House rejects debt ceiling increase, 318-97

[F1-Insanity]

Yes, lets do go there.

The United States is not broke. It will not be broke in the near future, it will not be broke in the coming decades. The scaremongering here is on the side of the Republicans. The US is not broke, the US will not become broke, the US is nowhere even approaching broke. In 8 years, if we stay the course, the majority of our budget gap will be closed.

With no action whatsoever, there would be no budget crisis. There would be a problem going forward, but not a crisis, just as there is not a crisis now. If we raise FICA by ~3% and remove the cap on payroll tax, there will be no Social Security problem. If we reform Medicare Part D there will be no Medicare problem. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts, there will be no problem with revenue. This is the reality of our situation. This is what the scaremongering Republicans don't want you to know.

Also in the news...

[Keronians]

If raising the debt ceiling isn't suitable, what is? What can the US do to prevent plunging the World into chaos?

Financial chaos is on the way because the current financial/economic model is unsustainable. Current levels of government debt and deficit are way beyond irresponsible. And the next six years promise more debts, not less. Because The Chosen One is not going to touch the Dems favorite spending programs, and the GOPhers are just not going to stand for significant cuts in defense spending.

And with the rest of the 'West' also in deep doodoo because of debt and deficit, the end of the current fin/eco model is in sight. In fact, the collapse has already started... delaying the inevitable will only make it worse. Best to make a conscious decision, with other 'western' countries doing the same, to start all over again. This would in the long run be the least painful option, the west has been living way beyond its means and time has come to start some serious responsibility. It would be irresponsible to try and prop the current fin/eco model up.

The thing is; the rest of the West is prepared to take austerity measures. Are you?

Smaller countries can be bailed out by other bigger ones. Can the US be bailed out by anybody?

[F1-Insanity]

Financial chaos is on the way because the current financial/economic model is unsustainable. Current levels of government debt and deficit are way beyond irresponsible. And the next six years promise more debts, not less. Because The Chosen One is not going to touch the Dems favorite spending programs, and the GOPhers are just not going to stand for significant cuts in defense spending.

And with the rest of the 'West' also in deep doodoo because of debt and deficit, the end of the current fin/eco model is in sight. In fact, the collapse has already started... delaying the inevitable will only make it worse. Best to make a conscious decision, with other 'western' countries doing the same, to start all over again. This would in the long run be the least painful option, the west has been living way beyond its means and time has come to start some serious responsibility. It would be irresponsible to try and prop the current fin/eco model up.

The thing is; the rest of the West is prepared to take austerity measures. Are you?

Smaller countries can be bailed out by other bigger ones. Can the US be bailed out by anybody?

You mean the socalled austerity they are doing in Europe? Where all of them still run significant deficits and running UP the debt rather than down? And how's Japan's national debt been moving the last few years? And Germany which like Spain has been hiding debt in the regions and has (like France and the US) massive off balance sheet liabilities (future unfunded welfare/pension commitments).

[Gauthier]

Eliminating the Shrubcuts and raising taxes would go towards solving the deficit. But as can be seen, the Repubs would rather destroy the country than do either of those.

[Sibirsky]

Yes, lets do go there.

The United States is not broke. It will not be broke in the near future, it will not be broke in the coming decades. The scaremongering here is on the side of the Republicans. The US is not broke, the US will not become broke, the US is nowhere even approaching broke. In 8 years, if we stay the course, the majority of our budget gap will be closed.

With no action whatsoever, there would be no budget crisis. There would be a problem going forward, but not a crisis, just as there is not a crisis now. If we raise FICA by ~3% and remove the cap on payroll tax, there will be no Social Security problem. If we reform Medicare Part D there will be no Medicare problem. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts, there will be no problem with revenue. This is the reality of our situation. This is what the scaremongering Republicans don't want you to know.

If the government ran it's books, according to GAAP, it would show a negative net worth of $67 trillion. That's higher than the collected net worth of all Americans. IOW, the government could nationalize everything Americans own, and still be broke.

Revenue is only a problem due to the GFC. The far bigger problem is spending. Spending is simply at outrageous and unsustainable levels. Yet every budget Obama has proposed increases spending further.

You entirely ignore demographic shifts. We're becoming more and more reliant, on a smaller (relatively speaking) work force supporting a larger number of retirees. Your FICA and MediCare tax solutions, are temporary at best, and do not control costs.

[Sibirsky]

Ending the tax cuts is not the same as raising taxes. And this philosophy is bunk considering the current tax rates. Before the tax cuts were doing fine were we not? I'm not saying they caused the mess, but they certainly contribute. We can look at lowering taxes once we get our shit in order. But frankly they are doing nothing other than simply causing massive strain on an already strained economy. Ending the tax cuts will not do what you are saying. They've had enough of the good times only for them and no one else. Time for them to start helping out the situation.

Ending a tax cut would raise their taxes. It's the same exact thing. The are not straining the economy. Government is.

[Sibirsky]

Eliminating the Shrubcuts and raising taxes would go towards solving the deficit. But as can be seen, the Repubs would rather destroy the country than do either of those.

It wouldn't come close to solving the problem. This year. And would do absolutely nothing to address the problem long term.

[Georgism]

Eliminating the Shrubcuts and raising taxes would go towards solving the deficit. But as can be seen, the Repubs would rather destroy the country than do either of those.

It wouldn't come close to solving the problem. This year. And would do absolutely nothing to address the problem long term.

You must have faith that the government will solve your problems.

[The Black Forrest]

Eliminating the Shrubcuts and raising taxes would go towards solving the deficit. But as can be seen, the Repubs would rather destroy the country than do either of those.

It wouldn't come close to solving the problem. This year. And would do absolutely nothing to address the problem long term.

Doesn't every little bit help?

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Ending the tax cuts is not the same as raising taxes. And this philosophy is bunk considering the current tax rates. Before the tax cuts were doing fine were we not? I'm not saying they caused the mess, but they certainly contribute. We can look at lowering taxes once we get our shit in order. But frankly they are doing nothing other than simply causing massive strain on an already strained economy. Ending the tax cuts will not do what you are saying. They've had enough of the good times only for them and no one else. Time for them to start helping out the situation.

Ending a tax cut would raise their taxes. It's the same exact thing. The are not straining the economy. Government is.

Spending is not the only issue, lost revenue through loopholes and tax-cuts assists this problem as well. Not to say I'm not for spending cuts; I am for cuts across the board, all across the board. However, increasing revenue without increasing spending will aid in the reduction of debt as-well.

Don't want to re-quote -- Nothing will end our problems this year, the cuts NEED to be gradual and like all other spending cuts WILL be gradual.

[Sibirsky]

It wouldn't come close to solving the problem. This year. And would do absolutely nothing to address the problem long term.

You must have faith that the government will solve your problems.

It wouldn't come close to solving the problem. This year. And would do absolutely nothing to address the problem long term.

Doesn't every little bit help?

Not if that bit hurts the economy as well.

Ending a tax cut would raise their taxes. It's the same exact thing. The are not straining the economy. Government is.

Spending is not the only issue, lost revenue through loopholes and tax-cuts assists this problem as well. Not to say I'm not for spending cuts; I am for cuts across the board, all across the board. However, increasing revenue without increasing spending will aid in the reduction of debt as-well.

Don't want to re-quote -- Nothing will end our problems this year, the cuts NEED to be gradual and like all other spending cuts WILL be gradual.

Spending is the only problem. Revenue, is a temporary problem caused by the GFC. Revenues, generally don't go much higher than 20%, spending is higher than that now, and is projected to increase with no end in sight, going above 40% in the 2040s, and continue to almost 90% in the 2080s.

[Nansurium]

Ending the tax cuts would raise the total tax rate for Americans which would serve to depress the United States economy to an even greater extent. It has been said on the forum that the United States is not broke. I fail to see the logic in that statement.

The United States takes in each year roughly 2 trillion dollars. And each year we spend about 3.4 trillion dollars. That is a yearly loss of 1.4 trillion dollars. On top of that fiscal nightmare we currently owe 14.32 trillion dollars. Our government is operating thoroughly in the red. That is BROKE.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

So don't bother to try and increase revenue while decreasing spending? Seems a bit contradicting. Also when the tax-cuts where put in place during the Bush administration it did nothing to help the economy, the companies did not use the relaxation in taxes to hire more or reduce prices and still do not; they use it for increased profits which they swindle through loopholes to pay even less in taxes. So what is the point in keeping the tax-cuts in place for mega-corporations and the super rich?

Cut the spending yes, but by all means reverse the tax-cuts to help fund the new budget so we don't have to cut quite as much.

[Sibirsky]

Ending the tax cuts would raise the total tax rate for Americans which would serve to depress the United States economy to an even greater extent. It has been said on the forum that the United States is not broke. I fail to see the logic in that statement.

It's a quote from the evil capitalist pig, Michael Moore.

The United States takes in each year roughly 2 trillion dollars. And each year we spend about 3.4 trillion dollars. That is a yearly loss of 1.4 trillion dollars. On top of that fiscal nightmare we currently owe 14.32 trillion dollars. Our government is operating thoroughly in the red. That is BROKE.

Don't forget that using GAAP, the government would have a net worth of close to negative $67 trillion as of 2009. Probably about $70 trillion now. Americans, collectively have less wealth. The government can nationalize every single asset belonging to Americans and they'd still be broke. As well as all the Americans.

Broke is an understatement.

[Sibirsky]

So don't bother to try and increase revenue while decreasing spending? Seems a bit contradicting. Also when the tax-cuts where put in place during the Bush administration it did nothing to help the economy, the companies did not use the relaxation in taxes to hire more or reduce prices and still do not; they use it for increased profits which they swindle through loopholes to pay even less in taxes. So what is the point in keeping the tax-cuts in place for mega-corporations and the super rich?

Cut the spending yes, but by all means reverse the tax-cuts to help fund the new budget so we don't have to cut quite as much.

Revenue will increase when the economy recovers. The economy grew, and unemployment declined. The point is that wealth is private, and not for corrupt politicians to spend. That wealth is spent, saved and invested. Which is far more beneficial to almost everyone, than government spending.

[Nansurium]

Ending the tax cuts would raise the total tax rate for Americans which would serve to depress the United States economy to an even greater extent. It has been said on the forum that the United States is not broke. I fail to see the logic in that statement.

It's a quote from the evil capitalist pig, Michael Moore.

The United States takes in each year roughly 2 trillion dollars. And each year we spend about 3.4 trillion dollars. That is a yearly loss of 1.4 trillion dollars. On top of that fiscal nightmare we currently owe 14.32 trillion dollars. Our government is operating thoroughly in the red. That is BROKE.

Don't forget that using GAAP, the government would have a net worth of close to negative $67 trillion as of 2009. Probably about $70 trillion now. Americans, collectively have less wealth. The government can nationalize every single asset belonging to Americans and they'd still be broke. As well as all the Americans.

Broke is an understatement.

I was not aware that Michael Moore was a capitalist

But yes I do agree with you. There have also been rumors flying that the government is hedging significantly on just how high the public debt is in this country. Some have theorized that it could be triple the amount of the figure listed above.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Ending the tax cuts would raise the total tax rate for Americans which would serve to depress the United States economy to an even greater extent. It has been said on the forum that the United States is not broke. I fail to see the logic in that statement.

It's a quote from the evil capitalist pig, Michael Moore.

The United States takes in each year roughly 2 trillion dollars. And each year we spend about 3.4 trillion dollars. That is a yearly loss of 1.4 trillion dollars. On top of that fiscal nightmare we currently owe 14.32 trillion dollars. Our government is operating thoroughly in the red. That is BROKE.

Don't forget that using GAAP, the government would have a net worth of close to negative $67 trillion as of 2009. Probably about $70 trillion now. Americans, collectively have less wealth. The government can nationalize every single asset belonging to Americans and they'd still be broke. As well as all the Americans.

Broke is an understatement.

I don't think GAAP can fully encompass a countries 'net worth'
I would like to see a link that accounts the nations of the worlds wealth using GAAP

[SpectacularSpectacular]

So don't bother to try and increase revenue while decreasing spending? Seems a bit contradicting. Also when the tax-cuts where put in place during the Bush administration it did nothing to help the economy, the companies did not use the relaxation in taxes to hire more or reduce prices and still do not; they use it for increased profits which they swindle through loopholes to pay even less in taxes. So what is the point in keeping the tax-cuts in place for mega-corporations and the super rich?

Cut the spending yes, but by all means reverse the tax-cuts to help fund the new budget so we don't have to cut quite as much.

Revenue will increase when the economy recovers. The economy grew, and unemployment declined. The point is that wealth is private, and not for corrupt politicians to spend. That wealth is spent, saved and invested. Which is far more beneficial to almost everyone, than government spending.

What a flawless little system you have in your mind...This pertains to reality in what way?

I don't see how fairly taxing mega-corporations equates to corruption.

[Sibirsky]

It's a quote from the evil capitalist pig, Michael Moore.


Don't forget that using GAAP, the government would have a net worth of close to negative $67 trillion as of 2009. Probably about $70 trillion now. Americans, collectively have less wealth. The government can nationalize every single asset belonging to Americans and they'd still be broke. As well as all the Americans.

Broke is an understatement.

I was not aware that Michael Moore was a capitalist

But yes I do agree with you. There have also been rumors flying that the government is hedging significantly on just how high the public debt is in this country. Some have theorized that it could be triple the amount of the figure listed above.

Oh come on. He's the worst kind. He makes tens of millions selling anti-capitalist propaganda to idiots that buy it.

I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it?

He lives in multi million dollar apartment in New York, and has a beach front vacation home in Michigan. His kid goes to a private school.

He threw a tantrum at a speaking engagement in London, and raged against everyone because he was only paid $750/night, back before his much larger speaking fees.

http://www.mooreexposed.com

[Aeronos]

Time to end the hyperconsumerist attitude of the government and begin some serious austerity measures. Money doesn't grow on trees (though the printing press + lack of gold standard doesn't help politicians realise this...), therefore if we want to escape debt, austerity is needed.

The following should be done:
- Reform social security, prepare to progressively abolish it. It's unsustainable by definition. Don't just hack at it straight out because the people who grew up with it and have in effect paid into it big time should be entitled to it, but reform it so that the system becomes closed, and as they die off, progressively get rid of it. Pretty hard on my generation, the one that's just leaving their teens, as it means we have to pay for both old people's pensions through tax and our own through private, but for every careless binge comes an equally large hangover. May this be a lesson to future generations: be careful where you put your dollars.
- Reform medicare. Specifically, with regards to the health service as a whole, remove a ton of interstate health care regulations, increase competition with the free-market, and get the damn insurance, health care and pharmaceutical lobbies out of government, as they're using it to install oligopolies in the market, which is hurting it a lot. Costs should start falling, quality should start rising, and with it, medicare expenditure will decrease, if only because people will be able to use private health care themselves more.
- End the empire/cut defense funding. As much as I actually think American foreign policy is benevolent, I oppose it. It costs (literally) a bomb when there is a need for austerity. Bill Maher put it correctly: the defense program is a giant welfare programme building crap we don't need.
- Reform tax and end tax cuts on the rich. Cutting is simply not enough, we must also raise taxes on the rich. A ladder takes two feet to climb, with one being cuts and the other being tax. Simplification of the tax code is also necessary, as (I think it was) Sibirksi pointed out, the current system is critically wasteful. Keynes may have his theories on spending, but really, paying people to pay taxes produces no product at all.
- End farming subsidies. Seriously, I can't believe the US is still doing this. Since when have farming subsidies EVER helped? I've studied History and Economics for many years and honestly, the only ways people have increased farming output is by decreasing the socialism involved (see Lenin's NEP).
- End government-instituted foreign aid. If people want their money going abroad, let them do it out of their own pocket.
- Legalize marijuana. It's actually quite surprising how much policing that stuff costs, especially considering that they then pay for the prisoners too, not only reducing the labour force, but also increasing the expenditure.
- Reduce food, drug and environmental regulations. What better way to boost tax revenue and reduce welfare expenditure through higher employment than to end these institutional monstrosities?

And the list goes on. These are harsh times, and harsh times require some pretty intense measures. The above is a fair balance combining flexibility with a moderate amount of security, thus reducing the bite whilst still eating the debt, kinda like a more capitalist version of Scandinavian economics. There used to be some NY Times debt quiz calculator thing that got posted a lot around here, I remember being so far beyond the post of fixing the debt that it ran out of blobs

[Gauthier]

Revenue will increase when the economy recovers. The economy grew, and unemployment declined. The point is that wealth is private, and not for corrupt politicians to spend. That wealth is spent, saved and invested. Which is far more beneficial to almost everyone, than government spending.

What a flawless little system you have in your mind...This pertains to reality in what way?

I don't see how fairly taxing mega-corporations equates to corruption.

Because taking money from the powerful, righteous elite to help prop government and people is communism, silly. Better Dead than Red.

[Potarius]

I was not aware that Michael Moore was a capitalist

But yes I do agree with you. There have also been rumors flying that the government is hedging significantly on just how high the public debt is in this country. Some have theorized that it could be triple the amount of the figure listed above.

Oh come on. He's the worst kind. He makes tens of millions selling anti-capitalist propaganda to idiots that buy it.

I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it?

He lives in multi million dollar apartment in New York, and has a beach front vacation home in Michigan. His kid goes to a private school.

He threw a tantrum at a speaking engagement in London, and raged against everyone because he was only paid $750/night, back before his much larger speaking fees.

http://www.mooreexposed.com

Even before he got "famous", I saw right through his act.

[The Black Forrest]

I was not aware that Michael Moore was a capitalist

But yes I do agree with you. There have also been rumors flying that the government is hedging significantly on just how high the public debt is in this country. Some have theorized that it could be triple the amount of the figure listed above.

Oh come on. He's the worst kind. He makes tens of millions selling anti-capitalist propaganda to idiots that buy it.

Isn't that kind of like Ron Paul and all his gold talk?

[Gauthier]

Oh come on. He's the worst kind. He makes tens of millions selling anti-capitalist propaganda to idiots that buy it.

Isn't that kind of like Ron Paul and all his gold talk?

Don't forget it makes Moore the worst kind of criminal- a class traitor, like that dirty commie George Soros.

[Sibirsky]

It's a quote from the evil capitalist pig, Michael Moore.


Don't forget that using GAAP, the government would have a net worth of close to negative $67 trillion as of 2009. Probably about $70 trillion now. Americans, collectively have less wealth. The government can nationalize every single asset belonging to Americans and they'd still be broke. As well as all the Americans.

Broke is an understatement.

I don't think GAAP can fully encompass a countries 'net worth'
I would like to see a link that accounts the nations of the worlds wealth using GAAP

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/282- ... accounting

Revenue will increase when the economy recovers. The economy grew, and unemployment declined. The point is that wealth is private, and not for corrupt politicians to spend. That wealth is spent, saved and invested. Which is far more beneficial to almost everyone, than government spending.

What a flawless little system you have in your mind...This pertains to reality in what way?

I don't see how fairly taxing mega-corporations equates to corruption.

Unemployment rate, 2001-2007. It went down. It cannot go down without economic growth. I did not bring up corruption, only that private spending is more efficient and beneficial. Now that you bring it up, government is the prefect entity for corruption, because it's not spending it's own money, and it's not spending it on itself.