The Guardian wrote:
So, now the odds are that we're headed towards a government shutdown. For those of you who'll want to say it's Obama's fault because he refused to accept this new extension offer from the GOP, I note that that came with a massive string attached: cuts of $12bn more to the domestic discretionary budget. That is not parcelled out over the fiscal year. That's $12bn in that one week. And that's on top of the $10bn already cut in the two previous continuing resolutions. Finally, Obama said "enough".

No, it's definitely the GOP that's driving the shutdown. Why? On the surface, the "why" is over the size of cuts. But I mean: really, really, really why. I have two theories:

1. It's a kind of psychological thing among especially (but not limited to) the new members: they came here to shake things up, not go along and get along; and this is shaking things up. We all have these moments in our lives where we actually want to precipitate a crisis, just to see what would happen and to show observers that we mean business.

Fascinating little report in Politico today, in which a source from inside that fateful GOP House caucus meeting Monday night spilled some beans:

"The Democrats think they benefit from a government shutdown. I agree," Boehner said during a closed-door, 90-minute meeting on House Republicans on Monday night, according to several lawmakers who attended the session.

Boehner's opinion was quickly backed up GOP lawmakers who were serving in Congress during 1995, when former speaker Newt Gingrich (Georgia) squared off with then-President Bill Clinton by shutting down the government twice. Reps Don Young (Alaska), Dana Rohrabacher (California) and Buck McKeon (California) – a close ally – supported Boehner's position. Dozens of other Republicans rallied to support Boehner as well, in a moment that one GOP insider called a "turning point" for House Republicans.

"My view is that a government shutdown doesn't benefit anyone necessarily, but if one party or the other is going to get an edge, it's probably the Democrats. I agree with the speaker there," Rep Steve LaTourette (Ohio) told Politico. "If you look at the government shutdown of 1995, it guaranteed President Clinton's re-election. And that's what this would do. If you want to cede the presidential race in 2012, you shut down the government."

But while Boehner may have backing from the old veterans in his camp, he's run headlong into the Tea Party group of House Republicans who believe that Obama and Senate Democrats would come off the worse if a shutdown actually takes place.

These hardline Republicans, not all of whom are freshmen, have forced Boehner to play hardball with the Democrats or face a potential threat to his own survival as speaker. This hardcore faction is insisting on no less than the $61bn spending cut package passed by the House in February, and they've refused to back to any proposal that includes smaller reductions […]

The split among Republicans breaks somewhat along generational lines, but even more clearly between those who have served in government – either in the state, local or federal level – and those who have never done so.

So they're being told by people with experience that they're going to hurt their party, and they don't care. And how about that LaTourette fellow, eh? LaTourette's Syndrome: saying things publicly that many people think but wouldn't even say privately.

So that's theory one: they came here to fight and they just want to get it on. Once that psychology gets in a certain number of brains, a tipping point is reached.

2. It's about economics and the presidential election. The GOP knows that if the economy keeps improving and unemployment is down to 8% by election time, their chances in 2012 are fairly slim. Now, I hasten to note that that is a big if, so who knows? But everyone understands this.

A shutdown affects the economy immediately and directly. Hundreds of thousands of people in the public sector aren't working and therefore aren't spending. Hundreds of thousands more in the private sector who depend almost entirely, or at least largely, on government contracts for their livelihoods are out of luck. This is everyone from GM to pencil manufacturers. A huge swath of the economy just closes. If the shutdown lasts long enough, layoffs come along. Two bad months slow the tender momentum that now exists.

There you are. Psych and Econ.

Polonius wrote:Basically, the government stops doing anything that's not related to protection, security, etc. That's still pretty broad, of course.

The USPS doesn't rely on the budget, so keeps running. Social Secuirity checks aren't paid out of the budget (well, retirment and Title II disability aren't, SSI payments are).

It's looking pretty real. I'm at training for my federal job, and they've got it short and are making sure we all get home and off the clock by midnight tomorrow.

youbedead wrote:
Or what they'll lock you in an let you fend for yourselves.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So basically, the debt stands absolutely no chance of being altered by the cuts demanded by the far right wing of the republicans?

So these cuts, which will hurt the nation's poorest elements, are basically pissing into the wind?

Melissia wrote:For reference for my previous statement... in 2010, the government owed (and this is directly from the treasury department's website) $413,954,825,362.17 in interest alone.

That's 400 trillion? dollars, to put that ten billion dollar cut in perspective. Yeah, it's nothing, a pittance and not some all-important thing which might stand even a remote chance of staving off the growth of our deficit and debt. Last year, our government made just over 2 trillion. Even if the interest simply stopped growing period (not going to happen) it'd take something like 200 years to pay it off if every single dollar the us government owed was dedicated solely to paying off the interest.

[edit: Meh, I dunno if I'm doing the math right. Someone here check it, I gotta go.]

Melissia wrote:Keep in mind that these tea party repugs aren't actually trying to solve the deficit and debt problem like they claim they are. The only way to do that is to push for higher taxes AND budget cuts. They're only focusing on half the equation.

Polonius wrote:Jobs are coming back, and it's getting harder to make the "we need to cut taxes to stimulate the economy" argument. Not a lot harder, but a little.

agnosto wrote:

Melissia wrote:For reference for my previous statement... in 2010, the government owed (and this is directly from the treasury department's website) $413,954,825,362.17 in interest alone.

That's 400 trillion? dollars, to put that ten billion dollar cut in perspective. Yeah, it's nothing, a pittance and not some all-important thing which might stand even a remote chance of staving off the growth of our deficit and debt. Last year, our government made just over 2 trillion. Even if the interest simply stopped growing period (not going to happen) it'd take something like 200 years to pay it off if every single dollar the us government owed was dedicated solely to paying off the interest.

[edit: Meh, I dunno if I'm doing the math right. Someone here check it, I gotta go.]

That's 400 billion, 400 trillion would see the US giving the Chinese land as they foreclosed on our debt.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Jobs are coming back, and it's getting harder to make the "we need to cut taxes to stimulate the economy" argument. Not a lot harder, but a little.

Is it any harder to make the "we need more economic stimulus to help the economy" argument?

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Keep in mind that these tea party repugs aren't actually trying to solve the deficit and debt problem like they claim they are. The only way to do that is to push for higher taxes AND budget cuts. They're only focusing on half the equation.

What's a "repug"? I don't see anyone using the term "Demon Rats" or some similar perjorative to refer to DNC members, could you possibly refrain from marginalizing political opposition with derisive terms? It doesn't help your position.

On topic, the government can function fine by cutting spending. The only reason to raise taxes is if (Laffer curve notwithstanding) you believe there are essential programs that should not be cut.

Polonius wrote:Jobs are coming back, and it's getting harder to make the "we need to cut taxes to stimulate the economy" argument. Not a lot harder, but a little.

Is it any harder to make the "we need more economic stimulus to help the economy" argument?

biccat wrote:The only reason to raise taxes is if (Laffer curve notwithstanding) you believe there are essential programs that should not be cut.

biccat wrote:
Is it any harder to make the "we need more economic stimulus to help the economy" argument?

Melissia wrote:There's no pretense, we have historical data for it.

But really, we'll always have ups and downs in an economy-- what the government spending tries to do is stabilize the ups and downs so that it is a growth on average.

I believe the point is that the economy can't really be broke

agnosto wrote:I see a few responsible choices, balance the budget by reducing expenses, increase revenues through taxes or a combination of the two.

Melissia wrote:-- what the government spending tries to do is stabilize the ups and downs so that it is a growth on average.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:The only reason to raise taxes is if (Laffer curve notwithstanding) you believe there are essential programs that should not be cut.

There's also the matter of whether or not the economy can bear the transition of employment from the public sector to the private one, as that naturally incurs a transitional cost that might be regarded as significant when taken in the context of escalating debt. Basically, it may not be possible to make responsible cuts at a rate that is fast enough to outpace the rising tide of red ink, meaning that taxes would have to be raised in order to make up the difference.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it any harder to make the "we need more economic stimulus to help the economy" argument?

I didn't realize that there were important people still making that argument.

Scrabb wrote:

Melissia wrote:-- what the government spending tries to do is stabilize the ups and downs so that it is a growth on average.

That's what it tells us during the rough years. During the good years the spending continues. Not that this helps us right now.

youbedead wrote:Actually yes it is, as that argument is supported by historical precedent, see great depression

post WW2 Europe, post civil war depression, 1850-1900 japan etc.

Amaya wrote:Only nonessential sections.

Melissia wrote:For reference for my previous statement... in 2010, the government owed (and this is directly from the treasury department's website) $413,954,825,362.17 in interest alone.

That's 400 trillion? dollars, to put that ten billion dollar cut in perspective. Yeah, it's nothing, a pittance and not some all-important thing which might stand even a remote chance of staving off the growth of our deficit and debt. Last year, our government made just over 2 trillion. Even if the interest simply stopped growing period (not going to happen) it'd take something like 200 years to pay it off if every single dollar the us government owed was dedicated solely to paying off the interest.

[edit: Meh, I dunno if I'm doing the math right. Someone here check it, I gotta go.]

LordofHats wrote:

youbedead wrote:Actually yes it is, as that argument is supported by historical precedent, see great depression

There's a lot of debate and a lot of evidence that says Roosevelt made the Depression worse not better. Others say he didn't change it at all. Economic historians are still slapping each other over it.

post WW2 Europe, post civil war depression, 1850-1900 japan etc.

It's nice to think that the economy lives in a bubble but it doesn't work that simply. I don't know much about the Meiji Era of Japan, but post WW2 and the Reconstruction South had their economies effected more by outside sources than by their domestic governments.

A better example of what you want is Muhammed Ali's Egypt in the 1800's. I mean, sure he wasted Egypt's social order and created a new underclass with racial overtones, but he gave the economy a big kick in the ass and as far as I know it worked. It's partially his fault the Reconstruction recessions related to the Cotton bubble happened

biccat wrote:
Which is a valid point. However, the President's current proposal is to increase spending in the next fiscal year, which would only exacerbate the problem.

biccat wrote:
Only if you consider the federal reserve to be unimportant.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Let's just say there's a million soldiers in afganistan right now. If you hold back a single paycheck from all of them, you save a billion dollars, at least. In actuality, there's a lot more soldiers than that, so we save a HUGE amount of money.

Samus_aran115 wrote:400 billion isn't actually that much, given how valuable some of our exports are, and how much money we'll actually save from this shutdown.

agnosto wrote:That's 400 billion, 400 trillion would see the US giving the Chinese land as they foreclosed on our debt.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

agnosto wrote:That's 400 billion, 400 trillion would see the US giving the Chinese land as they foreclosed on our debt.

This is a common misconception - you can't foreclose on treasury bonds or call them in or anything like that, the Chinese can't do anything with the debt but sit on it until the bills mature. Treasury bonds don't have any collateral, so there's nothing to foreclose on, and you can't just demand that a treasury bill be paid in full right now. If the US were to actually default on treasury bills, which isn't going to happen unless there is some kind of 'end of the world' catastrophe going on, China would simply be out all of the money they loaned us. No one would actually buy anymore after such an event, which would be really bad for the US, but the immediate effect is not 'Chinese now on the white house' but 'Chinese are really ticked off and broke'.

Melissia wrote:Unless we reform social security and medicare, we won't ever see a stop in the growth of government debt. And realistically speaking we won't ever be able to pay it off unless we raise taxes.

agnosto wrote:I was thinking (not seriously) more along the lines of calling in the debt and then taking land instead of cash, since we don't have any.

Melissia wrote:Non-essential to rich people at any rate, not to the poor who they often benefit.

Keep in mind that these tea party repugs aren't actually trying to solve the deficit and debt problem like they claim they are. The only way to do that is to push for higher taxes AND budget cuts. They're only focusing on half the equation.

Requia wrote:

Melissia wrote:Non-essential to rich people at any rate, not to the poor who they often benefit.

Keep in mind that these tea party repugs aren't actually trying to solve the deficit and debt problem like they claim they are. The only way to do that is to push for higher taxes AND budget cuts. They're only focusing on half the equation.

They'd also need to be pushing for budget cuts in other places. The discretionary budget was 1.3 trillion in 2010, and the deficit was 830 billion. Unless they 're willing to cut damn near everything, or go for a *massive* tax hike, and the deficit is going to go up even with the cuts to the discretionary budget.

There are three things that *need* to be done that the GOP refuses to consider:

raise taxes
cut military spending (this is easy really, fire the mercenaries, or at least stop letting them charge obscene prices, and stop buying things we don't need like new aircraft carriers and planes that can't fly in the rain).
serious efforts to reduce the cost of healthcare (and when I say serious, I mean telling hospitals, pharmaceuticals etc "charge less or you go to jail"), or severe cuts to medicare (on the current path by the time kids today retire we'll need to take an additional 50% out of every paycheck to fund medicare, which is probably on the wrong side of the laffer curve).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ETA: Just to be fair here, the democrats only seem serious about doing 1 of those three things.

Requia wrote:There are three things that *need* to be done that the GOP refuses to consider:

raise taxes
cut military spending (this is easy really, fire the mercenaries, or at least stop letting them charge obscene prices, and stop buying things we don't need like new aircraft carriers and planes that can't fly in the rain).
serious efforts to reduce the cost of healthcare (and when I say serious, I mean telling hospitals, pharmaceuticals etc "charge less or you go to jail"), or severe cuts to medicare (on the current path by the time kids today retire we'll need to take an additional 50% out of every paycheck to fund medicare, which is probably on the wrong side of the laffer curve).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ETA: Just to be fair here, the democrats only seem serious about doing 1 of those three things.

biccat wrote:

Requia wrote:There are three things that *need* to be done that the GOP refuses to consider:

raise taxes
cut military spending (this is easy really, fire the mercenaries, or at least stop letting them charge obscene prices, and stop buying things we don't need like new aircraft carriers and planes that can't fly in the rain).
serious efforts to reduce the cost of healthcare (and when I say serious, I mean telling hospitals, pharmaceuticals etc "charge less or you go to jail"), or severe cuts to medicare (on the current path by the time kids today retire we'll need to take an additional 50% out of every paycheck to fund medicare, which is probably on the wrong side of the laffer curve).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ETA: Just to be fair here, the democrats only seem serious about doing 1 of those three things.

You should also note that the GOP is open to serious efforts to reduce the cost of government sponsored healthcare by attempting to repeal Obamacare (HRRA? HIRA? Whatever the heck it's called.)

Samus_aran115 wrote:400 billion isn't actually that much, given how valuable some of our exports are, and how much money we'll actually save from this shutdown.

Let's just say there's a million soldiers in afganistan right now. If you hold back a single paycheck from all of them, you save a billion dollars, at least. In actuality, there's a lot more soldiers than that, so we save a HUGE amount of money. Plus all the domestic things they're cutting down on. This is a good idea, as far as I can tell. I'll be interested to see what happens when it's over.

biccat wrote:

agnosto wrote:I was thinking (not seriously) more along the lines of calling in the debt and then taking land instead of cash, since we don't have any.

That's his point. The only collateral against the debt is the goodwill of the United States. It's unsecured credit. If the US decides not to pay China, then China gets hosed.

They can "call in" the debt, but if we don't have the means/desire/will to pay, then it's too bad China.

biccat wrote:

agnosto wrote:I was thinking (not seriously) more along the lines of calling in the debt and then taking land instead of cash, since we don't have any.

That's his point. The only collateral against the debt is the goodwill of the United States. It's unsecured credit. If the US decides not to pay China, then China gets hosed.

They can "call in" the debt, but if we don't have the means/desire/will to pay, then it's too bad China.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

The stuff they are bickering about is totally inconsequential to the overall budget.

The tea party is going to shut down the government over planned parenthood and NPR (among others), which is likely about .01% of the budget.

dogma wrote:In actuality there are a lot less, in Afghanistan at least. The US military, including reserves, is about 3 million strong, and most of those soldiers are considered necessary for general operations; meaning that the deployable strength of the US military is only something between 500-700k.

Melissia wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:400 billion isn't actually that much, given how valuable some of our exports are, and how much money we'll actually save from this shutdown.

It's still far, far greater than the budget cuts that the government has been making and is growing exponentially.

Unless we reform social security and medicare, we won't ever see a stop in the growth of government debt. And realistically speaking we won't ever be able to pay it off unless we raise taxes.

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

Requia wrote:

biccat wrote:

agnosto wrote:I was thinking (not seriously) more along the lines of calling in the debt and then taking land instead of cash, since we don't have any.

That's his point. The only collateral against the debt is the goodwill of the United States. It's unsecured credit. If the US decides not to pay China, then China gets hosed.

They can "call in" the debt, but if we don't have the means/desire/will to pay, then it's too bad China.

All China has to do to destroy the US is ban exports to us, we're rather dependent on them at this point.

Melissia wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

And yet, the trickle down economic "theory" has been proven, time and again, to be a baseless load of crap. Giving rich people more money won't give the country more jobs, it's been proven so many times that it's painful to think someone still believes in that theory. The trickle down economic "theory" is a load of gak.

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

The rich should be taxed fairly, which they already are. Having money isn't a crime, and if you earn it - you should keep most of it.

So...where can we save some money? How about going back to the time-honored "If you get, you work" system? I know some of the Democratic party's constituents don't like that idea, but tough. You want things? Work. Let social programs be for the truly needy, as intended. Reduce the able-but-non-working population by 15%. Someone estimate for us what that would do.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.

The major papers are abuzz today with details of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI), including his plan to voucherize Medicare and drastically cut Medicaid by turning it into a block grant program. Ryan estimates that the GOP budget will reduce government spending by more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Ryan also said that the budget will include some sort of tax reform:

Well, the president’s commission, which I was a member of, first and foremost said to have economic growth in America, you need to lower tax rates for corporations and individuals and broaden the tax base. We will be recommending those kinds of things.

Ryan didn’t reveal the details during the interview, but the Wall Street Journal reported today that the plan will reduce both the top marginal income tax rate and the corporate income tax rate by 10 points:

Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.

The details of this will, of course, become much clearer tomorrow, but it’s worth remembering that Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” includes a reworking of the tax system that dramatically cuts taxes for the rich, raises taxes on 90 percent of the population, and still manages to cost the government trillions of dollars in revenue.

For the House Republican budget to raise the same amount of revenue while lopping ten points off of the top income tax rate means that the tax burden is necessarily going to be shifted down the income scale. Ryan yesterday also refused to endorse cutting taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, calling into question the GOP’s commitment to actually pairing a cut in the corporate tax rate with the elimination of loopholes and giveaways in order to raise the same amount of revenue through the corporate tax code.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
This is the exact opposite of truth. Economies are driven from the bottom up. The working class for the most stays in one area, and spends all their money on local businesses, which are either owned by or buy their stock from wealthier, non-local companies, in addition to employing other locals who also spend money thusly. The large, non-local companies are generally owned by even larger multinational corporations, like GE. They, in turn, take the money they've earned, and pay it out to their executives, who put it in swiss bank accounts and sit on it, living on a comparable pittance (millions of dollars) of what they actually own (much, much more), which just sits, locked away in a vault. The wealthy don't drive economies in the least, they suck money out of them for its own sake.

The rich should be taxed fairly, which they already are. Having money isn't a crime, and if you earn it - you should keep most of it.
>>They don't actually earn the money, they pay other people to earn it for them, or steal/swindle it through convoluted tricks (like speculation and high-frequency trading), and they pay significantly less of their income than poor people who can't afford to hire professional tax-evaders to minimize their costs with a tiny fraction of what they save by doing so.

So...where can we save some money? How about going back to the time-honored "If you get, you work" system? I know some of the Democratic party's constituents don't like that idea, but tough. You want things? Work. Let social programs be for the truly needy, as intended. Reduce the able-but-non-working population by 15%. Someone estimate for us what that would do.
>>The idea of capable people living on the public dime is largely a myth, and the rare exceptions being anything but a drop in the bucket even more so. And even if it weren't, they're still Americans, who spend the money on local businesses, who employ locals, and buy from/are owned by larger corporations, and thus cannot be a drain on the economy as a result.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.
>>That's much less of a problem than it's made out to be. They fill sub-minimum wage positions performing strenuous, unpleasant, untrained labor, working for private individuals or businesses that are small enough they don't think they'll get investigated. That's not to say the border shouldn't be secured, though I personally think just annexing mexico would be the simplest, easiest solution to that...

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

VoidAngel wrote:A flat tax isn't the answer, as attractive as it may be to some. It fits some definitions of "fair" (everybody pays the same portion) - but it won't pay the bills, so to speak. Those that the system enable to earn more, must pay more. It's "how much" more that is the question. While the current system has its loopholes and injustices, it mostly works.

Ahtman wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

Ahtman wrote:@Connor McKane: I can't tell if you are saying rich people aren't paying their taxes or if you are saying poor people (which isn't 50%) don't pay enough, or both at the same time.

I am reminded of all the studies that consistently show that Americans have no idea what the actual distribution of wealth is in the country though or that economic mobility has been on the decline for quite some time now. Just having a job (there is no need for an anagram) doesn't mean someone is well off or not in poverty. Hard work isn't as big a part of success as the myth would have you believe. There are many people who work very hard for very little but can't get any traction. There are many factors that come into play.

Polonius wrote:Do we really think we can solve the budget crisis by taxing people making peanuts?

Ahtman wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich.

Connor McKane wrote:Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich."

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

Connor McKane wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Fact: The shut down (if it happens) will be over Dems and Repubs unable to agree over a 2% cut in the budget.

That is 2 cents on every dollar.

Uhm, not it's not. It's 2% of the federal budget, which is not 2% of every dollar. 2% is also staggering sums of money and many, many people affected, not just a little here and there.

Dude. This isn't about you or me, and yes, if you could do the math 2% IS 2 cents of every dollar.

1 Dollar = 100 cents. so 2 cents would be 2% of a dollar. So of 2 cents of every dollar the Federal goverment takes in would be....2%

Melissia wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich."

No, they aren't. All the members of my family pay taxes, but we are by no means "the rich".

Same with a lot of middle class families.

The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

Manstein wrote:Ron Paul 2012!

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

I disagree. Rich people benefit greatly from the security and stability that the government provides much more than poor people. When you have five houses that are vacant most of the time and a legal system that says a poor person cant claim squatters rights, you are gaining from the political construct.

Poor people are dependent on a system created and established by the rich. It is to the Rich's benefit that these people be taken care of.

Now I agree that the benefits the Poor receive need to be better regulated. The Rich must however be careful with the opportunities they provide. When work is outsourced and people have less opportunity to work, well the Rich are creating a situation to their own peril.

Like I said the Rich and the Poor have both been running around rampantly. But the Poor really have little fear of a government collapse, they will be poor either way.

The poor have a much larger stake in smooth governance as evidenced by every governmentally dysfunctional region in history. The rich are insulated by their power and assets from sea changes in economic conditions. When you have a buffer you are better off then someone who is directly effected by changes in food prices. The wealthy also have increased fallback options such as the ability to re leverage wealth into newer more functional assets or the simple ability to leave the dysfunctional state. Being "poor either way" just means the poor are more directly and harshly effected by failures of the system meant to maintain them.

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

ShumaGorath wrote:

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth.

VoidAngel wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
This is the exact opposite of truth. Economies are driven from the bottom up. The working class for the most stays in one area, and spends all their money on local businesses, which are either owned by or buy their stock from wealthier, non-local companies, in addition to employing other locals who also spend money thusly. The large, non-local companies are generally owned by even larger multinational corporations, like GE. They, in turn, take the money they've earned, and pay it out to their executives, who put it in swiss bank accounts and sit on it, living on a comparable pittance (millions of dollars) of what they actually own (much, much more), which just sits, locked away in a vault. The wealthy don't drive economies in the least, they suck money out of them for its own sake.

Ah yes, the myth of the evil rich people. Do you actually know any C-level execs? Have you ever worked for a Fortune 300 company? I do. Our company is fairly typical for it's type. I know the leadership well. I know how they live, what they own, and how they spend. I know what our company spends on the community. It would be fair to say that the community wouldn't be livable without us. You've swallowed a party line hook, line, and fishing trawler - and now you're repeating it.

The rich should be taxed fairly, which they already are. Having money isn't a crime, and if you earn it - you should keep most of it.

They don't actually earn the money, they pay other people to earn it for them, or steal/swindle it through convoluted tricks (like speculation and high-frequency trading), and they pay significantly less of their income than poor people who can't afford to hire professional tax-evaders to minimize their costs with a tiny fraction of what they save by doing so.

See above.

So...where can we save some money? How about going back to the time-honored "If you get, you work" system? I know some of the Democratic party's constituents don't like that idea, but tough. You want things? Work. Let social programs be for the truly needy, as intended. Reduce the able-but-non-working population by 15%. Someone estimate for us what that would do.

The idea of capable people living on the public dime is largely a myth, and the rare exceptions being anything but a drop in the bucket even more so. And even if it weren't, they're still Americans, who spend the money on local businesses, who employ locals, and buy from/are owned by larger corporations, and thus cannot be a drain on the economy as a result.

Do you live or work in an impoverished area? Have you ever driven through one (with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, of course)? There are whole cities, effectively, that I assure you are a huge drain on the local economy.

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.

That's much less of a problem than it's made out to be. They fill sub-minimum wage positions performing strenuous, unpleasant, untrained labor, working for private individuals or businesses that are small enough they don't think they'll get investigated. That's not to say the border shouldn't be secured, though I personally think just annexing mexico would be the simplest, easiest solution to that...

It's a huge problem. There is no simple answer that everyone will like - and the Democrats own the Hispanic voters. So...the best ideas won't get implemented any time soon.

Andrew1975 wrote:True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

Andrew1975 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth.

True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

So, the fight about this 1.5% of the budget is pretty heated. Imagine the fight over the 6.2 trillion dollar cuts proposed over ten years by Ryan for the 2012 budget?

Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed.

Now, as a Generation-Y baby (what's up with the generation catch-phrases? I don't understand them), I pretty much blame my parent's generation for most of the financial troubles we're facing. These are the baby-boomers who basically lived lives of prosperity off the back of their parents who lived through the depression and then went on to squander it when it was their turn to take the reins of power.

I think it's time for the 40's and under to actually educate themselves and get involved in their country. I feel like there's almost an under-current of "I got mine, screw you" that's going on in politics now-a-days.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

As much as it pains me to do so, maybe we need to just establish that anyone who will reach the age of 65 after the year 2030 needs to provide for their own retirement while still paying taxes until those on SS die off.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So, the fight about this 1.5% of the budget is pretty heated. Imagine the fight over the 6.2 trillion dollar cuts proposed over ten years by Ryan for the 2012 budget?

There wont be one. Thats both unrealistic and politically dangerous. They're talking it up to appease the tea party who want them to perform actual, meaningful cuts now then they'll forget about it once a yearly budget is passed. They may even try to blame it on the dems, despite there being no realistic political will in the reds for cuts that are that deep.

Well, perhaps there needs to be political will. That's the point.

Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed

You shouldn't applaud people with unrealistic and politically charged budget proposals as they serve to do little more then damage the conversation..

As opposed to ineffectual cuts of between 35 and 61 billion dollars? Should I be applauding them? Why is it unrealistic? Because in the current climate it isn't politically feasible?

Now, as a Generation-Y baby (what's up with the generation catch-phrases? I don't understand them), I pretty much blame my parent's generation for most of the financial troubles we're facing. These are the baby-boomers who basically lived lives of prosperity off the back of their parents who lived through the depression and then went on to squander it when it was their turn to take the reins of power.

You should blame raeganomics and every president since that espoused trickle down economics or deregulatory superiority. Blaming a generation of people is lazy.

Nice selective quoting. The very next line said I don't blame the entire generation. Also, Obama has not espoused reaganomics, and has increased the debt far more than Reagan ever did. Bush was an idiot in a lot of ways - including financially.

I think it's time for the 40's and under to actually educate themselves and get involved in their country. I feel like there's almost an under-current of "I got mine, screw you" that's going on in politics now-a-days.

Yes, that's the under 40's you're getting that from.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

As much as it pains me to do so, maybe we need to just establish that anyone who will reach the age of 65 after the year 2030 needs to provide for their own retirement while still paying taxes until those on SS die off.

Because the democrats want Soc Sec reformation only and the republicans (who want to cut it entirely according to their ideology) are beholden to a massive elderly voting base. The party that wants to reform/cut it most is too chicken gak and political and the party that supports soc sec is busy trying to amend it via healthcare.

How does healthcare reform social security? I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard the specifics?

ShumaGorath wrote:

How does healthcare reform social security? I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard the specifics?

Healthcare is the largest exceptional cost to social security recipients. It's roundabout and ineffectual (also only incidentally related). They'd probably attempt to reform the main body of social security, but healthcare reform was their big political stunt for this half term. It's unlikely they'll try something more substantial until Obizzles second term is in some way secure. It's just unfortunate the alternative party wouldn't attempt to seriously reform either one due to inbuilt monetary or voter interests in their party and is seriously benefitted by being obstructive and detrimental to the process of reform (it looks bad for them if the dems succeed in any sort of well implemented reform policy).

Slarg232 wrote:You know, I just had a scary (personal) thought;

Government shutdown = angry people. Angry People = Bad Things Happening.......

And if my (now locked) thread has any basis in reality.....

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:You know, I just had a scary (personal) thought;

Government shutdown = angry people. Angry People = Bad Things Happening.......

And if my (now locked) thread has any basis in reality.....

It doesn't.

Ahtman wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich.

Other than the opportunity to gain and control vast personal, political, and economic power of course.

Melissia wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Please re-read the First Line. I am referring to those who pay taxes... they are considered "the rich."

No, they aren't. All the members of my family pay taxes, but we are by no means "the rich".

Same with a lot of middle class families.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

And the backs of the hard-working people whom they stepped on to get rich at their expense.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
While I don't actually believe you, even if every word you're saying is true: you're not at the top of the food chain, instead falling somewhere in the middle. Money exits the top, flowing into swiss bank accounts and third world sweatshops/bribe money, while the wealthy employ armies of accountants to better help them evade taxes, and in some cases actively steal from tax payers (*cough*GE*cough*). You're at best on the lower edge of upper class, and more likely solidly in upper-middle class (if even that), as are your boss and coworkers, which, while enough to have an accountant help you evade your taxes with loopholes and arbitrary deductions, doesn't quite reach the level in question.

Do you live or work in an impoverished area? Have you ever driven through one (with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, of course)? There are whole cities, effectively, that I assure you are a huge drain on the local economy.
>>That's not physically possible, aside from high crime rates causing businesses to move elsewhere, which doesn't result in a net change overall, merely a local depression. None of the related problems come from social programs being too generous, rather the exact opposite. The only way to fix such areas is to improve the quality of education, help people who can't pick themselves back up, and encourage jobs to move to the area. Cutting spending just makes it worse.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

True, but what I'm saying is if there is a collapse in the social contract. We can look at the french revolution as an example. Many of the rich paid with their lives. The poor were poor and stayed poor. a person can only fall so far before they die, the rich have further to fall and much more skin in the game. Lets face facts, if the US economy really dies, the world economy takes a fall.

The french aren't particularly representative of state collapses which usually result in even more extreme consolidation of wealth.

True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

If that were true the tea party wouldn't be fighting the taxation of the rich. Poor americans love rich ones to their own detriment. Americans are idiots when it comes to economic ideology.

I know some very rich people. Can't point to a darn one that did it by "stepping on" someone else. I see them killing themselves at high-stress jobs I wouldn't want to do; and most of them provide scores, hundreds, or even thousands of other people with jobs.

LordofHats wrote:There's a lot of debate and a lot of evidence that says Roosevelt made the Depression worse not better. Others say he didn't change it at all. Economic historians are still slapping each other over it.

It's nice to think that the economy lives in a bubble but it doesn't work that simply. I don't know much about the Meiji Era of Japan, but post WW2 and the Reconstruction South had their economies effected more by outside sources than by their domestic governments.

biccat wrote:You should also note that the GOP is open to serious efforts to reduce the cost of government sponsored healthcare by attempting to repeal Obamacare (HRRA? HIRA? Whatever the heck it's called.)

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

Stop illegal immigration. Those folks DO work (mostly) - but don't pay taxes, contribute to unemployment among citizens, and consume resources (medical care, etc.). You have a job? Here's your W2. We'll figure out how to get you naturalized. You don't? Get in the van.

The current chaos could have lead to the domino effect the free world was looking to set up ("Hey, look at them! They're free, and prosperous, and still MUSLIMS! The Americans didn't try to convert them! Hey...waitaminute...maybe we could have that too...?")

- but we are currently mucking it up in Libya by *participating*. For this to work, it has to be a Muslim idea, executed for and by Muslims. We need to get the hell out of there.

Lastly, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

VoidAngel wrote:Prosperous companies can afford to hire more people. Prosperous companies spend more on their communities. It's very simple. Without the prospect of prosperity, where is the drive to earn, innovate, or build? These things are not theories, they are truths.

Connor McKane wrote:Less than 50% of Americans pay taxes. This is the 1/2 that is considered "Rich."

So yeah, lets tax the "rich" so 50%+ of those who don't pay ANY federal taxes at all continue to have a free ride...

This is why the govt doesn't have enough money to continue. If everyone paid thier fair share via a "Flat" or "Fair" tax then there wouldn't be such a short fall.

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Now, I am a fiscal "Repug" (to quote Melissia ), with moderate social political views. I don't think his budget plan is perfect by any means. He needs to cut defense spending. This, by the way, goes against my own self interest as I am a member of the military. However, I do applaud him for at least making the effort to make the significant and painful cuts that are really needed.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I felt I should expound on my last statement. Why is no one talking about massive social security cuts? The whole system is financially insolvent. I know that I will have to provide for my own retirement (military pension, 401k, IRA etc.).

sebster wrote:No, there isn't debate. There's the broad consensus of the economic world, and there are the loons at the Cato institute pretending otherwise.

A flow of money into the economy stimulates aggregate demand. This is plain and simple truth. It doesn't matter whether that dollar comes from domestic government, foreign government, exports or anything else.

As such, the plain and simple fact is that a government running a short term stimulus will increase aggregate demand. You just have to accept this and move on to debate sensible things.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Huh. I always assumed it was more than that. That's about a one in one hundred ratio of serving to non-serving citizens then?

LordofHats wrote:I'm not talking about economics I'm talking about economic history studied by historians (as opposed to economists, though I assume an economic historian knows something about economics). I have a text book behind me with a least five articles by five people debating it from different places and even different countries. If there were a broad consensus on the issue then it would have no value in a classroom and wouldn't be the topic of discussion and debate for an entire fifty minute period.

Except that the two example given that I commented on didn't involve just government stimulus. Both the post Civil War depression and post WWII depression/recession (whatever, we're talking about something that varied quite a bit one nation to another) relied on other economic factors to be in play for their recovery.

I am not an economist and offer no comment on the value of government stimulus. Just that the precedents I commented on were not in support of the point made because the stimulus came along with other non-government related factors to provide economic recovery.

Andrew1975 wrote:
True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

LordofHats wrote:
Ah, the common misconception of revolution. The less rich use the poor to turn on the more rich to become richer. Ala French revolution BTW.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If that were true the tea party wouldn't be fighting the taxation of the rich. Poor americans love rich ones to their own detriment. Americans are idiots when it comes to economic ideology.

Khornholio wrote:Maybe it is a ploy by the more rich to p-off the less rich to incite the poor to have a go at the more rich so the more rich can impose martial law and retain their status as more rich.

dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Maybe it is a ploy by the more rich to p-off the less rich to incite the poor to have a go at the more rich so the more rich can impose martial law and retain their status as more rich.

That's happened before, as ridiculous as it might seem. In Brazil the industrialist class used concessions to the peasant class in order to create a new type of landholder so as to alienate the old agrarian elites, and divide the, rather large, class of unlanded, rural workers.

Khornholio wrote:
With the way things have been going for the last decade or so, I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs did this in the US.

Khornholio wrote:
I figured there was no intervention in Libya so as not set a precedent if gak kicked off in the states.

Khornholio wrote:
Not that I see the North Koreans dropping supplies to any kind of rebels or anything.

Andrew1975 wrote:
True, but as a model I can't think of one closer to the present situation. Can you?

The poor always turn on the rich.

That almost never happens. The poor rarely have any significant political voice. Generally political conflict is between the rich, and the slightly less rich, or the rich and the middle class.

Ahtman wrote:Usually those poor are lead by a cadre of the rich (or elite at at least) though. The American, Russian, and French Revolutions were spearheaded by upper class thinkers that elucidate the cause.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Most revolutions succeed when the common (read poor)...

Andrew1975 wrote:
...people take to the streets and refuse to be part of the social contract. Of course usually they are usually led by some rich person, but not always.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The poor are not really the hardest to keep in line until someone mobilizes them somehow...

Common and poor are not the same thing. There are a lot of common Americans, but very few poor Americans.

The elite are usually the instigators of the revolutions though.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Do you mean on a global scale? Because I see a lot of poor Americans, many that are deeply in debt with no prospects of ever getting out, which I consider being worse than poor because you have less than nothing. I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain? What is your definition of poor?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Usually this is only when they feel abused though, or there is some religious context (legitimate or not).

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the rich in the US are sitting pretty right now.

dogma wrote:No, the poor are really easy to keep in line.

Frazzled wrote:Government shutdown in less than 24 hours, meanwhile the Obamas go on vacation. I love 2011!

Some important bills are traditionally introduced at the request of the President, such as the annual federal budget.

Melissia wrote:.

douchebags

Melissia wrote:Obama did propose a budget. The legislature didn't vote on it.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Obama did propose a budget. The legislature didn't vote on it.

The Democratically controlled Congress didn't vote on it. Don't blame the Republicans for your mess.

Connor McKane wrote:Less than 50% of Americans pay taxes. This is the 1/2 that is considered "Rich."

So yeah, lets tax the "rich" so 50%+ of those who don't pay ANY federal taxes at all continue to have a free ride...

This is why the govt doesn't have enough money to continue. If everyone paid thier fair share via a "Flat" or "Fair" tax then there wouldn't be such a short fall.

All it means is that those who rely on the "dole" so to speak, well...

"Dey wont be gittin dey gummint checks and hafta git off dey butts and mebbee get a J.O.B. fer awhile?"

And, honestly, ask yourself this: Did you pay any taxes at all last year, or did you get a refund for just about or more then you paid in Federal Taxes?

If you didn't then you know what it is like to pay taxes. If you did, then you are not paying taxes... simple as that. Instead of having the "rich" like ME, pay for YOU, how about you voluntarily pay taxes (yes there is a box on your tax forms you can check to have the govt withhold some or all of your refund)

If the 50% who pay nothing did that, there would be no problem.

Melissia wrote:Meh, sorry. I'll edit that out...

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Obama did propose a budget. The legislature didn't vote on it.

The Democratically controlled Congress didn't vote on it. Don't blame the Republicans for your mess.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Obama did propose a budget. The legislature didn't vote on it.

The Democratically controlled Congress didn't vote on it. Don't blame the Republicans for your mess.

At the time the Democrats controlled Congress, the Republicans were being a bunch of meanie-heads. That totally excuses the Democrats for not passing a budget.

streamdragon wrote:
The current wave of revolutions in the Middle East would seem to disagree with you. The revolution in Tunisia was started by a student. He was so poor he started selling fruit out of a cart, which was then seized and destroyed by the police. So he set himself on fire. 28 days later, the then sitting President Ben Ali was ousted.

streamdragon wrote:
And as a government contractor, I'm looking at the shut down in a positive light: "Days I don't have to put on pants."

daedalus-templarius wrote:I thought I read somewhere that he cancelled his trip, besides its not like it was to anywhere amazing I don't think.

Could be wrong though, can't find the story again.

All riders should be removed from the BUDGET, each of the riders should be a bill voted on separately. Its ridiculous that any social changes can even be put into the budget at all, imo.

If they really want, they should pass the budget, then they can waste all sorts of tax dollars arguing about planned parenthood in the weeks ahead.

dogma wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
The current wave of revolutions in the Middle East would seem to disagree with you. The revolution in Tunisia was started by a student. He was so poor he started selling fruit out of a cart, which was then seized and destroyed by the police. So he set himself on fire. 28 days later, the then sitting President Ben Ali was ousted.

College students aren't poor, no matter how much they beg to differ. They're engaged by a system that requires extensive capital investment, even if it isn't theirs.

streamdragon wrote:
And as a government contractor, I'm looking at the shut down in a positive light: "Days I don't have to put on pants."

That's not poverty, you are eating, have eaten, and have no worries regarding where you will eat.

You're not poor.

Again, lots of people have definitions of poverty predicated on their own inconvenience, or social malady, these definitions are nonsense.

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I thought I read somewhere that he cancelled his trip, besides its not like it was to anywhere amazing I don't think.

Could be wrong though, can't find the story again.

All riders should be removed from the BUDGET, each of the riders should be a bill voted on separately. Its ridiculous that any social changes can even be put into the budget at all, imo.

If they really want, they should pass the budget, then they can waste all sorts of tax dollars arguing about planned parenthood in the weeks ahead.

While I agree in principle, Planned Parenthood expenditures are part of the budget. Again it would have been helpful had the previous Congress actually done its job.
But his vacation has not been cancelled. You'd think after starting War #3, budget fights, gas approaching $5 a gallon, and that whole economy is STILL in the crapper thing he'd around awhile...

Frazzled wrote:
While I agree in principle, Planned Parenthood expenditures are part of the budget. Again it would have been helpful had the previous Congress actually done its job.
But his vacation has not been cancelled. You'd think after starting War #3, budget fights, gas approaching $5 a gallon, and that whole economy is STILL in the crapper thing he'd around awhile...


I swear its like watching Rome right before the big breakup. The center cannot hold...

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Obama did propose a budget. The legislature didn't vote on it.

The Democratically controlled Congress didn't vote on it. Don't blame the Republicans for your mess.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I thought I read somewhere that he cancelled his trip, besides its not like it was to anywhere amazing I don't think.

Could be wrong though, can't find the story again.

All riders should be removed from the BUDGET, each of the riders should be a bill voted on separately. Its ridiculous that any social changes can even be put into the budget at all, imo.

If they really want, they should pass the budget, then they can waste all sorts of tax dollars arguing about planned parenthood in the weeks ahead.

While I agree in principle, Planned Parenthood expenditures are part of the budget. Again it would have been helpful had the previous Congress actually done its job.
But his vacation has not been cancelled. You'd think after starting War #3, budget fights, gas approaching $5 a gallon, and that whole economy is STILL in the crapper thing he'd around awhile...

While I agree it is part of the budget, it is very contentious, obviously. Why would they put it into the general budget that they are trying to get passed in barely any time? Oh that's right, they want to pass what they want without debate. Same thing with defunding HCR in there, it won't pass the senate or the white house with that kind of stuff. Why do these new guys love symbolic bills so much, they put the crap out there and KNOW it won't pass, but waste everyone's time and our tax dollars to do it.

Frazzled wrote:Don't get me started on the Republicans. They're dicking around so they can kiill Planned Parenthood.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
While I agree in principle, Planned Parenthood expenditures are part of the budget. Again it would have been helpful had the previous Congress actually done its job.
But his vacation has not been cancelled. You'd think after starting War #3, budget fights, gas approaching $5 a gallon, and that whole economy is STILL in the crapper thing he'd around awhile...


I swear its like watching Rome right before the big breakup. The center cannot hold...

What I find hilarious is that both sides, even the one arguing for budget cuts, want to increase the budget; according to their proposals.

"We want 60 billion in cuts!" (30 billion if Blue Dog)

"The budget is 400 billion larger."

"No abortions!" (Some abortions if Blue Dog)

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Don't get me started on the Republicans. They're dicking around so they can kiill Planned Parenthood.

Oh dear, the government might finally have to live up to their obligation to refuse federal funding for abortions.

Woe is thee.

Frazzled wrote:
Oh wait this is shutting down the government. Why is this bad again?

Frazzled wrote:Whether or not they want to do that - cool debate that in next year's budget. Right now you have to keep the lights on, so quit the partisan nonesense (both sides) and move on.

Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.
Oh wait this is shutting down the government. Why is this bad again?

Even Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the U.S., has comented that it is inherently unfair that he pays a lower marginal rate in tax than his personal secretary.

Melissia wrote:

Even Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the U.S., has comented that it is inherently unfair that he pays a lower marginal rate in tax than his personal secretary.

Indeed. The rich have so many goddamned loopholes and tax breaks that it is laughable to think that they're REALLY taxed more.

Frazzled wrote:
Of course, thanks to the New Obamacare, under Medicare now they won't do MRI's for people over 70 unless its an emergency.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has laid a final offer at Republicans' feet, and it will require them to drop their insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood, and accepting what Reid insists is an agreed upon level of spending cuts. If Republicans don't take it, and if Reid's not bluffing, the government will shutdown.

"The number we're not bending on," he told reporters in a press briefing Friday morning. "We're not bending on that and we're not bending on women's health."
TPM SLIDESHOW: Shut It Down: The Federal Government Shutdown of 1995

The ball is effectively now in House Speaker John Boehner's court. Republicans have signaled a willingness to drop the Planned Parenthood rider in exchange for more spending cuts. But Reid says they've agreed on cut number -- $78 billion below President Obama's budget request last year, or about $38 billion off current spending. Reports on this figure have varied even in the last several hours.

After the briefing I asked Reid if this spending total, along with a menu of riders that does not include Planned Parenthood, represented his final offer.

"Yeah, that was what we, yeah," he said. "Listen, we've agreed to their number last night. They can't keep changing the goalposts."

After a White House meeting last night, Reid said, all had been agreed to except a GOP plan to defund Planned Parenthood.

"The only thing left was women's health," Reid said. That's a bridge too far, he said. "I am really concerned that this government is going to shutdown" over this issue.

"In the presence of the President of the United States, we went through those they -- the Republicans -- felt were most important," Reid added. "We went through them one by one. They were all resolved -- except the rider dealing with Planned Parenthood."

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

People who make millions of dollars a year.

As noted above, Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the WORLD, pays an effective tax rate of 17%, almost half of what his receptionist pays. And he doesn't use tax shelters like many do when they have this much money. These are the kinds of people who hire someone specifically for the job of minimizing the amount of tax they have to pay, and they often end up paying a smaller percent than the middle class as a result.

Frazzled wrote:
Graduated tax anyone?

Frazzled wrote:Would you?
From the titles on the top of Drudge report over this relatively minor situation:

DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...
Dickering on Budget Goes Down to Wire...
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...
Dem: Shutdown 'equivalent of bombing innocent civilians'...
Jesse Jackson compares to Civil War...
Congress doesn't shut down during a 'shutdown'...
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'
REID: GOP wants shutdown to keep 'women from getting cancer screenings'...

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would you?
From the titles on the top of Drudge report over this relatively minor situation:

DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...
Dickering on Budget Goes Down to Wire...
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...
Dem: Shutdown 'equivalent of bombing innocent civilians'...
Jesse Jackson compares to Civil War...
Congress doesn't shut down during a 'shutdown'...
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'
REID: GOP wants shutdown to keep 'women from getting cancer screenings'...

GOTTA SUPPORT YOUR TEAM, BRO!

Time to get all mad hyperbolic up in dis hizzouse.

24/7 media doesn't help, they write gak to get the most page views. The more extreme, the more likely it is someone will click it.

Frazzled wrote:
Er...yea...we're in agreement ...again. I'm scared now, someone hold me!

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Er...yea...we're in agreement ...again. I'm scared now, someone hold me!

We're a bridge for America!

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.

Well, its on everyone, voters included.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, it's called Fox News. But let's not get into THAT agian.

Frazzled wrote:
To be clear I am sure you could put up a similar list of histrionic quotes from Republicans. This one was just easy to cut and paste.

Frazzled wrote:
DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...

Frazzled wrote:
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...

Frazzled wrote:
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...

Frazzled wrote:
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'

Frazzled wrote:
Not me baby. I literally voted for none of those clowns.

Doesn't matter. You live here, that's all that is pertinent.

I mean, let's be real, it wasn't like you thought your candidate (assuming you voted at all) would win.

Ahtman wrote:Usually those poor are lead by a cadre of the rich (or elite at at least) though. The American, Russian, and French Revolutions were spearheaded by upper class thinkers that elucidate the cause.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

People who make millions of dollars a year.

As noted above, Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the WORLD, pays an effective tax rate of 17%, almost half of what his receptionist pays. And he doesn't use tax shelters like many do when they have this much money. These are the kinds of people who hire someone specifically for the job of minimizing the amount of tax they have to pay, and they often end up paying a smaller percent than the middle class as a result.

We are in agreement. Of course you have to do it right, not just raise the rate, but eliminate loopholes and personal corps.

Having said that, half the US population doesn't pay income taxes. That needs to change. Everyone needs to have skin in the game.

Graduated tax anyone?

Frazzled wrote:1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.

Histrionics?

"When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?" is in no way similar in tone to "equivalent of bombing innocent civilians" or "women from getting cancer screenings".

Frazzled wrote:Nope. You're assuming they are paying those taxes either. I have familaies across the street, behind me and next to me who aren't. (employment taxes).
But to the point, if you're not paying a tax, you shouldn't be able to vote representatives on that tax.

LordofHats wrote:American Revolution I don't think is well defined by rich vs poor.

LordofHats wrote:The great irony about Revolution is that rhetoric talks about improving the lot of the underclass, but rarely is their lot improved via revolution (economically).

LordofHats wrote:The poor are just as poor after the revolution as they were before the revolution.

VoidAngel wrote:

Melissia wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Rich people own factories and businesses - and are the *engines of the economy*. Welfare recipients are not the engines of the economy. Ditto burger flippers and suchlike (though they are a vast improvement over those on assistance that *could* work).

And yet, the trickle down economic "theory" has been proven, time and again, to be a baseless load of crap. Giving rich people more money won't give the country more jobs, it's been proven so many times that it's painful to think someone still believes in that theory. The trickle down economic "theory" is a load of gak.

You prefer "trickle up poverty"?

Prosperous companies can afford to hire more people. Prosperous companies spend more on their communities. It's very simple. Without the prospect of prosperity, where is the drive to earn, innovate, or build? These things are not theories, they are truths.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nope. You're assuming they are paying those taxes either. I have familaies across the street, behind me and next to me who aren't. (employment taxes).
But to the point, if you're not paying a tax, you shouldn't be able to vote representatives on that tax.

They avoid paying sales taxes? Also, wanting to limit voting rights by economic capability is sickening to me. Glad you want us to live in an oligarchy of the rich. Have you thought of moving to china or russia?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nope. You're assuming they are paying those taxes either. I have familaies across the street, behind me and next to me who aren't. (employment taxes).
But to the point, if you're not paying a tax, you shouldn't be able to vote representatives on that tax.

They avoid paying sales taxes? Also, wanting to limit voting rights by economic capability is sickening to me. Glad you want us to live in an oligarchy of the rich. Have you thought of moving to china or russia?

1. I said employment taxes. Please try to read the post fully.
2. So you're favor of people voting themselves benefits when they have no chance of being impacted by it? IN the court system judges have to recuse themselves for such when they have a financial conflict of interest. Thats disctatorship, but I'm not surprised Shuma supports dictatorship.

Frazzled wrote:
1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Wo, wo keep it personable now Dogma.
I did vote - did you? Play nice now. All my state candidates won, but my protest federal votes did not.

Kilkrazy wrote:Prosperous companies get that way by hiring fewer people on lower salaries.

sebster wrote:

They are the engine of the economy. Your argument that that engine will stop functioning if they face a 2 or 3% tax increase is crazy.

Studies have shown that illegal immigration is a net boon to the economy, actually enough. Because they are still hit for many taxes, like sales sax and payroll tax, but can't claim many services.

And they also allow building and infrastructure construction at much lower overall costs.

The current chaos could have lead to the domino effect the free world was looking to set up ("Hey, look at them! They're free, and prosperous, and still MUSLIMS! The Americans didn't try to convert them! Hey...waitaminute...maybe we could have that too...?")

Umm, we knew this was the actual goal of the operation. We also knew it was stupid and doomed to fail. Which it did. As Tunisia showed, you can get a flow of revolution from one coutnry to another. It was just very stupid to think you could start with a military invasion from a foreign power.

- but we are currently mucking it up in Libya by *participating*. For this to work, it has to be a Muslim idea, executed for and by Muslims. We need to get the hell out of there.

Which is, of course, why invading Iraq and thinking it would lead to a democratic domino was ridiculous. And that you recognise this with the small involvement of NATO in their support of the local rebellion, but can't see it with the full blown invasion of Iraq just shows how ridiculous your thinking is.

Lastly, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

VoidAngel wrote:Prosperous companies can afford to hire more people. Prosperous companies spend more on their communities. It's very simple. Without the prospect of prosperity, where is the drive to earn, innovate, or build? These things are not theories, they are truths.

You're pretending that an increase in taxes on the wealthy is the same thing as denying them a chance at prosperity. Which is a ridiculous thing to assume.

Seriously, people don't see a tax increase of 3% and say 'oh feth it all, I'm not going to bother starting up that factory now, $380k in after tax earnings just isn't worth bothering with, but I totally would have if the old tax rate was in place and I could have earned $400k after tax!'

VoidAngel wrote:The government mainly provides opportunity to the poor - not the rich. The government encourages accumulation of wealth by providing security and NOT taxing the earners to death. "Rich" people *tend* to have earned their opportunities or built upon those provided by hard-working parents and grand-parents.

They have had those opportunities because of the economic and legal structures built and maintained by government.

Now it's good that they've been able to generate that wealth, in doing so they've created jobs and wealth for others as well. Capitalism is the engine of the economy and all that.
But to argue that they couldn't possibly pay a greater portion of the tax burden is just plain wrong.

There is certainly a point where having them pay more is unjust and impractical (as they will leave for other countries) but the US is nowhere near that rate.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.

Its not just Congress though, and really that's my point. Congress reflects the electorate, and the electorate is selfish, dumb, and cowardly. That's not merely the US, its everywhere.

Everyone in the Western world wants the government'x hands off their Medicare, which means everyone in the Western world wants selfish privileges insofar as they can dictate them. No surprise really, who doesn't want power?

Frazzled wrote:
2. Wo, wo keep it personable now Dogma.
I did vote - did you? Play nice now. All my state candidates won, but my protest federal votes did not.

I didn't realize that questioning whether or not person X voted was hostile. Though I should have, given how many people lie about it*.

*Not saying that you are, just that most people do. Last I checked ~70% of people voted in the 2008 election despite a 48% turn out.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

People who make millions of dollars a year.

Melissia wrote:Hardly, big business doesn't WANT to hire more people, they just want more profit and will do everything they can to increase their profit first before adding any extra expenses such as hiring. Most of them have been firing people, not hiring, for the past ten or so years. The wealthy, as a general rule don't give a feth about the unemployed.

dogma wrote:
Congress reflects the electorate, and the electorate is selfish, dumb, and cowardly.

daedalus-templarius wrote:They are just hypocritical about everything then (what's new), since they always make noise about giving everyone maximum freedom and liberty, but at the same time, they want to put lock-and-key on women's pants in multiple ways.

Yea, I can tolerate their disgusting crap, but I hope I am allowed to point out the hypocrisy of it.

It is even more absurd since they ALREADY aren't allowed to use federal funds for abortion, so what is this all about? Tea party hates Planned Parenthood, so they try to devise a way to destroy it. I guess it seems simple enough.

VoidAngel wrote:
The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

Good plan.

hypocrisy is always annoying, regardless where it is coming from.

ShumaGorath wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

Good plan.

hypocrisy is always annoying, regardless where it is coming from.

Reducing term limits has the inherent function of making political institutions more directly beholden to the 9-5 political cycle, and thus more beholden to corporate, and media pressures. Short term political offices that are high profile are inherently inefficient and hyper political precisely because they aren't insulated from the typically idiotic and sheeplike electorate.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reducing term limits has the inherent function of making political institutions more directly beholden to the 9-5 political cycle, and thus more beholden to corporate, and media pressures. Short term political offices that are high profile are inherently inefficient and hyper political precisely because they aren't insulated from the typically idiotic and sheeplike electorate. We vote for representatives, not for issues when we vote for lawmakers. The concept of representative democracy is meant largely as a barrier between the popularity contest that is democracy and the actual job of governance. If the people ran the country themselves then run it off a cliff within months. Direct democracy doesn't work.

If all you want to do is just continuously vote out incumbents and thats it then you hold a pretty non sensical platform.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Term limits as in how many times an individual can be elected? or just how many years in office.

I think House terms are too short, they are always running for reelection, and I think senate terms may be too long. 4 years may be a good spot, and you can only be reelected twice, just like the presidency.

How about that?

I think when he said "career politician" we are talking about the members that have been reelected 4-5 times. However, that isn't always a bad thing either, as hopefully they would put their wisdom to work. Its really all about the person. But, I still think house terms might be a bit too short.

Constantly kicking people out and reelecting new ones isn't the answer either.

You misunderstand. Eliminating the "political class" via de facto term limits is intended to result in candidates motivated to get things done and go back to being accountants, farmers, or what have you. The knowledge that they have a term to do it in creates drive and (hopefully) efficiency and honesty about motivations and methods.

ShumaGorath wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Term limits as in how many times an individual can be elected? or just how many years in office.

I think House terms are too short, they are always running for reelection, and I think senate terms may be too long. 4 years may be a good spot, and you can only be reelected twice, just like the presidency.

How about that?

I think when he said "career politician" we are talking about the members that have been reelected 4-5 times. However, that isn't always a bad thing either, as hopefully they would put their wisdom to work. Its really all about the person. But, I still think house terms might be a bit too short.

Constantly kicking people out and reelecting new ones isn't the answer either.

What needs to be worked on is the post political workforce of ex congressional or senate lobbyists and corporate office holders. The unelected and profit driven but highly political bodies that surround american governance. Also the american populace needs to get some fething perspective on these issues. It's a hopeless cause judging from most of this thread and most people I've talked too.

OK, now define "fair".

Citizen A makes $80,000 a year and pays 34% income tax (making up numbers here for the sake of discussion). That's $28,000

Citizen B makes 8,000,000 a year and pays 17% income tax. That's $1,360,000

So I ask you, define fair. The evil rich guy just contributed 48 times more than the noble middle classman. Is that fair enough for you? No?

Andrew1975 wrote:Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

Melissia wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

IE, business as usual in corporate America?

ShumaGorath wrote:They finished grandstanding and passed the meaningless hyper political budget that cuts nothing meaningful and fixes nothing.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

Well, yeah. Who really cares about the less wealthy or wealthless? Not the middle class, and certainly not the other poor.

I'm absolutely certain that you exploit your own employees by the standard you have set out. I mean, you play Warhams, and probably indulge in other luxuries instead of paying them more.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Actually, I have not played warhams in years, if i did Id use all mu old stuff. I take good care of my employees actually, really I only have a few bartenders and they like working for me much more than at any other place they have worked.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You know at alot of corporate bars they don't even let their bartenders drink?

Andrew1975 wrote:
How do you get people to drink if you are not drinking.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the wealthy should have money, just not all of it. I never said they should be paupers, or give all their money away. They should just stop being predators. As the rich continue to get exponentially wealthier as they have over the past 20 years, I worry more about my clients.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Actually, I have not played warhams in years, if i did Id use all mu old stuff. I take good care of my employees actually, really I only have a few bartenders and they like working for me much more than at any other place they have worked.

Participated in miniature wargaming would have been a better statement, but the general idea is that even if you take care of your employees you still indulge in luxuries, which is roughly equivalent to granting bonuses.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You know at alot of corporate bars they don't even let their bartenders drink?

When I lived in Chicago that was basically the norm if you weren't at a corner dive, corporate or not.

Andrew1975 wrote:
How do you get people to drink if you are not drinking.

Be attractive and charismatic?

Andrew1975 wrote:These bonuses aren't luxuries though, and they certainly don't seam performance based! How do you get bonuses while causing a global housing crisis? Plus why do you get bonuses while still trying to deprive your workers of essential "benefits"?

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't drink around people who don't drink. If I can't buy a good bartender a shot, I can't drink there. I know there have been plenty of times I turned down drinks so I could maintain sobriety, customers don't like that in a bars, clubs are different. That's my perspective anyway.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Bonuses for execs are a small set of people. I'm sure many execs earn their bonuses! I just cant see how you can take what were once basic benefits such as health insurance away from employees using the rational of cost cutting, then giving millions in bonuses to executives who already have their basics covered.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Here is a staggering statistic

"In the '70s and '80s, CEO compensation was roughly 15-20 times the compensation of the average employee. But by the end of 2004, that ratio had spiked to roughly 300 times and some analysis shows a figure as high as 500 times"

That is ridiculous!

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you really want to see predators take a minute and read this.

http://www.stedwards.edu/business/sites/default/files/perspectives/Perspectives_V3N2_02.pdf

I actually have fewer issues with those people than I do with the direct lenders that basically lies through their teeth when pitching mortgages to consumers. At least the CEOs of the world were merely looking at numbers.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah, but I'm sure those tactics were thought of and approved by executives that get huge salaries and bonuses.

Melissia wrote:Course, CEOs of the world individually have the power to destroy more lives than deceitful mortgage lenders. And they often do just that, in the name of pursuing profit above all else.

I don't necessarily see either one as moral... one might be worse than the other, but they're still both something I'd rather not see happen at all.

VoidAngel wrote:A large part of the problem is that "politician" was never meant to be a career.

VoidAngel wrote:
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.

VoidAngel wrote:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

VoidAngel wrote:
-- From the farewell address of George Washington

VoidAngel wrote:
Yes, the needy should and must be taken care of - but the folks with their hand out and filled with existential jealousy...they can rot in their self-imposed misery.

VoidAngel wrote:
What other conceivable assumption is right?!

Call me a traditionalist, but taking something not yours is...there's a word for it....gimme a sec...'theft'? Yeah, that's it.

They have it. Why shall I assume they 'stole' it? What contortion of logic and morality should I apply to entitle myself to any portion of it?

I sense (hope) that you are asking from a philosophical perspective, so feel free to attempt to demonstrate that people do not deserve what they have honestly (or, at least legally) acquired.

mattyrm wrote:Common sense dictates that executive bonuses continue. If we provide an incentive, they make the company more money