, else the prez has declared he'll veto anything shorter term

r's will not budge on revenues, that's the way it is

fyi
 
I did some looking, and the origin of the chart seems to be from the Los Angeles Free Net web site. No I am not making that up.

I've looked them up and can't seem to find out who they are, and who their donor's are....So if that is the case we can not take these numbers seriously.

j-mac
 
oh jeez, here we go again , everyone feel sorry for the poor little rich boy:roll: Isnt AMERICA great? everyone gets a vote(as much as this kills you) regardless of income...you want to go back to you have to own property to vote? while your at it, why don't you strip women of the right to vote? then what, only white males who own property can vote? sorry bud, but how much money you have, or how much in taxes you pay, doesnt determine if you get to vote or not, as much as this kills you.

As I understand it, once the rich have to pay a reasonable amount, they are all leaving the country. One wonders where they will go.
 
This may surprise you but the debt has nothing to do with money we haven't spent yet.

no, it's only HOW WE GOT HERE

LOL!

e-n-t-i-t-l-e-m-e-n-t-s, engels

61.6T under, sinking 5.3 per year

if something isn't done NOW to fundamentally reform our precious programs they will EXPIRE

because at 61.6 trillion and doubling every 10 years, there's just not enough money in the universe

mainstream michael moore's sentiments aside
 
As I understand it, once the rich have to pay a reasonable amount, they are all leaving the country. One wonders where they will go.


first you have to define "Reasonable"


j-mac
 
IMO, over coming days, the participants in the negotiations need to set aside their maximum positions, recognize the needs of all the parties, and focus on areas where agreement can be reached. The focus should be on making offers that have a realistic chance of being viewed as acceptable by all the parties. That means setting aside tax changes. It means postponing credible entitlement reform. It means focusing on smaller spending reductions and disproportionately in the discretionary spending area. That is not an optimal or credible fiscal consolidation approach, but because so much time has been exhausted on a badly-designed negotiating process that allowed each side to begin from its maximum position, it is increasingly a matter of necessity. Personally, I would prefer a credible fiscal consolidation path, but when the choice is between something less or fiscal crisis, the former outcome is the better one. Otherwise, more time will be consumed on process and the deadline will draw closer.

Unfortunately, some elements are seeking to preclude any kind of deal. For example, yesterday one talk show host hailed the prospect of a failure to raise the debt ceiling as a new 'Independence Day' of sorts. He declared:

August 2nd will be the new July 4th, this time a day of liberation. Liberation and freedom from massive government spending that has put us and our children in a continuous debt.

That statement is breathtaking in its ignorance. It shows a total lack of comprehension as to the impact of the federal government's having to instantly cut its cash outflows by some 40%. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what such cuts as a share of GDP would mean.

Immediately eliminating that deficit would result in a shock that would be twice the magnitude of the recent severe recession from which the U.S. emerged, if only that spending were involved. The shock would be greater, on account of a multiplier, rise in public and private cost of capital, and financial sector distress.

An effort to ration spending that would also give priority to servicing debt would also adopt the rosy assumption that debt service would essentially consist of making interest payments. Under such an assumption, there would be no risk of default. That may not be the case. The increased risk associated with U.S. debt would probably lead to some share of the debt not being rolled over. That could then mean principal on maturing debt would have to be repaid. Secretary of Treasury Geithner noted in a letter to Senator DeMint that about $500 billion in Treasury securities would mature in August. If one considers some share of principal having to be paid, then the pool of funds for remaining obligations (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and myriad discretionary expenditures) would be even smaller.

There is also the problem of mismatches between monthly receipts (revenue) and monthly expenditures/maturing debt. Monthly revenue and monthly expenditures/maturing debt could be quite divergent. That could exacerbate an already difficult management process.

In the end, failure to raise the debt ceiling would be anything but a "day of liberation." It would be a day the nation's policy makers demonstrated an inability to make necessary choices. It would be a day that showed that the U.S. is a much riskier country than its current AAA rating implies. It would be a day that the U.S. lost significant leadership credibility, and that loss of credibility would extend well beyond fiscal matters.

Afterward, even when the issue would be resolved, the nation would be left with higher interest rates on account of the new risk environment. With domestic nonfinancial debt of $36.333 trillion, the nation as a whole would pay just over $180 billion per year in extra interest were rates to rise 50 basis points and about $363 billion in extra interest were rates to rise 100 basis points (some timing issues, but that debt continues to increase at a multiple of GDP). That would be equivalent to 1.2% and 2.4% of 2011 Q1 GDP respectively. Those added interest charges would lead to a lower long-term economic growth rate. The nation's fiscal position would be adversely impacted (slower revenue growth and higher debt service costs). Worst of all, this outcome would have been wholly avoidable. The crisis and its aftermath would have been completely self-inflicted.

I wish this post could be put everywhere. I am having so much trouble grasping how people can hear the truth, and continue to believe it a lie (that being, what will happen once the unthinkable occurs.)
 
Well, there are those that disagree with you...Funny I know, but they do....;)


j-mac

Always someone who disagrees, but the fact is, they don't need labor at pennies level pay to survive. If that were true, they don't really have a business to begin with. Like I say j, you should work as a propganda spokesperson for business over the working man. ;)
 
because the savings the middle class received were negligible in comparison to what the rich received

GR2010081106717.gif

So you were unwilling to give up your meager lil tax cut .. . so we could get billions more from those evil rich bastards??? sounds selfish to Me Just shows even more how you feel that only the rich should shoulder this debt .. doesn't it .. .
 
Last edited:
Always someone who disagrees, but the fact is, they don't need labor at pennies level pay to survive. If that were true, they don't really have a business to begin with. Like I say j, you should work as a propganda spokesperson for business over the working man. ;)


Dude, I am but a single truck driver that works day to day to make my way in this world. But I sure would like to have a job when Obama's destruction of my employer is done.

j-mac
 
Dude, I am but a single truck driver that works day to day to make my way in this world. But I sure would like to have a job when Obama's destruction of my employer is done.

j-mac

I know j. I don't doubt you. But, you speak not for workers, but for business. Your post show that.
 
Always someone who disagrees, but the fact is, they don't need labor at pennies level pay to survive. If that were true, they don't really have a business to begin with. Like I say j, you should work as a propganda spokesperson for business over the working man. ;)

Off topic:

All manner of quotes on that one, but my primary two are "But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself" from Garden Party, and "Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do and damned if you don't.” *I believe Obama lives by the second one* ;)
 
Last edited:
Off topic:

All manner of quotes on that one, but my primary two are "But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself" from Garden Party, and "Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do and damned if you don't.” *I believe Obama lives by the second one* ;)

Now you have said something I agree with .. I don't like Obama's policies .. and he has put himself between that rock and hard spot by running around promising everyone everything. 800 billion spent on those shovel ready jobs that were going to put all those people to work .. that didn't … unemployment promised to be dropping … that is rising … our bloated debt …. that he did nothing but increase .. failing to let the Bush tax cuts expire …. now calling for tax increases … I just have a hard time feeling sorry for someone .. that did it too himself ..
 
I know j. I don't doubt you. But, you speak not for workers, but for business. Your post show that.

Workers (code for unions) don't sign my paycheck, business owners do. My posts reflect that.

j-mac
 
Workers (code for unions) don't sign my paycheck, business owners do. My posts reflect that.

j-mac

No, workers mean workers.

But, like I said, you're their man.
 
Workers (code for unions) don't sign my paycheck, business owners do. My posts reflect that.

j-mac
Not to sound insulting, but you really need to value your labor more. The business owner would be absolutely no where without the work you and your fellow works put in. No business can exist without the workers that keep it running.
 
Not to sound insulting, but you really need to value your labor more. The business owner would be absolutely no where without the work you and your fellow works put in. No business can exist without the workers that keep it running.

Welcome to the board. :)
 
you should work as a propganda spokesperson for business over the working man

wait a minute...

aren't you the guy who prefers what MISTER BOBB is doing in detroit?

all that voiding of contracts and tearing up of collective bargaining, the pink slipping of entire districts, the auctioning off of public schools to private operators...

all made possible by RICK SNYDER'S martial law?

LOL!

some propaganda spokesperson that
 
After reading and catching up in this thread I have now abandoned all meager hope that the two sides will be capable of reaching a working compromise.

No is really interested in compromise, but instead are interested in being right. Neither side is completely right and neither side is completely wrong, but I doubt that will be factored in.

Some are so radical that they propose ideals that would dump the elderly and infirm on the streets.

Some are so radical that they think that full blown socialism will fix things.

Overall it appears that things like education have less priority than military spending. This is the doorway to doom as a nation.

For a long term solution everybody will have to put some chips on the table. If only one side ends up with all the chips on the table we can uniformly expect an economic collapse. If neither side puts any chips on the table we can uniformly expect an economic collapse.

I see one side blame the other for loss of our freedoms, but when I look at facts and voting records I see equal guilt from both parties.

Yes, we truly have the government we deserve.
 
Not to sound insulting, but you really need to value your labor more. The business owner would be absolutely no where without the work you and your fellow works put in. No business can exist without the workers that keep it running.

What you are saying is somewhat true … .we need to value good workers, but those same good workers need to value the business they work for just as much … Where are they with out the company they work for ….. it's not just a one way street
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom