We're still all fucked aren't we?
"I don't know what this Yamcha is, but it sounds just like Raditz."
Lol they collapsed ever since Pakistan did 9/11. Not trying to be racist here that's just what the U.S. says
Rather than increasing taxes on the rich, we need to end all loopholes....Preferably via a flat tax system with a minimum floor of ~$30,000 USD.
The US has both a revenue problem (as our taxes as a % of GDP is very low right now in terms of historical averages), and a spending problem. However, spending is far more out of whack than revenue is. Revenue is down approximately 3% from average (about 15% vs. the average of 18%). But spending is about 6% above average.
Here is the chart:
Of the two, which one do you think is causing more of the issue - revenue, or spending? The issue with raising taxes is that our code hasn't changed in the past few years, yet revenues have slumped. So to argue that the only reason we're having a revenue problem starts and ends with Bush is mis-placing the argument in the right context, I believe. Again, we need to kill loopholes and ensure everyone pays what is required of them, but to simply raise them as the answer is not going to solve the problem, as spending is far more the greater issue. For every dollar we raise in taxes, we need to cut at least $2 or even $3 from the federal budget.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
Well... considering the fact that S&P (or maybe moody's) said that even if we raise the debt limit we are getting downgraded anyway... i'd say it's a good bet.
To NOT lose our credit rating Congress over the weekend would have to strike a deal that would lead to 4 Trillion dollars in cuts in the next 10 years AND reform medicare AND social security.
I don't see congress getting that done in a weekend.
Anyone saying this is an aritifical crisis doesn't have a damn clue what they're talking about. The Debt ceiling isn't even the big problem.
The reason we might get downgraded is because of how spectacularly the various europeon states have been failing with their huge defcit spending.
Spain's about to be downgraded.
We could pass a bill that would raise the debt ceiling by infinity today, and made no cuts or changes, and we'd still lose our rating.
All the debt ceiling did was force the rating agencies to look this way. It's the spending that's causing them to downgrade.
Baalzamon said:
First off, I totally agree with your first statement. People are making way bigger of a deal about the credit rating than what it is. Secondly, I cannot understand how in the hell people continue to think tax raises fix the problem. Seriously, how fu**ing long does it take people to realize every time taxes are raised, the government just spends even more, and even more, and even more money. How about, for ONCE, we stop spending so god damned much money on stupid, worthless things (no, I'm not even talking about the biggest things such as social security/medicare, etc, although some of those have their own issues). And I'm going to blame both parties, because both parties are just as bad at making stupid ass laws and regulations and whatever else leading to even more stupid spending. Granted, I would agree (given that one of the richest men in the world says he isn't taxed enough), that the extremely wealthy could deal with a slight increase in taxes (I'm not talking 5%, I'm talking slight, because the extra revenue brought in would be massive). But if something like this is going to be done, accompany it with billions upon billions in spending cuts. Also, don't tell us how much you are cutting, and then just add in billions upon billions more spending as well. This doesn't fix the problem in any way whatsoever. I want the whole problem fixed, and saying that just increasing taxes is the issue is completely and totally wrong. |
I agree completely. The focus should be on spending cuts, not on tax increases. Give the government more money, and they'll find more ways to waste it. That's the reason the Republican party needs to exist, and why it is right that they are demanding a balanced budget before they agree to raise the debt ceiling. However, they are being completely unreasonable here. You can't keep tax cuts on the wealthiest people in the country when the government is as broke as it is now.
Both parties got us (well, you, anyway - I'm not American) into this mess, but Boehner and his lot seem to be trying to do all they can to keep it from being fixed. And don't even get me started on the Tea Party. Boehner is a million times better than the best of those lunatics.
(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective 
Kantor said:
I agree completely. The focus should be on spending cuts, not on tax increases. Give the government more money, and they'll find more ways to waste it. That's the reason the Republican party needs to exist, and why it is right that they are demanding a balanced budget before they agree to raise the debt ceiling. However, they are being completely unreasonable here. You can't keep tax cuts on the wealthiest people in the country when the government is as broke as it is now. Both parties got us (well, you, anyway - I'm not American) into this mess, but Boehner and his lot seem to be trying to do all they can to keep it from being fixed. And don't even get me started on the Tea Party. Boehner is a million times better than the best of those lunatics. |
It's a shame it took them 10 years to remember it.
badgenome said:
Not really. In 2006, every single Democratic senator voted against raising the debt ceiling. Some of them, including Obama, even gave some pretty impassioned speeches as to why it was the wrong thing to do. And there never was a Clinton surplus. |
All politics on that end. In 2006, before the election, the Dems were still the double-minority, and had absolutely no incentive to vote to raise the debt ceiling or make it look like raising the ceiling was a good idea at the time.
Which is the problem we're seeing with the Republicans right now. They're still acting like a double minority party, and not a responsible partner of governance which is what you have to be when you have divided government
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
mmm... this: =P
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zhuG2hCJtsk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Mr Khan said:
All politics on that end. In 2006, before the election, the Dems were still the double-minority, and had absolutely no incentive to vote to raise the debt ceiling or make it look like raising the ceiling was a good idea at the time. Which is the problem we're seeing with the Republicans right now. They're still acting like a double minority party, and not a responsible partner of governance which is what you have to be when you have divided government |
Which is kind of my point. It's not only Republicans who play politics with the raising of the debt ceiling, and contrary to what so many people keep saying, nothing about the present situation is unprecedented (except for the fact that we are dealing with trillions instead of billions now, of course) as the Democrats tried to put the screws to Eisenhower in almost the exact same way.
I suspect we could argue at great length over just who is behaving more irresponsibly here, but Harry Reid knew exactly what the next Congress would look like when he declined in November to take up the raising of the debt ceiling - which at the time was supposed to be reached in April. But he decided he wanted Republicans to own it, too, so he put it off, probably banking on the idea that these crazy freshmen didn't really believe what they were saying. Clearly, at least some of them do.
badgenome said:
Which is kind of my point. It's not only Republicans who play politics with the raising of the debt ceiling, and contrary to what so many people keep saying, nothing about the present situation is unprecedented (except for the fact that we are dealing with trillions instead of billions now, of course) as the Democrats tried to put the screws to Eisenhower in almost the exact same way. I suspect we could argue at great length over just who is behaving more irresponsibly here, but Harry Reid knew exactly what the next Congress would look like when he declined in November to take up the raising of the debt ceiling - which at the time was supposed to be reached in April. But he decided he wanted Republicans to own it, too, so he put it off, probably banking on the idea that these crazy freshmen didn't really believe what they were saying. Clearly, at least some of them do. |
The Democrats never dragged out a debt ceiling debate until 2 days before the treasury runs out of money.
This is madness. The damage is already done, whether we raise the debt ceiling or not. If our legislative branch is going to put the world economy at risk until (?) the last minute, who knows if they're going to do it again in the future.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
