[Mikhail]

So all this media buzz, has gotten my attention and I keep wondering whether the government will seal the debt deal by the deadline (Aug 2nd) I frankly think that they will not, back a few months ago the government barely got the their budget together, just with hours left on the clock, will this debt deal be any different, will the decide in time, or will the U.S go deeper into recession?

What I'd like to whose deal do you guys support the most Democrats, or Republicans, and do you think Obama will postpone the deal, so he can the reelection with his giant ego and charisma? I'd like to hear your side.

Most recent updates on the debt deal:
Progress on US Debt Deal

BBC Debt Deal Linky

All the options that the U.S Government has:

[macosxnerd101]

From what I've read of Reid's plan, I like the idea of raising the ceiling and cutting spending. The Republicans are being too partisan in this, and aren't willing to give much ground. Personally, I look at it this way. We, the American people, got ourselves into this deficit. So it is up to us to take responsibility for it. This plan must include spending cuts and a plan to get ourselves permanently out of the deficit. Another sticking point in the debate is the issue of tax increases. While I don't enjoy paying taxes (who does), I think tax increases for everyone are necessary in the near future. Increased revenues and decreased spending will make it easier to pay off the debt faster. This is what any person or family in serious debt would (or at least should) do- stop extravagant spending and increase the income. It's called taking responsibility for our decisions. Also, the simple math:
Integral((deficit(t) - (increasedRevenues(t) + savings(t))) dt) < Integral((deficit(t) - savings(t)) dt)

I would also love to see a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Constitution. Congress should have to budget and plan for the various programs the government offers, rather than just borrow to keep up with them. This should include re-evaluating the effectiveness of entitlement programs and how to streamline them, perhaps including delegating responsibilities back to the beneficiaries. Personally, I see social entitlement spending as one of the major causes of the deficit. Regarding social security retirement, I think people that are capable of working should be able to save for their own retirements. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility; and at this point, is the largest pyramid scheme in history.

[Lemur]

Then again if we raise the tax rate then we would have less money in pocket of people that are more likely to create jobs. Economics is not so straightforward that you can simplify an entire crisis in a single formula.

It sounds like it should be a straightforward raise taxes issue to the uninformed. The problem is with the fools shouting tax the rich dry is this: what defines rich? The first thing we jump to is people like Gates and other billionaires. On the contrary, rich is defined by those of us that are above 100k annual earnings as a family, ie an upper middle class in reality.

What you're doing with this mentality is taxing small business owners dry while people in the billions range have already got tax evasion down to a science (ie stocks, gold, and other valuable items as a money substitute.) You're hurting and effectively destroying the middle class and widening the gap between the truly rich and the poor.

Does anyone see something wrong with this?

Even if the poor are to get money and are to get out of the hole, they're bound to be fiscally irresponsible. People that have money have worked hard for it and have been crunching numbers the entire way to keep that way.

In America anyone can be successful, it's just so many are far too hapless and lazy to realize it so they only seek handouts. Therein lies the problem.

[macosxnerd101]

To be fair, I never specified any one group for tax increases. I'm not advocating raising taxes on only the rich. I'm advocating a short-term tax increase to pay off the deficit (which probably wasn't clear in my last post, to be fair). Exactly like setting aside extra money each month to pay off a loan early. While raising taxes always has the effect of taking money away from the people, by very definition, having such a high national deficit is equally toxic to the economy. It's a balancing act. Speaking of loopholes, raising taxes could amount to eliminating those loopholes that allow 47% of households to not pay taxes.

Also to be fair, I think raising taxes starting in 2013 would be sufficient to give jobs a chance to continue to recover more. I would like to see long term:
-Significant decreases in spending, streamlining of operations
-Focus on budgeting and saving
-A plan to pay off the deficit, with annual payment amounts, like monthly payments on a car or home loan
-An increase in revenues (eliminating tax loopholes asap, possible tax increases starting no sooner than 2013)

Since you mentioned the rich specifically, I'd like to pose the question- why do you feel only the rich should bear the responsibility? My thoughts are that since we all have the right to vote and participate in the political process, shouldn't we all bear the responsibility of our actions?

Quote

Even if the poor are to get money and are to get out of the hole, they're bound to be fiscally irresponsible.

I know a lot of people that come from the upper-middle and upper classes that don't understand money. I also know a some lower-middle and middle class people that understand the basic math of you can't spend more than you earn. This cannot be generalized. Home equity loans are a great example of this. A lot of wealthy people we know have bragged about taking out home equity loans to pay for things like cars, flat screen televisions, cruises, etc. Why would you take money out of your home to pay for that? Just making a point.

Quote

In America anyone can be successful, it's just so many are far too hapless and lazy to realize it so they only seek handouts. Therein lies the problem.

I couldn't agree more. Handouts and the desire for immediate gratification are a big problem.

Sources for the 47% number:
http://finance.yahoo...3.html?x=0&.v=1
http://www.usatoday....rial16_ST_N.htm
http://money.cnn.com...taxes/index.htm

[ishkabible]

all the deals are shit. to actually fix the issue at hand your going to have to cut military spending but a shitload, no more wars, no nothing. we don't need to be invading other contrys, if you want to protect American interests then consolidate the military into the national guard. also get rid of all these stupid studies the government is funding. there is a study on the size of gay men's penises being funded by the government, that hardly seems necessary. our elected officials should be there to serve the public, they don't need a salary if you ask me(maybe minimum wage).

there's my radical idea, actually cut needless spending rather than tax the public to fund needless spending.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 30 July 2011 - 10:30 PM

[Lemur]

That's nice. Let's cut all military spending, it's not like we have any enemies in the world...

[macosxnerd101]

Social entitlement spending is actually greater than military spending. I'm not saying there aren't instances where the military could streamline operations, but I tend to agree with Lemur on this one.

Quote

there is a study on the size of gay men's penises being funded by the government, that hardly seems necessary.

LOL! I'd love to see a link on this.

[ishkabible]

not all, just the out of country shit(like 98% of it though). if we want to defend our self then we should relay on the national guard not the military. beef up the national guard not out of country military bases. we have bases in TONS countries and we don't freaking need them. those bases are the whole freaking reason we have enemies.

"lets go point guns in peoples faces"
..an hour later
"hey they tried to hurt us, they are our enemy. we need more guns to point in there faces"

ya that makes sense...

Quote

LOL! I'd love to see a link on this.

my dad get's an email on it, he told me about it. i can get you the link tomorrow.

edit: i goggled it and found it actually.

here is an artical on it

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 30 July 2011 - 10:46 PM

[macosxnerd101]

We don't have military bases in enemy states like Iran. I'd be interested to see some correlation of military bases in other nations to aggression negative repercussions against us. Having these bases goes towards speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Plus, let's say we get rid of most of our overseas bases and have those immediate savings. Some third parties would perceive this as weakness and demilitarization on our part, which is true for the latter. Would they be more inclined to attack us? Would that money end up being re-allocated towards other military endeavors b/c of it? Consider the long-term consequences. We live in a world where enough people want to blow us to hell. Demilitarization is not the answer, imo. My priorities are first with my safety (defense), followed by my prosperity (economics).

Also, your link cites Fox News, which isn't a source I'd deem as credible. However, there is an abstract from the government to substantiate this study exists.

[ishkabible]

no one is going to attack us, at least if they try they can't make it across the Atlantic or Pacific without being destroyed. our air force and navy take the cake by far. im not saying it wouldn't provoke an attack, im saying that it would save us tons of money and that we would still be amply protected. it might not fix the the issue but damn would it help.

any way, you guys have fun with my comments. im going to bed.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 30 July 2011 - 10:58 PM

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

no one is going to attack us

9/11. Enough said?

Quote

our air force and navy take the cake by far

That's one line of defense against an attack. The whole A major reason for overseas bases is to make it easier to mount counter attacks. Multiple lines of defense is just as important with military strategy as it is with IT security. Think about how much it would cost to re-establish bases in a time of war, including securing them, negotiating for them with other nations, etc. It's more than just money. It costs critical time as well that holds up military planning.

[Lemur]

9/11, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Revolutionary War, Spanish War, Gulf of Mexico, War of 1812, Caribbean. Just to name a few...

If the US has no millitary rest assured it won't be here for more than a month afterwards. Like it or not we have enemies in the world. This has nothing to do with justice mentality or gung-ho bolster the military attitude either, we drop our walls and we're dead. Simple as that.

[Nykc]

The thing I love most about the government always look to raise our taxes is the fact they are all "Tax Exempt" employees.

Must be nice to make your Gross. I love watching my check shrink by 30%

[eclipsed4utoo]

Lemur, on 31 July 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

Then again if we raise the tax rate then we would have less money in pocket of people that are more likely to create jobs. Economics is not so straightforward that you can simplify an entire crisis in a single formula.

I'm sorry, but corporations are back to making money hand over fist, yet they aren't hiring. Cutting their taxes or leaving them the same is just going to give us the same outcome we have right now.

Reagan raised taxes during a recession, and it HELPED the economy. Imagine that.

Lemur, on 31 July 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

It sounds like it should be a straightforward raise taxes issue to the uninformed. The problem is with the fools shouting tax the rich dry is this: what defines rich? The first thing we jump to is people like Gates and other billionaires. On the contrary, rich is defined by those of us that are above 100k annual earnings as a family, ie an upper middle class in reality.

Rich being those that make $250K or more.

Lemur, on 31 July 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

What you're doing with this mentality is taxing small business owners dry while people in the billions range have already got tax evasion down to a science (ie stocks, gold, and other valuable items as a money substitute.) You're hurting and effectively destroying the middle class and widening the gap between the truly rich and the poor.

Define "small business". To Republicans, "small business" is a business that makes $10 mil a year. My parents run a small business of 5 employees, and they don't come close to making $250K a year.

Lemur, on 31 July 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

That's nice. Let's cut all military spending, it's not like we have any enemies in the world...

Yes, because we need to be spending billions of dollars each month building roads in Afghanistan.

Lemur, on 31 July 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

9/11, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Revolutionary War, Spanish War, Gulf of Mexico, War of 1812, Caribbean. Just to name a few...

If the US has no millitary rest assured it won't be here for more than a month afterwards. Like it or not we have enemies in the world. This has nothing to do with justice mentality or gung-ho bolster the military attitude either, we drop our walls and we're dead. Simple as that.

So the thought of "cutting military spending" means to completely do away with the military? Not one person said, "we should abandon the military". So I guess "cutting Medicare", "cutting Medicaid", "cutting Social Security", means to completely do away with those programs?

Nykc, on 31 July 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

The thing I love most about the government always look to raise our taxes is the fact they are all "Tax Exempt" employees.

Must be nice to make your Gross. I love watching my check shrink by 30%

All of our congressional delegates are "rich". That's why most are against raising taxes on the rich, since it would include them.

I think Obama should invoke the 14th amendment and do away with this stupid ass debt ceiling shit. Congress passes all spending laws, so why do we need a "ceiling"? If we don't have the money, then Congress shouldn't be passing the laws to increase spending. But no, let's have some arbitrary number that we can fight over instead of fixing the country.

[supersloth]

Nykc, on 31 July 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

The thing I love most about the government always look to raise our taxes is the fact they are all "Tax Exempt" employees.

Must be nice to make your Gross. I love watching my check shrink by 30%

what? no they aren't.

plus, the people in congress who raise taxes are almost always well to do from their private sector business or inheritance. you have to have money to afford to run.