toldailytopic: Should congress side with Obama and vote to raise the debt ceiling, or

[Alate_One]

Quote:
Originally Posted by some other dude
Voting Obama out of office and replacing him with someone with experience.

That summarizes it , yes.

:rotfl: You guys are seriously deluded. Do you really think ANYONE in the current Republican field has a clue as to how to fix the economy?

Stabilize the economy. Don't punish profits.

Stabilize the economy how. Nobody is punishing profits NOW. Where's the growth? Where are the Jobs?

Loosen regulations.

What so we can kill our children like China? Or abuse our workers like vietnam? THEY need to raise their regulations, nobody with a brain wants to sink to their level.

Bring inflation down.

By doing what?

Lower the amount of money spent in the public sector because when government spending takes the lions share of what is calculated as GDP, there is less money available for private investment.

Except it isn't even close to taking the "lions share" of GDP.

Government is a poor allocator of where money should be spent.

The private sector isn't doing a good job atm.

Lower corporate taxes.

quite a number already get paid by the government, why bother?

Stop bailing out companies.

I was under the impression that stopped a long time ago. But it's odd that the American auto manufacturers not only preserved their jobs but have now paid back their loans and are profitable again. But you think it would have been better if we let them all go bankrupt? Why is that?

Stop bailing out people in foreclosure.

I wasn't aware we were doing that.

Let the foreclosure process to proceed as it always has in the past , and in so doing, let the housing market bottom out so it can grow back again in a healthy manner. All these things will make for a healthy economic environment and encourage the rich to invest their money.[/I]

No evidence for any of these things causing healthy growth.

 

[Traditio]

I blame the Tea Party and the Republicans. "Entitlement programs" are so called for a reason.

 

[eameece]

"Stabilize the economy. Don't punish profits. Loosen regulations. Bring inflation down. Lower the amount of money spent in the public sector because when government spending takes the lions share of what is calculated as GDP, there is less money available for private investment. Government is a poor allocator of where money should be spent. The following will make for a solid economic foundation: Smaller government spending. Fewer regulations(obamacare). Lower corporate taxes. Stop bailing out companies. Stop bailing out people in foreclosure. Let the foreclosure process to proceed as it always has in the past , and in so doing, let the housing market bottom out so it can grow back again in a healthy manner. All these things will make for a healthy economic environment and encourage the rich to invest their money."

Sameo sameo. Don't you guys get tired of the sameo ideas after 30 years? The rich don't need any encouragement. Puleeze!

 

[eameece]

Baloney Samstarret; the Tea Party is just the same old folks who have been supporting the same ideology since Reagan. Nothing new at all; same o folks who gave us Reagan, Gingrich and GW. They need to take responsibility for all they have created, but they refuse.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Hardline

I agree.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Baloney Samstarret; the Tea Party is just the same old folks who have been supporting the same ideology since Reagan. Nothing new at all; same o folks who gave us Reagan, Gingrich and GW. They need to take responsibility for all they have created, but they refuse.

:darwinsm: Blaming Reagan et alia because the Dimms lied? Back in the '80s, the Dimms promised Reagan a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in increased taxes. They lied, pure and simple! What do we have now? Obama promising spending cuts. Well, what and where? What and where is Obama's plan for spending cuts? There isn't one is the correct answer. But, by golly, he sure knows how to raise taxes!

Nancy Pelosi went to the old playbook "pay-go." Pay-go has resulted in over a trillion in deficits with more of the same to come. Time to face the music. Dimms have no plan for anything other than to blame the Republicans.

 

[Ktoyou]

Alate_One

I am all for spirited discussion, but can you please refrain from the personal attacks on my education. For you information I have a Masters in Management from Webster University in Saint Louis. This includes graduate level accounting, business management, and economics.




I think a better way of going after the disparity between the rich and poor is a consumption tax. This tax would not be applied to housing, food, or clothing (items that are necessary for living). Do away with the progressive income tax and replace it with a national sales tax and you will accomplish two things. All people share equally according to their means in support of the government. Two, you make expenditures on 'luxury' items (hence things the rich buy more of than the poor) the means of government revenue. This way, the tax code is only as progressive as the individual's spending habits make it.

No doubt,you may have studied economics beyond the intermediate level. I agree with much you are saying.
I disagree about abolishing higher tax brackets per earned income, however, the system should be reexamined; their is little sense is giving a raise, if it mostly goes to for taxes. The income tax system has been largely ignored, where it maters most, those earning income over $200,000 annually, rather than those you are given a raise from $50,000 to $70,000. Regarding low income wage earners, the taxes need to be less a burden, if we desire a viable work force. The income tax system needs to be restructured.

Sales tax is not a cure all; current sales tax has risen across most states. The best thing about sales tax is it allows the states to be less reliant on the Fed!

As someone who studied and tutored econ in undergrad, and economics and law in law school, I can say with great confidence based on what you've said in this thread that, if you paid for an education in economics, you got ripped off - badly. This is macroeconomics, and not something that a Masters in management would have much reason to learn past a very basic intro level.PL

This may be irreverent, as you do not know how much he knows about economics?

What we should be doing NOW, is implementing a long term plan to reduce the deficit and eventually pay down the debt. We should also be looking at fostering job growth first which will help the deficit problem in the long run.

True, yet postponing the reduction of the debt is highly imprudent!

We should be looking at tax loopholes .........................

What do you have in mind?

The president has been FOR all of this, but republicans are saying no tax changes AT ALL or they walk. Making some kind of long term plan is important to the markets and ratings agencies but it's looking like we may end up with a straight debt limit only change

Then they would be acting irresponsible, or misinformed.

Squishes. The rich sit on their money when the likelihood of losing their shirts in an investment is high. The same goes for hiring new employees. Only when they see there is a solid basis for the economy to grow will they invest their money instead of sitting on it.

Not so, they buy low in a bear market.

Of course congress should raise the debt ceiling, no conditions. Tea Party blackmail only serves the wealthy, protecting their tax breaks. ......................

Meanwhile, some two-dozen plus Republicans in the House should join the Democrats and the Senate and accept McConnell's proposal, and break this attempt to cripple the American economy so that the rich can avoid higher taxes.

This would lead to postponing an inevitable economic collapse.

At this point it's all about confidence. Consumer confidence and investor confidence.

Which has not changed much; what has changed is buying power.

The two sides should grow up and acknowledge that neither side is going to get everything they want. There will have to be a compromise, unless they want to bring American down.

Most likely.

I will concede point of not ALWAYS reducing. But I would love to see the economist who believes in growing the size of government during a recession defend his position.

.......................

Hey, I'm all for fostering innovation, but that can also be done by the government getting out of the way of private innovators. Or...gasp...giving them tax breaks for taking risk.

Point taken. Yes, there needs to be social safety nets. Just not for those who can support themselves.
I assure you welfare abusers do exist,....
.....................

If you add national defense with interest on the debt with an estimated 20% admin cost across the Govt (which is actually very good...even the best non-profits are in this range) you get real close to 40% not going back into the economy.

I agree in limiting spending, especially on war! Your rhetoric on welfare is hyperbola! Fact is, we pay way more than necessary, hiring social workers to act as welfare gatekeepers. Most who have a college degree, yet not an occupationally useful one. Their parents wanted them to have a higher education; this partly explains why there is so much useless government growth.

I think they should raise it. Not raising it may be perceived as a default on our obligations. Not raising it will certainly send the stock markets and our economy tumbling. Its the kind of thing that can lead to shooting wars.

:nono: It has gone as far as it can and still appear viable!

Quote:
Originally Posted by voltaire
Only when they see there is a solid basis for the economy to grow will they invest their money instead of sitting on it.
..............................
Stop bailing out people in foreclosure. Let the foreclosure process to proceed as it always has in the past , and in so doing, let the housing market bottom out so it can grow back again in a healthy manner. All these things will make for a healthy economic environment and encourage the rich to invest their money.[/I]

They are not sitting on their money, take my word for it!
The housing market has become out of control; we have wealthy persons buying up more residential property, then renting out to those who once owned their own homes. Where do you draw the line, where you may call it decent?

:rotfl: You guys are seriously deluded. Do you really think ANYONE in the current Republican field has a clue as to how to fix the economy?



The private sector isn't doing a good job atm.

quite a number already get paid by the government, why bother?


I was under the impression that stopped a long time ago. But it's odd that the American auto manufacturers not only preserved their jobs but have now paid back their loans and are profitable again. But you think it would have been better if we let them all go bankrupt? Why is that?

This shows that some government intervention is good. Do you know much about the US history after 1865?

:darwinsm: Blaming Reagan et alia because the Dimms lied? Back in the '80s, the Dimms promised Reagan a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in increased taxes. They lied, pure and simple! What do we have now? Obama promising spending cuts. Well, what and where? What and where is Obama's plan for spending cuts? There isn't one is the correct answer. But, by golly, he sure knows how to raise taxes!

Obama does what is in his best interest. What should he do? To begin with, live up to his main campaign promise! I did not vote for him, he is too much the politician and not enough a true believer in his own ideas.
The debt cannot be raised unless you want your kids to move to another country!

 

[The Barbarian]

There is also the danger of going cold turkey on the debt. Roosevelt tried that in 1937. Didn't work so well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Back in the '80s, the Dimms promised Reagan a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in increased taxes.

The republican controlled Congress. All they had to do was vote for what they wanted.

Reagan actually increased spending and cut taxes his first year. Classic Keynsian economics, and it worked. The problem is, he didn't realize that you can't do it as a permanent policy. At some point, you have to pay it back.

His solution was a series of tax hikes, including the largest tax increase in peacetime history. And he still had the highest peacetime debt up to that time.

Not very much like the tea party, um? The problem was that he had to actually govern. Ideological purity has a much harder time, when faced with the real world.

 

[Alate_One]

I will concede point of not ALWAYS reducing. But I would love to see the economist who believes in growing the size of government during a recession defend his position.

This is a highly unusual recession and the majority of the western world remains mired in it. In Greece, the private sector remains in a deep hole and aggregate demand has declined enormously. When the government stopped spending it cut off one of the few private sector revenue sources that remained healthy. This further reduced aggregate demand and is now resulting in even lower tax revenues. The result is deeper recession, lower GDP and collapsing tax revenues.

This is from an article I found from a quick search.

As a matter of fact our government is at the highest percentage of GDP since World War II.

Ever thought that maybe that's because GDP is crap, not because government is growing by leaps and bounds?

Not sure where the percentage enters dangerous territory. I do know I have not heard of a revolution starting because the people thought they were taxed too little.

I don't know of people revolting because "government was too big". Because it was too oppressive or nonfunctional yes, simply too big, no. Many of the happiest and best off western countries have a government that is at a higher percentage of GDP than ours.

No, but doesn't make them wrong either. The quote I referenced earlier was from a co-Nobel Prize winner. That doesn't make him right, but it does make him credible.

You're making an argument to authority. Because someone has won a Nobel Prize or any other award in one area doesn't suddenly make them an expert in other areas. I have a PhD, does that mean I automatically know more about every possible subject than you do? No, it doesn't.

Hey, I'm all for fostering innovation, but that can also be done by the government getting out of the way of private innovators. Or...gasp...giving them taxbreaks for taking risk.

Tax breaks have the same effect as government grants. But how is an innovator supposed to market their ideas when nobody wants to take a risk in the current climate? It takes money to make money and if you don't have any your idea is going to sit on the shelf.

I would put forth that the vast majority of innovation in the U.S. came from the private sector. Carnegie, Chrysler, Edison, Ford, are all examples.

All examples from a different era. But we could also bring up all the innovations that GOVERNMENT sponsored. Like say the internet we are using to communicate, the space program which gave rise to GPS and other technologies. The highway system which has enabled so much commerce, it's almost unfathomable. But yeah Chrysler (which many have posted they wanted to go bankrupt) is far better than that . . . oh wait.

Yep. The facts support you here. So how do you explain the percentage of GDP. Could it be that our lower tax rates have in fact INCREASED government revenue? BTW, the answer is yes.

Nope. You'll do better if you stop promoting the same lines that every Republican tells you are true and investigate to find out if they actually ARE true. Tax rates were lowered during the Reagan years, raised a bit during bush #1, raised more during Clinton and dropped again during Bush #2. Now when I look for dips in revenue they line up with tax rates being lowered. The larger effect appears to be the business cycle, which moves independently of tax rates, you can easily see the dot com bubble and the 2008 crash and recession.

Point taken. Yes, there needs to be social safety nets. Just not for those who can support themselves.

I agree, I just think the number that can support themselves are relatively few, though you'll always have some that game the system. Though there is a trapping mechanism, part of it has to do with the fact that it's actually quite difficult for the poor to make it into the middle class. The jobs that are available to many of these people don't pay enough to allow them to escape poverty. I think we need a better educational system that doesn't assume that college is for everyone but recognizes that trades can pay quite well and require less schooling.

I agree with you here. The rich get most their income from capital gains vs. income. (Two different tax codes.) The poor are almost entirely taxed on income. A flat 20% income tax would not really touch the top earners. I concede your point. I didn't propose a flat tax though.

I think we need a better way of getting at capital gains without hurting the middle class person that sells their home.

I agree, but it would provide incentive for saving at all levels. Besides, not much fun being rich if you can't spend it. To make things fairer, you could top the housing tax protection at the median house cost. Mansions would still be taxable.

I believe that was one of the suggestions floating around the debt ceiling deal.

Except that banks, stocks (mutual funds included) only make money when business grow or declare dividends. (Yes, some make money off of speculation, but much like gambling it only goes so far).

Wall Street has been doing pretty well (if you look at the markets).

At the end of the day investments do make their way back into the economy. Remember, most retirement accounts at all economic levels are tied to savings and investment. It's not just the rich.

If they do, why hasn't the rest of the economy recovered as well as the markets? As to retirement accounts you have to have a job that is good enough to actually give you a retirement account. The large percentage of people in this country don't have them. They can't afford them on their own since they are living paycheck to paycheck. People are hurting in the USA and our leaders and elites are simply clueless about it. The above link is fodder for unrest and revolution once people start to realize it.

Lack of profit in the government is ABSOLUTELY a good thing. Government's tend to go the other direction though, to wastefullness (or at least inefficiency).

Even "wasted" money goes to someone that is going to put money back into the economy, unless it's being funneled to a foreign power.

 

[eameece]

:darwinsm: Blaming Reagan et alia because the Dimms lied? Back in the '80s, the Dimms promised Reagan a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in increased taxes. They lied, pure and simple! What do we have now? Obama promising spending cuts. Well, what and where? What and where is Obama's plan for spending cuts? There isn't one is the correct answer. But, by golly, he sure knows how to raise taxes!

Nancy Pelosi went to the old playbook "pay-go." Pay-go has resulted in over a trillion in deficits with more of the same to come. Time to face the music. Dimms have no plan for anything other than to blame the Republicans.

You are ernest and frank, but incorrect. The Tea Party program didn't work in the 80s and it's not working now. Only the rich benefit from the trickle-down policy, because it doesn't trickle. Where are all the promised job these last 10 years of Bush tax cuts? Nowhere. The rich are not hiring. We don't need spending cuts, unless they are for things the Dimms say we don't need. The Dimms are the ones who reduced the deficit; your guys created it. There was not promised spending cuts under Reagan; he just made cuts to social programs, huge increases in other spending, and huge tax cuts. Result, endless debt. Now Obama has a plan for huge spending cuts, which I guess you can't even see, although it's all over the news. That the trouble with zealots like you; they see only what they wish to see.

 

[rocketman]

You are ernest and frank, but incorrect. The Tea Party program didn't work in the 80s and it's not working now. Only the rich benefit from the trickle-down policy, because it doesn't trickle.

Your incorrect again eameece, as much trash as you talk about Reagan and his policies you should at least be informed enough to know that when Reagan took office unemployment was at 7% and when he left office it was 5.2% and the standard of living for most Americans went up. It trickled for those that applied themselves not the sloths you support. Unemployment numbers have continued to climb under Obama even after he has thrown a trillion dollars at it, why is that? :think:

Where are all the promised job these last 10 years of Bush tax cuts? Nowhere. The rich are not hiring.

Eating the rich will not fix the problem though I know it strays from your montra. I will concede that Bush was as big of a liberal spend thrift as Obama though, both have managed to strap the taxpayers with sizable debt. You think that taxing the rich will fix it but, your wrong, there needs to be an end to corporate welfare subsidies and deep cuts to spending to fix the problem, the rich that need to pay up are the companies getting a free ride. Individual tax rates for the rich are already the highest at 35%.

We don't need spending cuts, unless they are for things the Dimms say we don't need. The Dimms are the ones who reduced the deficit; your guys created it.

But of course, why would the spending cuts put forth by both sides be considered, oh thats right it would cut funding to all the social crap that the "Dimms" want. I assume "Dimms" is short for Dim Wits.

There was not promised spending cuts under Reagan; he just made cuts to social programs, huge increases in other spending, and huge tax cuts. Result, endless debt.

Yea, the country was just suffering back then... :kookoo:

Now Obama has a plan for huge spending cuts, which I guess you can't even see

:darwinsm: Now this statement is funny... It needs no elaboration.

That the trouble with zealots like you; they see only what they wish to see.

Same can be said for zealots like you.

 

[some other dude]

Same can be said for zealots like you.

I think you pegged him. :chuckle:

zealot - 4 dictionary results
—Synonyms
2. extremist, crank, bigot. See fanatic.

 

[Alate_One]

At this point it's all about confidence. Consumer confidence and investor confidence.

And nobody has any more confidence in the failed boy wonder.

Confidence?

This is not due to confidence. This is a HUGE problem. Not one Republican could do any better, I assure you. We haven't had a recovery of the necessary magnitude since 1981 and Reagan had massive tax and interest rates to cut. We currently have neither.

The problem is Republicans have no interest in what needs to be done to fix it. The cut taxes and spending mantra doesn't work in this situation. Taxes are already low and cutting spending does the opposite of promoting growth.

But the real sticking point is there are no effective tools left in our toolbox to use against this massive loss of jobs, except for more stimulus but Republicans would NEVER agree to that so . . . here we are stuck in recession for . . . who knows how long. Recession doesn't help the deficit either.

 

[rexlunae]

I would hardly call a Co-Nobel Prize winner a complete hack IMHO.

Nobel laureates are far from immune to quackery. And anyway, if you want to side with them by default, then you better just listen to whatever Obama says and assume he's right.

 

[rexlunae]

Should congress side with Obama and vote to raise the debt ceiling, or take a hardline and operate within current spending limits?

There's really no option to not raise the ceiling. No one knows exactly what will happen if we default on our debt, but it's a fair bet that it won't be good, to say nothing of what will happen when people's social security benefits fail to show up. We've already committed to spending the money. What we've been seeing is basically just political brinksmanship, and it really is potentially costing us economic stability and recovery even now, with the only real goal being partisan pandering. Neither party has proposed a budget that would allow us to do without raising the ceiling (meaning that "siding with Obama" isn't accurate either), so we've just got a game of chicken. They (mostly the Republicans) need to grow up and think about the good of the country instead of the next election.

 

[eameece]

Your incorrect again eameece, as much trash as you talk about Reagan and his policies you should at least be informed enough to know that when Reagan took office unemployment was at 7% and when he left office it was 5.2% and the standard of living for most Americans went up. It trickled for those that applied themselves not the sloths you support. Unemployment numbers have continued to climb under Obama even after he has thrown a trillion dollars at it, why is that? :think:

Those whom you call "applied themselves" were those who made off like bandits from all the junk bonds. Unemployment rose again soon under Reagan's successor. His legacy was the bad recession of 1990-92. Clinton took office and fortunes rose for the middle class; which means most of us. There was a chart I posted earlier that showed clearly how the average person benefits when Democrats are in office and suffers when the Repugs are in office. Unemployment went down under Obama; Bush caused this greatest recession in 80 years. It would have been worse if Obama had not stimulated it; granted that he didn't do enough.

Eating the rich will not fix the problem though I know it strays from your montra. I will concede that Bush was as big of a liberal spend thrift as Obama though, both have managed to strap the taxpayers with sizable debt. You think that taxing the rich will fix it but, your wrong, there needs to be an end to corporate welfare subsidies and deep cuts to spending to fix the problem, the rich that need to pay up are the companies getting a free ride. Individual tax rates for the rich are already the highest at 35%.

I don't eat people, and learn how to spell mantra. Requiring the rich to pay their fair share will not affect them in the least. Your guys are steadfastly opposed to ending corporate welfare and tax breaks to oil companies that not only don't need them, but should not even exist, much less be supported by tax breaks. 35% is low; under Clinton it was 39% and it worked well. If you are not rich, you won't pay them, so why defend these tax breaks? There needs to be spending for the future-- if you care about your country, and not just your own taxes.

But of course, why would the spending cuts put forth by both sides be considered, oh thats right it would cut funding to all the social crap that the "Dimms" want. I assume "Dimms" is short for Dim Wits.

Most politicians are at least a bit dim witted these days, but that's the fault of the voters and the system.

Yea, the country was just suffering back then... :kookoo:

The minimum wage stayed flat the whole time, for example, for at least 12 years 1981-1993. Most people lost ground; people started working two jobs; it was a depression for average people.

:darwinsm: Now this statement is funny... It needs no elaboration.

Why is it you can't see the huge cuts Obama is offering? What about 3 trillion do you not understand? What is "inadequate"? What more should he cut? You really think Democrats are going to eliminate a ragged social safety net and infrastructure/energy investments and government enforcement that are already suffering from 30 years of cuts? You really think seniors should give up the money they paid in to Social Security, to finance more tax breaks for the rich? Liberals and many moderates are not going to agree; we need more social safety net, not less; especially during the current depression. These are times when the government needs to do more, as Obama tried to do.

Spending cuts-only austerity hurts the recovery and hurts people who lost jobs and income through NO fault of their own, but through the fault of Bush and Republican policies that created this depression in the first place. You guys just want to kick the people who are down, and put the debt on them. It is not their debt. Reagan and Bush created it, not them.

 

[eameece]

I think you pegged him. :chuckle:

This one's for you, Barney
http://youtu.be/gh4zvQfDhi0

 

[Frank Ernest]

The republican controlled Congress. All they had to do was vote for what they wanted.

No, they didn't control Congress. They voted for the Dimm "compromise." The Dimms lied.

Reagan actually increased spending and cut taxes his first year. Classic Keynsian economics, and it worked.

Nope. Classic Keynes would be to increase spending and raise taxes to match.

The problem is, he didn't realize that you can't do it as a permanent policy. At some point, you have to pay it back.

At some point, you might get your facts straight too. I'm not counting on it. I'm not counting on your fellow :Commie:s to realize that debt should be paid back either.

His solution was a series of tax hikes, including the largest tax increase in peacetime history. And he still had the highest peacetime debt up to that time.

:jolly: And the old Dimm propaganda machine rolls on.

Not very much like the tea party, um? The problem was that he had to actually govern. Ideological purity has a much harder time, when faced with the real world.

:darwinsm: :Commie:libs should never use phrases such as "real world." I get cramps from laughing so hard.

 

[Frank Ernest]

There's really no option to not raise the ceiling.

:darwinsm: The only option is unlimited borrowing and more debt?

No one knows exactly what will happen if we default on our debt, but it's a fair bet that it won't be good, to say nothing of what will happen when people's social security benefits fail to show up.

It's called impeachment. I do believe there is a law in place that SS bennies must be paid. Happened when Clinton's Treasury Secretary tried the same stunt.

We've already committed to spending the money.

We can't "uncommit" to spending the money? Welcome to the world of Kaizari Obama!

What we've been seeing is basically just political brinksmanship, and it really is potentially costing us economic stability and recovery even now, with the only real goal being partisan pandering.

And it's your buds doing the pandering plus the school-yard bully blather.

Neither party has proposed a budget that would allow us to do without raising the ceiling (meaning that "siding with Obama" isn't accurate either), so we've just got a game of chicken.

Really? Don't pay attention much, do you?

They (mostly the Republicans) need to grow up and think about the good of the country instead of the next election.

:darwinsm: Nice of you to pick up on the Obamatheme of "only adult in the room." Right up there with Barbie on the propaganda line. 'Bout time for you Dimms to grow up and realize you can't spend other people's money forever without severe consequences, no?