DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Riceball on July 17, 2011, 06:52:55 PM
-
Simple question really, do you think the Executive and the Legislature will be able to agree on a plan to cut the US budget deficit in enough time to get the debt ceiling raised?
If you will, humour me with some discussion thats non-partisan...if thats possible...
-
Wait, which question are we answering?
Will the US default?
do you think the Executive and the Legislature will be able to agree on a plan to cut the US budget deficit in enough time to get the debt ceiling raised?
-
One kind of precipitates the other, the 'publicans won't raise the debt ceiling without a plan to cut the deficit; and so if that doesn't happen it is 90% likely the US will default on its loans (90% is a completely arbitraty number btw).
I suppose if I was going to be direct, the question would be:
Will shit hit the fan on August 2?
-
I honestly don't know how to answer. Is it partisan to discuss the partisan nature of our government? Because that's why I can't answer it. If our media was more journalistic, it may be possible to know just how much what we're seeing unfold in the media is theatrics or not. Both parties could be at a serious impasse, or just playing chicken with each other, or just playing it for political gain (both parties get to show off to their base).
-
I honestly don't know how to answer. Is it partisan to discuss the partisan nature of our government? Because that's why I can't answer it. If our media was more journalistic, it may be possible to know just how much what we're seeing unfold in the media is theatrics or not. Both parties could be at a serious impasse, or just playing chicken with each other, or just playing it for political gain (both parties get to show off to their base).
That's an interesting point, I never considered that before.
Anyway, I'm hoping we can get through this, and eliminate some tax breaks to boot.
-
I suppose what I was getting at with the partisan thing was to stop it turning into a slanging match.
I've gotta agree with that point on showing off to their bases, it seems both parties are trying to take an ideological approach to the negotiations, with the Republicans saying "no new taxes" while the Democrats say "we aren't cutting welfare". Problem with that scenario is that the other side can use that to say, "well, we are trying to make our way through the issue, but the other party doesn't want to play ball". Like you said, its a massive game of chicken right now, hopefully it can be resolved fairly quickly.
If it doesn't get resolved, the implications are pretty huge. I mean, in asset pricing US treasuries are basically considered the "risk free" rate that all other asset prices are based upon; if the price of US bonds was to rise it would push all asset prices up, leading to deleveraging and the potential for a second global credit crunch, which is certainly amongst the worst things that could happen to the fragile global economy at the moment - just behind asteroid or supervolcano.
-
One kind of precipitates the other, the 'publicans won't raise the debt ceiling without a plan to cut the deficit; and so if that doesn't happen it is 90% likely the US will default on its loans (90% is a completely arbitraty number btw).
I suppose if I was going to be direct, the question would be:
Will shit hit the fan on August 2?
No, I just meant in the poll; a yes on one means a no on the other. :lol
-
I suppose what I was getting at with the partisan thing was to stop it turning into a slanging match.
I've gotta agree with that point on showing off to their bases, it seems both parties are trying to take an ideological approach to the negotiations, with the Republicans saying "no new taxes" while the Democrats say "we aren't cutting welfare". Problem with that scenario is that the other side can use that to say, "well, we are trying to make our way through the issue, but the other party doesn't want to play ball". Like you said, its a massive game of chicken right now, hopefully it can be resolved fairly quickly.
If it doesn't get resolved, the implications are pretty huge. I mean, in asset pricing US treasuries are basically considered the "risk free" rate that all other asset prices are based upon; if the price of US bonds was to rise it would push all asset prices up, leading to deleveraging and the potential for a second global credit crunch, which is certainly amongst the worst things that could happen to the fragile global economy at the moment - just behind asteroid or supervolcano.
Actually on that note, what are the consequences of a U.S. default with our fragile economy? On a national and an international scale?
I have this friend I've been debating with the last week....he thinks we should just cut $3 trillion in spending and continue cutting taxes, and he's trying to convince me the impact of defaulting wouldn't be so bad. :facepalm: (Will post later for lulz)
-
Actually on that note, what are the consequences of a U.S. default with our fragile economy? On a national and an international scale?
From what I understand, if the US defaults, the gov't has to make a decision who to not pay anymore. That could be the army, retirees, or even China (the interest to their loans). If it of course chooses to no longer pay its creditors, then all hell breaks loose.
The thing is, IMHO, the problem needs to be attacked from both sides, i.e. both the spending and the income. Yes, spending needs to be cut, but taxes also need to be increased to come in from the other side.
And while I see both sides being a fault here, I think the GOP is at its worst right now. They overemphasize the impact of tax hikes (Germany for example had a good boom with much higher taxes), and seemingly much rather want to stop supporting old and sick people than not being able to wage war on several countries at a time.
rumborak
-
The thing is, IMHO, the problem needs to be attacked from both sides, i.e. both the spending and the income. Yes, spending needs to be cut, but taxes also need to be increased to come in from the other side.
rumborak
This is the right answer.
-
Nah, the shared sacrifice theory is bullshit. Americans have already made their sacrifice. Raising taxes isn't the answer.
-
Nah, the shared sacrifice theory is bullshit. Americans have already made their sacrifice. Raising taxes isn't the answer.
What's the alternative? Wishing the problem away?
-
Well, if they raise taxes but don't cut spending, then we're right back where we've always been. The gov't needs to prove that they can make the necessary cuts first. The gov't bails out the financial institutions because they failed to regulate. The banks broke their own rules and gave out loans to a bunch of financially irresponsible losers. Now, the rest of us have bail everybody out? I don't think so. The gov't needs to bite the bullet, not the financially responsible tax payer.
-
Tax increases or not, we're going to feel the pain of the government biting the bullet either way.
-
On the other end of that, you can't *just* cut spending. It has to be met with tax increases in order to make the cutting of services worth it.
And it's not like we're even threatening the common man's interest here; tax increases just mean eliminating tax breaks for the rich.
-
On the other end of that, you can't *just* cut spending. It has to be met with tax increases in order to make the cutting of services worth it.
And it's not like we're even threatening the common man's interest here; tax increases just mean eliminating tax breaks for the rich.
Tax increases are irrelevant and a lower priority regardless without a gigantic cut to spending.
-
So let's cut our military spending in half. We'll still beat out the next ten countries' budgets combined.
-
On the other end of that, you can't *just* cut spending. It has to be met with tax increases in order to make the cutting of services worth it.
And it's not like we're even threatening the common man's interest here; tax increases just mean eliminating tax breaks for the rich.
Tax increases are irrelevant and a lower priority regardless without a gigantic cut to spending.
This. Like I said before, there is plenty of revenue without raising taxes. The gov't is spending more than they bring in. You can raise taxes to the nth fucking degree. If spending cuts aren't made, it's irrelevant. This is all happening because people are terrible at math. If you spend more than you make, then you eventually have nothing. This is basic stuff folks.
-
Tax cuts for the rich is kind of a misnomer though. The tax cuts start for households with income of 250,000 combined. This kind of income does not make a family rich if they have kids and a mortgage and college to pay for. It still falls under middle class living.
To me there needs to be another bracket of taxes. I think its absurd to lump families making 250,000 a year in with single people making millions a year. I think it's ridiculous that they are considered the same.
-
Tax cuts for the rich is kind of a misnomer though. The tax cuts start for households with income of 250,000 combined. This kind of income does not make a family rich if they have kids and a mortgage and college to pay for. It still falls under middle class living.
To me there needs to be another bracket of taxes. I think its absurd to lump families making 250,000 a year in with single people making millions a year. I think it's ridiculous that they are considered the same.
That's true. Lump that in with the new things I've learned today. :lol
On the other end of that, you can't *just* cut spending. It has to be met with tax increases in order to make the cutting of services worth it.
And it's not like we're even threatening the common man's interest here; tax increases just mean eliminating tax breaks for the rich.
Tax increases are irrelevant and a lower priority regardless without a gigantic cut to spending.
This. Like I said before, there is plenty of revenue without raising taxes. The gov't is spending more than they bring in. You can raise taxes to the nth fucking degree. If spending cuts aren't made, it's irrelevant. This is all happening because people are terrible at math. If you spend more than you make, then you eventually have nothing. This is basic stuff folks.
Okay sure I'll grant you that, but I'd like to remind everyone once again that tax rates for every bracket haven't been this low since 1952, so obviously there is what to raise and still maintain rates within reasonable limits.
-
True, but the tax base has grown much bigger since then. So, the impact is a lot greater now than it would've been back then when you have 9% unemployment. We don't need more taxes. We need more tax payers. The gov't needs to make cuts and also allow for private businesses to create jobs. Getting unemployment down to 4 or 5% would do wonders compared to raising taxes.
-
What good are more tax payers if we keep on lowering the rates? It means the same amount of revenue spread across more people.
-
What good are more tax payers if we keep on lowering the rates? It means the same amount of revenue spread across more people.
I find it interesting that the laffer curve basically doesn't exist for anyone with an economic opinion that falls left-of-center.
-
Whatever you may say, the Laffer curve like anything else in economics is a theoretical principle, and lately the global economic system based on theories of "free trade" has been flagging....
Edit: Hmm, this is interesting:
https://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/09/14/the-laffer-curve-debunked-part-one/
https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
-
Well, if they raise taxes but don't cut spending, then we're right back where we've always been. The gov't needs to prove that they can make the necessary cuts first. The gov't bails out the financial institutions because they failed to regulate. The banks broke their own rules and gave out loans to a bunch of financially irresponsible losers. Now, the rest of us have bail everybody out? I don't think so. The gov't needs to bite the bullet, not the financially responsible tax payer.
The social welfare programs haven't increased significantly in comparison to our GDP since Bill Clinton was in office and we had a surplus in our budget. If you want to start talking about why we have this debt, from a purely historical stance, it was cutting taxes for the rich, and not funding massive military involvements. If you look at the problem from the ledger book, ya, our social welfare programs are a debt, but their cost is not significant enough alone to cause our country to have a debt problem.
You want more jobs in the market place, but giving companies more money doesn't mean they're going to invest and expand. Some will, but a more proven way to get companies hiring is to give them demand for their products, and you do that by employing out of work people in infrastructure work. This would cause money in the immediate, but it would result in a better economy, and that means more money to pay off the debt.
To me there needs to be another bracket of taxes. I think its absurd to lump families making 250,000 a year in with single people making millions a year. I think it's ridiculous that they are considered the same.
I definitely agree with this, but I also have a hard time accepting $250,000+ as middle class... maybe in comparison to the ultra rich, but not in comparison to the massive amount of people who make less than that.
-
Well, if they raise taxes but don't cut spending, then we're right back where we've always been. The gov't needs to prove that they can make the necessary cuts first. The gov't bails out the financial institutions because they failed to regulate. The banks broke their own rules and gave out loans to a bunch of financially irresponsible losers. Now, the rest of us have bail everybody out? I don't think so. The gov't needs to bite the bullet, not the financially responsible tax payer.
The social welfare programs haven't increased significantly in comparison to our GDP since Bill Clinton was in office and we had a surplus in our budget. If you want to start talking about why we have this debt, from a purely historical stance, it was cutting taxes for the rich, and not funding massive military involvements. If you look at the problem from the ledger book, ya, our social welfare programs are a debt, but their cost is not significant enough alone to cause our country to have a debt problem.
You want more jobs in the market place, but giving companies more money doesn't mean they're going to invest and expand. Some will, but a more proven way to get companies hiring is to give them demand for their products, and you do that by employing out of work people in infrastructure work. This would cause money in the immediate, but it would result in a better economy, and that means more money to pay off the debt.
To me there needs to be another bracket of taxes. I think its absurd to lump families making 250,000 a year in with single people making millions a year. I think it's ridiculous that they are considered the same.
I definitely agree with this, but I also have a hard time accepting $250,000+ as middle class... maybe in comparison to the ultra rich, but not in comparison to the massive amount of people who make less than that.
Did you mean this as in we don't pay for our military involvements or that it doesn't factor in? Because I thought $700 billion a year was a lot.
-
700 bill a year?
Is that at all necessary to defend a country?
-
Probably not. And now for a visual aid:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d160c8f740cad88bd41656f4e5b6b3ec.png)
A statistic I like to quote often is that our military budget per year is bigger than that of the next 43 countries on the list combined.
-
How was this even allowed to happen?
And when did it shift towards this?
-
Something called the Cold War... :P
Although frankly right now I'm reading this article advocating partial isolationism from 1997, and that budget was closer to $400 billion.
-
Something called the Cold War... :P
Although frankly right now I'm reading this article advocating partial isolationism from 1997, and that budget was closer to $400 billion.
Wow, what paranoia and xenophobia can do to one's wallet.
I've heard that Russia post-USSR has far more nuclear weaponry than they ever did during the Cold War. Which if course is kind of useless to them or anyone, due to mutually assured destruction, but anyways is this true?
Also, in regards to isolationsim, I'd definitely be for the US wiping its influence/current attempts at influence off the rest of the world. I bet there would be a great deal less distaste towards the nation if its leaders weren't so seemingly deadset on pushing their modern equivalent to imperialism.
-
Something called the Cold War... :P
Although frankly right now I'm reading this article advocating partial isolationism from 1997, and that budget was closer to $400 billion.
Wow, what paranoia and xenophobia can do to one's wallet.
I've heard that Russia post-USSR has far more nuclear weaponry than they ever did during the Cold War. Which if course is kind of useless to them or anyone, due to mutually assured destruction, but anyways is this true?
Also, in regards to isolationsim, I'd definitely be for the US wiping its influence/current attempts at influence off the rest of the world. I bet there would be a great deal less distaste towards the nation if its leaders weren't so seemingly deadset on pushing their modern equivalent to imperialism.
To that first bit I don't know numbers, but it's been 20 years so I'd expect their arsenal has grown same as ours.
As to that second bit, I don't know enough to say but we are not imperialist. We're hawkish but we're not imperialist; there is no trace of European continental-style realism in our foreign policy agenda at any point in history. And isolationism won't solve our problems; perhaps we could do to not be as involved in world affairs as we are, but even then I'm not sure. It's not something that has an easy answer.
What does have an easy answer though is that we could be just as involved in world affairs with a significantly scaled down military budget. Our military failures since Vietnam have been policy failures, not due to an inadequate military or insufficient funding.
Well, it's also due to our inability to fight unconventional wars, but again that can't be solved by just throwing more money at the military establishment.
-
I see we, and most people agree that the military budget is far too high
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
I, for one, believe that we'd be better off with a self-contained as possible economy, as little reliance on others for resources, and by not meddling with other's affairs/investing our interests in foreign nations, and instead, making the absolute best with the abundent natural resources, people included, that are within our own borders.
-
I see we, and most people agree that the military budget is far too high
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
I, for one, believe that we'd be better off with a self-contained as possible economy, as little reliance on others for resources, and by not meddling with other's affairs/investing our interests in foreign nations, and instead, making the absolute best with the abundent natural resources, people included, that are within our own borders.
Well that one I'll leave up to the economists to tell you why that would end in disaster. As for the non-economic stuff, every country engages in foreign interaction of some sort. The countries who are part of the UN and NATO interact on the world stage to bring humanitarian aid, the G8 is a group who discuss the direction of the world economy with the U.S. as one of the integral members (and France and Canada), and if you think there's nil progress on the fight against global warming in this world climate, imagine if the U.S. and other nations opted for isolationism, even partially.
-
What good are more tax payers if we keep on lowering the rates? It means the same amount of revenue spread across more people.
I find it interesting that the laffer curve basically doesn't exist for anyone with an economic opinion that falls left-of-center.
The Laffer curve is based on a thought experiment, one that maps the multi-dimensionality of the taxes (income tax, propert tax, etc. etc.) down to one single number, and the complexity of economic and human thought into yet another number. It's a gimmick, nothing more, and can't ever be used to inform economic choices. Many times a tax increase will even result in an economic increase (just like regulations often do), something the oversimplistic Laffer curve can't explain at all.
But let's even assume a nice slope as assumed by the Laffer curve. Isn't the angle of the slope the single most important thing? That is, if you could raise gov't revenue by 10% with marginal loss in economic activity, wouldn't that be acceptable if you can be assured that you're raising the country out of debt?
rumborak
-
So I can't post the article here because I'm on my phone, but NYT just published an update about a new Gang of Six plan. From the sound of it, Obama's given in to Republican demands: deep cuts, some tax breaks eliminated, but lower tax rates all around. So basically nothing changes and we're gonna have to deal with this again in another two years.
-
What good are more tax payers if we keep on lowering the rates? It means the same amount of revenue spread across more people.
It's better than having less tax payers with lower rates. That's where we are now. You're never gonna be able to raise the rates enough to make up the difference. The tax base is the key because it not only increases revenue, but stimulates economic growth as well. Just a tax increase alone will not accomplish that.
-
Why can't we have both? And also, no one said (the article included) who those tax breaks would be eliminated for.
-
stuff
Did you mean this as in we don't pay for our military involvements or that it doesn't factor in? Because I thought $700 billion a year was a lot.
As in Bush didn't pay for his wars, he put them on the nations credit card. Now, the bill's due and everyone's blaming Obama and social welfare.
-
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
I, for one, believe that we'd be better off with a self-contained as possible economy, as little reliance on others for resources, and by not meddling with other's affairs/investing our interests in foreign nations, and instead, making the absolute best with the abundent natural resources, people included, that are within our own borders.
*handball receive from Super Dude*
In a not-military-geopolitical sense, removing oneself from the international economy would a) be pretty much impossible and b) turn said country into something akin to North Korea (NK), who decided that was the path they would take following the Korean war.
In fact, thats a pretty good point of comparison: NK closed up shop; decided to go it alone and attempt to do everything itself, while South Korea (SK) opened up its economy, floated its exchange rate et al. Other than that, and the outcomes of the war (which as far as I know left SK pretty devastated - which would have made it harder to achieve what its achieved relative to NK), I wouldn't bet on who has better living standards, better freedoms and a greater ability to provide for oneself and family.
-
But let's even assume a nice slope as assumed by the Laffer curve. Isn't the angle of the slope the single most important thing? That is, if you could raise gov't revenue by 10% with marginal loss in economic activity, wouldn't that be acceptable if you can be assured that you're raising the country out of debt?
And all of that is only even relevant if you assume the current tax rate is past the maximum; There's really no way to accurately determine where on the Laffer curve we even are, so it's pretty much a moot point.
-
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
I, for one, believe that we'd be better off with a self-contained as possible economy, as little reliance on others for resources, and by not meddling with other's affairs/investing our interests in foreign nations, and instead, making the absolute best with the abundent natural resources, people included, that are within our own borders.
*handball receive from Super Dude*
In a not-military-geopolitical sense, removing oneself from the international economy would a) be pretty much impossible and b) turn said country into something akin to North Korea (NK), who decided that was the path they would take following the Korean war.
In fact, thats a pretty good point of comparison: NK closed up shop; decided to go it alone and attempt to do everything itself, while South Korea (SK) opened up its economy, floated its exchange rate et al. Other than that, and the outcomes of the war (which as far as I know left SK pretty devastated - which would have made it harder to achieve what its achieved relative to NK), I wouldn't bet on who has better living standards, better freedoms and a greater ability to provide for oneself and family.
Wait, so the US, despite having huge amounts of oil reserves, farmland, and potential for industry, in terms of raw materials and a giant population, wouldn't be able to sustain itself without use of foreign goods. Even if a giant tariff was placed upon all foreign goods, and all business outsourcing overseas were heavily taxed to the point of having to give that up, forcing all manufactured good in the US to be made in the US?
-
Wait, so the US, despite having huge amounts of oil reserves, farmland, and potential for industry, in terms of raw materials and a giant population, wouldn't be able to sustain itself without use of foreign goods. Even if a giant tariff was placed upon all foreign goods, and all business outsourcing overseas were heavily taxed to the point of having to give that up, forcing all manufactured good in the US to be made in the US?
Don't they teach economics in the US any more? (maybe thats why the economy is shot to pieces)
I tried to write a big list of things, but one should suffice.
Why do you think you can walk into a Walmart and buy a t-shirt for basically nothing?
The answer: trade with countries who have lower unit costs than the US.
Look at it this way, say the average hourly rate for a t-shirt factory worker in the US is $20 per hour (thats a totally arbitrary number), and a worker can make 10 shirts per hour. Those shirts "cost" $2 each. In {insert developing world economy here}, the average hourly rate is something akin to 20c per hour – many valid reasons for this that are probably beyond the scope of this post. Given the same level of production technology (which is pretty much a valid assumption as production convergence has almost happened), each shirt costs 2c each.
So, where do you think a company will manufacture their shirts? The US, or the developing world?
In return, the US trades technology, high end services and all of the other wonderful goodies that are generated by a fruitful and well-functioning modern economy. Everyone wins.
Dude, not to be condescending, but take economics when you go to college.
EDIT: Oh, and this:
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
Y’all tried that once, didn’t end too well.
-
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
Right, I forgot to address this little tidbit. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression?
-
Dude, not to be condescending, but take economics when you go to college.
Um, I will, considering how out of touch I just proved myself to be. :lol
-
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
Right, I forgot to address this little tidbit. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression?
What I don't get is why a reduction in our foreign military presence means a reduction in all foreign interaction. Why is it isolationist to bring the troops home? Wouldn't that also have to be combined with diplomatic changes?
As for the topic, it appears that as of right now, house Republicans are becoming more and more convinced that defaulting wouldn't be a bad thing.
-
However, I would like to know as to why a dramatic reduce of all foreign interaction would have a negative effect on us, and what the negative effect would be.
Right, I forgot to address this little tidbit. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression?
What I don't get is why a reduction in our foreign military presence means a reduction in all foreign interaction. Why is it isolationist to bring the troops home? Wouldn't that also have to be combined with diplomatic changes?
As for the topic, it appears that as of right now, house Republicans are becoming more and more convinced that defaulting wouldn't be a bad thing.
To that first bit, I think I misread that as reducing all foreign economic interactions. My bad. Although a dramatic reduction of US foreign involvement seems like a good thing on paper until you realize that we do lose our stake in the pie, and in a way none of us can really appreciate, and I'm only just beginning to learn about it now.
To the second, I know and it scares me. I have a friend who's convinced that it's happened several times before and that we got through it just fine.
-
The problem this time is, as I said previously, global finance is such a massive and intertwinned part of the global economy that any fallout would certainly hit the real economy. US government bonds are considered the ultimate risk-free asset, and an increase in the price of the worlds most important asset would reverbirate across all asset prices, pushing up global borrowing rates. That would lead to a significant repatriation of debt instruments similar to that which occurred when Lehman went belly up - although on a much larger scale as we are now talking countries not institutions. Needless to say, things would be pretty fucked up lol.
The only saving grace would be that things won't immediately hit the fan on August 2, from what I understand the Fed can defer payments for welfare, servicemen etc before failing to pay interest on its outstanding debt. Although, I've also read that there are $480 billion worth of securities that expire in August - all of which would need to be refinanced. If the "default cycle" was to commence, investors would demand a higher interest rate on these securities which could have a similar effect to full default, but at a smaller magnitude.
I hope the republicans who may be thinking default is a good idea realise they will rape the global economy if they persist with their bullshit.
-
I think they do. I think the problem is the wealthy among them - such as John McCain with his multiple homes in multiple countries - probably think they'll ride it out. Even during the Great Depression there were those among the rich and fabulous who had no idea what the whole fuss was all about.
-
So it looks like the house has sorted it out, voting through a significant spending reduction as part of an overall package of fiscal reforms. Those closer to the action, any thoughts?
I guess now its up to Obama, seeing as he had threatened to veto anything that didn't contain tax increases...
-
I'm okay almost with the U.S. defaulting on its debt. It's like a mediocre sports team. Sometimes you have to blow it up and start over.
-
That's great if you're also okay with spending the next decade or so living out of your car.
-
I find it so sad that the nation that began this century with an economic boom in spite of the dot-com bubble burst is now heading towards default and potential global economic collapse. And in a little more than ten years.
-
That's great if you're also okay with spending the next decade or so living out of your car.
It's easier for me to say this right now sitting behind a computer basking in the wonders of central air, but I don't give a crap. The whole country's a mess economically, I'm 23 and have never had a girlfriend, the government's filled with incompetents and power mongers, and I have very few real prospects in my life. So, look, I'm sorry, but why the hell not? There might actually be, and I know this is a dirty word, consequences for the way the U.S. government overspends? Good. I'll take a 5-10 year period of utter-economic collapse for a remaining lifetime of improved fiscal responsibility.
-
1. Maybe your life isn't going anywhere, but mine is, and I'd greatly appreciate it if people like you welcoming in economic disaster didn't ruin it for the rest of us.
2. The government may spend a lot and maybe in the case of the military it overspends, but you're delusional if you think that as we move into the future, every government on every continent won't find that things cost more and so taxes must rise and spending too (within reason of course). Things cost money. As time goes on, things cost more money. Get used to it.
3. It may be more than a 5-10 year period. Hell, if this is the event that robs America of its superpower status, it may very well be the rest of your life. I hope that makes it worth it to you to see the end of fiscal irresponsibility...oh wait, no because no power on Earth will ever end fiscal irresponsibility because we are only human and imperfect and not always morally sensible. There will always be people who take advantage of the system or people out there making their wealth at other people's expense. That has been a part of the human experience going back to the earliest civilizations, even as far back as Sumer and Egypt. The mark of a good government is one that can overcome that very unfortunate fact of life. Maybe we're not doing such a good job right now, but it's no reason to welcome a default that makes life hell for everyone except the people who thrived off of the economic collapse in the first place. You really think the rich and corrupt are going to get their what for if we default? All it's going to do is plunge you further.
-
1. Maybe your life isn't going anywhere, but mine is, and I'd greatly appreciate it if people like you welcoming in economic disaster didn't ruin it for the rest of us.
2. The government may spend a lot and maybe in the case of the military it overspends, but you're delusional if you think that as we move into the future, every government on every continent won't find that things cost more and so taxes must rise and spending too (within reason of course). Things cost money. As time goes on, things cost more money. Get used to it.
3. It may be more than a 5-10 year period. Hell, if this is the event that robs America of its superpower status, it may very well be the rest of your life. I hope that makes it worth it to you to see the end of fiscal irresponsibility...oh wait, no because no power on Earth will ever end fiscal irresponsibility because we are only human and imperfect and not always morally sensible. There will always be people who take advantage of the system or people out there making their wealth at other people's expense. That has been a part of the human experience going back to the earliest civilizations, even as far back as Sumer and Egypt. The mark of a good government is one that can overcome that very unfortunate fact of life. Maybe we're not doing such a good job right now, but it's no reason to welcome a default that makes life hell for everyone except the people who thrived off of the economic collapse in the first place. You really think the rich and corrupt are going to get their what for if we default? All it's going to do is plunge you further.
I'm not saying I'm welcoming a default. If I had the choice I'd say no. But the Reckoning for our overspending must come, and if the time for that is now then it's better than later where the consequences will be worse.
Also, there's a fundamental ideological divide here at work again. I think any sort of government healthcare, federal public transportation, government run social security and medicare, and on and on and on are a bad idea. So, really, if the government does what I want it to do, it shouldn't be spending too much money.
So if, for example, the Republicans say they'll vote to raise the debt ceiling if the most recent health care bill is repealed, then I'm a happier person. I might even vote for them in 2012.
-
It doesn't matter if or when it will come because whenever it does, it's not going to end fiscal irresponsibility, corruption, and the like. As I said, those are ever-present elements of any and all human societies in every time and place. Economic disaster will not make it go away; in fact, it'll probably widen the gap between rich and poor more than it already is. The middle class as an economic stratum will probably no longer exist, but the very rich most definitely will.
-
It doesn't matter if or when it will come because whenever it does, it's not going to end fiscal irresponsibility, corruption, and the like. As I said, those are ever-present elements of any and all human societies in every time and place. Economic disaster will not make it go away; in fact, it'll probably widen the gap between rich and poor more than it already is. The middle class as an economic stratum will probably no longer exist, but the very rich most definitely will.
But what we're doing is creating a wider gap between rich and poor. I'd rather have something happen with a chance of positive consequence than our current policy, which is to give businesses a bunch of money because they do what the government likes.
-
There is no chance a default can have positive consequences. You're an economist, you should know that. I'm a politics major with an environmental and theory focus and I know that. :P
And again, from a societal point of view, the only result I would expect from a default is not the rich and corrupt getting their what for, but regular joes like us getting squeezed even more. It would be like living in the Great Depression, only instead of getting social programs they'd be taken away.
-
There is no chance a default can have positive consequences. You're an economist, you should know that. I'm a politics major with an environmental and theory focus and I know that. :P
And again, from a societal point of view, the only result I would expect from a default is not the rich and corrupt getting their what for, but regular joes like us getting squeezed even more. It would be like living in the Great Depression, only instead of getting social programs they'd be taken away.
I know things about economics, but I'm not an economist. Not smart enough to be one of those.
I don't understand why you're saying a default can't have positive consequences. People respond to pressure, and the government is made up of people. If the government actually has to save money, they'll start finding ways to do this. Since far too much of what I've read about social programs is... discouraging, I'd be perfectly happy to see them go. Maybe instead of an unsustainable social security system we'll move to a Chilean model. That'd actually be exciting and positive.
I mean, like, we can at least both agree that the government shouldn't spend more money than it takes in, and that the government should also be spending money to pay off our debt. I would think/hope.
So how does this get accomplished? From my perspective, the federal government is getting more powerful and wasting more money all the time. Something has to stop it before it collapses in an even more catastrophic manner. Why not now? What else will make the debt go away? I'd say wait for something else to come in the future, but I find the existence of this debt stand-off in-and-of-itself miraculous. While I'm 99% sure they'll work something out, a 1% chance now is better than a 0% chance later.
EDIT: Just to see if I could, I did the NYTimes Debt Game (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html) and got rid of the long term budget shortfall without having the cut the military. I only got rid of 87% of the short term deficit, but that's okay. Trying to untangle the web of the U.S. budget doesn't necessarily have to be done now, although unfortunately it seems it might be the best option.
-
What did you cut?
Also that seems to be the difference between you and me (and obviously between Democrats and Republicans): I'm a WITT (We're In This Together), you're a YOYO (You're On Your Own).
-
That's great if you're also okay with spending the next decade or so living out of your car.
It's easier for me to say this right now sitting behind a computer basking in the wonders of central air, but I don't give a crap. The whole country's a mess economically, I'm 23 and have never had a girlfriend, the government's filled with incompetents and power mongers, and I have very few real prospects in my life. So, look, I'm sorry, but why the hell not? There might actually be, and I know this is a dirty word, consequences for the way the U.S. government overspends? Good. I'll take a 5-10 year period of utter-economic collapse for a remaining lifetime of improved fiscal responsibility.
Sorry, but this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. The Republicans should just campaign on the slogan, "Hey, we're rich enough to weather the storm, and you don't give a damn anyway!"
Seriously, though. These aren't "our" consequences. Us normal folk should not have to suffer because Congress and the presidents decided to engage in multiple, illegal and expensive military actions. If anyone deserves to live out of their cars for what's happened to America, it's our lawmakers.
Also, I can't believe people actually think Public Transportation and Social Security are bankrupting us. The first is just laughable, and if you think the second is true than you have no idea how the Social Security system actually works.
Finally, the US isn't going to default. The US media is really making this a bigger issue than it is for some reason, but talking to people outside the states has really opened my eyes. No-one without a vested interest in US partisan politics I've talked to thinks this is actually going to happen.
-
What did you cut?
Foreign Aid
Eliminate Earmarks
Eliminate Farm Subsidies
Cut Pay of Federal Workers
Reduce Federal Workers
Cut Aid to Space
Malpractice Reform
Medicare Eligibility to 70
Reduce Tax Break for Employer Health Insurance
Cap Medicare Growth starting in 2013 (this was HUGE)
Social Security Age to 70
Reduce Social Security Benefits to those with Big incomes
Clinton Era Investment Taxes (almost out of principle)
Remove Payroll tax ceiling
Eliminate Tax loopholes, reduce Rates
Also that seems to be the difference between you and me (and obviously between Democrats and Republicans): I'm a WITT (We're In This Together), you're a YOYO (You're On Your Own).
Wait, I'm a yoyo?
I dunno if what you're saying's exactly fair though. People that aren't responsible for themselves seem to be moochers who never really achieve anything based on what I've seen. America's been built on people trying to achieve and do better for themselves. And now we live in a society where the government's actually advertising food stamps. We're all in this together, yes, but people need to take responsibility for their actions and contribute.
Seriously, though. These aren't "our" consequences. Us normal folk should not have to suffer because Congress and the presidents decided to engage in multiple, illegal and expensive military actions. If anyone deserves to live out of their cars for what's happened to America, it's our lawmakers.
Wait, wait. Okay.
Why are any of the military actions in question "illegal?" I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I have a feeling you'll bring up international law, in which case our positions are miles and miles apart.
And you're trying to do that thing where the military and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are why we're running up such a massive deficit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
Defense spending didn't even hit 20% of the 2009-2010 budget. And while defense was indeed one of the fastest growing parts of the budget, it didn't get remotely close to the amount the budget grew in terms of bailouts and welfare.
Also, I can't believe people actually think Public Transportation and Social Security are bankrupting us. The first is just laughable, and if you think the second is true than you have no idea how the Social Security system actually works.
I never wanted to imply public transportation is bankrupting us, just that the federal government shouldn't be funding it. And I don't understand your thing about social security. At some point it will put out less money than it takes in. How is that not bankrupting us at some point?
Finally, the US isn't going to default. The US media is really making this a bigger issue than it is for some reason, but talking to people outside the states has really opened my eyes. No-one without a vested interest in US partisan politics I've talked to thinks this is actually going to happen.
I already said in some other post there was a 99% chance the US wouldn't default.
-
Why are any of the military actions in question "illegal?" I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I have a feeling you'll bring up international law, in which case our positions are miles and miles apart.
We could get into that, but we don't need to. How about just plain old undeclared military action?
Defense spending didn't even hit 20% of the 2009-2010 budget. And while defense was indeed one of the fastest growing parts of the budget, it didn't get remotely close to the amount the budget grew in terms of bailouts and welfare.
Between "Department of Defense," "Department of State and Other International Programs" and the biggest joke of all, the "Department of Homeland Security," you've got a pretty good majority, though I will admit it's hard for me to tell for sure what's what on that map. Also, the 2009-11 budget sadly doesn't take into account the total cost of the wars, including what we've paid already and what is to come. The defense budget also doesn't include past military expidentures that we're still paying for. Finally, the graph doesn't take into account that the money we're paying for the wars is borrowed, and we'll have to pay interest, and it decreases the value of our dollar, whereas Social Security is still self-sustaining (even if not for long).
But it doesn't matter, because the programs aren't nearly as big of a problem as the fact that the rich basically have decided to stop paying taxes which, by the way, directly correlates with the fall of almost every historical empire I can think of.
I never wanted to imply public transportation is bankrupting us, just that the federal government shouldn't be funding it. And I don't understand your thing about social security. At some point it will put out less money than it takes in. How is that not bankrupting us at some point?
But all of those programs can be made to be self-sustaining, and in fact a few of them are, which a war can almost never be. Which is why I don't get your priorities at all. How do you justify supporting an undeclared invasion of Iraq that we have to borrow money for before you can justify fixing a self-sustaining program that will eventually, but still hasn't, bankrupted itself?
Finally, knock Clinton on principle all you want, but that was the last time we saw a balanced budget if I remember correctly.
-
Between "Department of Defense," "Department of State and Other International Programs" and the biggest joke of all, the "Department of Homeland Security," you've got a pretty good majority, though I will admit it's hard for me to tell for sure what's what on that map. Also, the 2009-11 budget sadly doesn't take into account the total cost of the wars, including what we've paid already and what is to come. The defense budget also doesn't include past military expidentures that we're still paying for. Finally, the graph doesn't take into account that the money we're paying for the wars is borrowed, and we'll have to pay interest, and it decreases the value of our dollar, whereas Social Security is still self-sustaining (even if not for long).
This is all fair to say, but at some point what's the financial impact relative to our budget? Still small relative to what I think you're trying to represent it as.
Also, there's another values difference. You say "oh my god, we spend so much on our military, it's more than the next fourty-some countries combined!" I wonder why it can't be more than the rest of the world combined. Ideas of sovereignty aren't as nice as the ability to back them up.
But it doesn't matter, because the programs aren't nearly as big of a problem as the fact that the rich basically have decided to stop paying taxes which, by the way, directly correlates with the fall of almost every historical empire I can think of.
As much as I hate tax loopholes, let's not forget that the top 1% of earners pay something like 50% of income taxes.
But all of those programs can be made to be self-sustaining, and in fact a few of them are, which a war can almost never be. Which is why I don't get your priorities at all. How do you justify supporting an undeclared invasion of Iraq that we have to borrow money for before you can justify fixing a self-sustaining program that will eventually, but still hasn't, bankrupted itself?
Finally, knock Clinton on principle all you want, but that was the last time we saw a balanced budget if I remember correctly.
I'm okay with some kind of government pension plan like Chile has, where people mostly pay into their own pensions.
You're looking at the invasion of Iraq in purely financial terms, or at least that's how it seems. I appreciate having another country in the Middle East that we have meaningful co-operation with. Also, why was the invasion undeclared? Bush told everybody it would happen, we got congressional approval, and we went in.
While Clinton did sign a balanced budget, how much of that was a reaction to the Republican Congress he was dealing with? Just like Obama looks worse because of the incompetent Democratic Congress, we can't ignore that Clinton looked better because of a relatively competent group of Republicans.
-
This is all fair to say, but at some point what's the financial impact relative to our budget? Still small relative to what I think you're trying to represent it as.
One and a quarter trillion dollars of borrowed money which will be paid on interest for years to come can hardly be seen as having a small financial impact on our budget.
I wonder why it can't be more than the rest of the world combined. Ideas of sovereignty aren't as nice as the ability to back them up.
Yeah, nothing says "sovereignty" like borrowing hundreds of billions from China to continue our misguided and fruitless razing of the middle east. And, honestly, the idea that we'd somehow we'd be less sovereign if we pulled our troops home and slashed our defense budget by half or more is ludicrous, especially given our current nuclear deterrent.
As much as I hate tax loopholes, let's not forget that the top 1% of earners pay something like 50% of income taxes.
Which just helps illustrate my point: if they stop, so does America. Isn't that basically what all this hype is about, anyway?
I appreciate having another country in the Middle East that we have meaningful co-operation with.
I don't see that as ever happening. I mean, wasn't that supposed to be Hussien at one point? Our Middle Eastern allies have a funny way of not working out like that. And, honestly, why should we have their loyalty? I doubt anyone's quality of life is better in Iraq right now than it was before-- and things are certainly much worse in Afghanistan. And if it ever gets to the point where it is, which I also don't see happening, it'll be thanks only to years and maybe even decades of prolonged commitment from the US. You may have no problem with splurging a quarter of the budget (a borrowed quarter) on Iraq every year for the next century in the hopes that they might be allies one day, but personally I can't be that optimistic. At the rate we're going, we'll collapse from the inside before we ever get to reap the benefits of having allies who remember the days when we carpet bombed entire villages because we thought terrorist leaders might be hanging out in them.
While Clinton did sign a balanced budget, how much of that was a reaction to the Republican Congress he was dealing with? Just like Obama looks worse because of the incompetent Democratic Congress, we can't ignore that Clinton looked better because of a relatively competent group of Republicans.
I don't think either of those statements are true. Obama only looks bad because he listened to the contrarian side of the Republican party when there was no need to, and hasn't helped much with ending the wars. And, Obama and the Democrats may look bad now, but the Republicans look even worse. Despite my and many people's disappointments, I think the RNC will be bludgeoned in 2012.
-
As much as I hate tax loopholes, let's not forget that the top 1% of earners pay something like 50% of income taxes.
I really, really wish this stat would stop being used to somehow say rich people are being taxed too much. For starters, the two biggest welfare programs, medicare and social security, have their own independent tax through the payroll. Lower income people have to pay these, whereas higher income people often don't. Most importantly, the math I've done several times on this forum. Rich people pay such a large portion of income taxes because they make such a large portion of the overall income. It's simple as that.
I did that budget game, and got very close to closing the budget in 2030 (did it for 2015); I did it without sacrificing any social welfare program, and without being able to make very deep defense cuts, or other options I would prefer.
-
How did you do it?
-
Earmarks
Farm Subsidies (I think we should still have some farm subsidies, but nothing close to what we have now, food production is too important)
Cut salaries by 5%
All the military options (not that there's that much)
The more drastic troop cuts (not that it's full)
Malpractice reform
Reduce tax breaks for health insurance (tricky subject considering I would redo health care system)
Reduce social security benefits for those with high income
Return to clinton era levels for capital gains tax (though I think this should be fully in line with income tax, it's a source of income)
Let all the Bush tax cuts expire
Payroll tax increase
Eliminate loopsholes and lower rates
Reduce mortgage reduction for high income earners
Millionaries tax on income.
51% tax increases, 49% spending cuts. Would probably get higher actual spending cuts if I had more control over options. Didn't like a lot of the first options, even though I agreed that some sort of change is necessary there.
-
So the conservatives/libertarians cut spending and the liberals end tax cuts, breaks, and loopholes. Hmm...
-
In the latest episode of "America's Goverment Makes Me Want to Tear My Hair Out": https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/politics/23fiscal.html
-
This is getting almost entertaining. Everyone complains about the Republicans being vitriolic, but that's exactly how they sell themselves. While vitriol isn't really good for running the country, but it's still hard to complain in a way. What I really love is the erudite, moderate, thoughtful Obama giving a speech where he rips off Mike Portnoyesque passive aggressive insults at the Republicans.
EDIT:
“They are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default,” Obama said. “And they can come up with any plans that they want and bring them up here and we will work on them. The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.”
Amazing. Is this the closest we'll ever see to a politician admitting he only cares about winning elections?
EDIT 2: It's probably just me, but how can Obama not get killed politically for this? Isn't losing your cool on national TV the most non-confidence inspiring thing you can do?
-
Sure.
But why didn't you respond to my last response?
-
Apparently today is the beginning of the last set of talks before they either come to an agreement or let the world fall into a second Great Depression.
-
Amazing. Is this the closest we'll ever see to a politician admitting he only cares about winning elections?
Watch some Mitch McConnell videos... he pretty much admitted people disagree with the guy in the Whitehouse when he's from the other party, and not because of any ideological standpoint.
Also, not increasing the debt-ceiling past the election is much more of a political game then increasing it past the election. Republicans only want it to come up again before the election so that they can try and talk about Obama and "his" supposed debt problem right around election time.
EDIT 2: It's probably just me, but how can Obama not get killed politically for this? Isn't losing your cool on national TV the most non-confidence inspiring thing you can do?
I wish he would have lost his cool during the Health Care debates. Sometimes, it doesn't inspire confidence when you don't lose your cool. It's hardly as if the man was actually raging, he was legitimately venting frustration at a Republican caucus that has it's hard so far up it's fucking ass it's amazing.
-
Amazing. Is this the closest we'll ever see to a politician admitting he only cares about winning elections?
Watch some Mitch McConnell videos... he pretty much admitted people disagree with the guy in the Whitehouse when he's from the other party, and not because of any ideological standpoint.
Also, not increasing the debt-ceiling past the election is much more of a political game then increasing it past the election. Republicans only want it to come up again before the election so that they can try and talk about Obama and "his" supposed debt problem right around election time.
EDIT 2: It's probably just me, but how can Obama not get killed politically for this? Isn't losing your cool on national TV the most non-confidence inspiring thing you can do?
I wish he would have lost his cool during the Health Care debates. Sometimes, it doesn't inspire confidence when you don't lose your cool. It's hardly as if the man was actually raging, he was legitimately venting frustration at a Republican caucus that has it's hard so far up it's fucking ass it's amazing.
All of this, and to the second point I'd like to add that losing your cool is a perfectly legitimate tactic when your constituents want an explanation. You get the sense that he really is trying to make this work and it's the other party that's being uncooperative.
-
Yeah, I thought Obama gave a good press conference. I like to see some genuine emotion from our leaders every once in a while. This whole thing is just getting silly at this point. Boehner is NOT coming off well in this at all.
-
So, whats the reporting like in the US at the moment? All I'm getting over here is "TIME IS RUNNING OUT ZOMG!!1!"
-
It's not getting that much coverage, but pretty much the same. Yep.
Good thing my family started a vegetable garden this summer, ought to tide us over.
"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”- Reagan, calling it like it is
-
Boehner's response was horrible. He made a couple of good points, and the rest were basically lies, half-truths or naive.
I wish Obama would have just called the corporate loopholes and tax breaks he wants to cut what they really are: corruption. He flirts around it sometimes, but never comes out and says it. He calls our government broken, and othe things, but I don't think I've ever seen him call it corrupt. He almost said it during his State of the Union, he spelled it out and everything.
-
I hate to sound like just some mindless Obama defender, but I genuinely think there's a good reason he sidesteps the word 'corruption.' In my mind he's probably trying to avoid pissing off a certain someone or someones who'd really make his presidency hell.
-
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." - Barack Hussein Obama, 2006
-
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." - Barack Hussein Obama, 2006
::)
-
Not surprising in the least. The debt ceiling is basically just a political football that's carried by whatever party's in the minority. There were a fair few democrats who voted against raising it under Bush, and the same the same republicans opposing it now had no problem raising it while under him.
-
That's funny, considering for the last month or so he's been talking about raising the debt limit when it's been the Republicans who've been so completely devoid of common sense.
Oh look, I can't find this quote on anything other than pundit and alarmist sites. Go figure.
I'd also like to say that I'm glad Obama is using the public appeal option, something that AFAIK has been sorely lacking from his bag o' tricks until now. My biggest complaint of Obama has been that he has good ideas but he doesn't do shit to fight for them. Well, if he can make this public appeal work, he's just made the first big step towards addressing my complaint.
-
I'm glad the statists are all butthurt since the November 2010 slaughter. The progressive agenda will be dead for decades.
-
I'm glad the statists are all butthurt since the November 2010 slaughter. The progressive agenda will be dead for decades.
Have you ever noticed that a great deal of your posts here are usually limited to a simple "us vs. them" message?
-
I'm glad the statists are all butthurt since the November 2010 slaughter. The progressive agenda will be dead for decades.
A regressive agenda is nothing to be proud of, my friend.
-
I'm glad the statists are all butthurt since the November 2010 slaughter. The progressive agenda will be dead for decades.
Have you ever noticed that a great deal of your posts here are usually limited to a simple "us vs. them" message?
Of course. We have a one party crony-capitalist system masquerading as a false paradigm of a two party system. It is designed to pin left vs right, Dem vs. Repub, etc etc. It's people like me who support the law of the land over the statists who have been controlled by the banksters since 1913.
-
I'm glad the statists are all butthurt since the November 2010 slaughter. The progressive agenda will be dead for decades.
Have you ever noticed that a great deal of your posts here are usually limited to a simple "us vs. them" message?
Of course. We have a one party crony-capitalist system masquerading as a false paradigm of a two party system. It is designed to pin left vs right, Dem vs. Repub, etc etc. It's people like me who support the law of the land over the statists who have been controlled by the banksters since 1913.
Yea, you lost me. But it's all good. Pretend I'm not here.
-
(https://www.treehugger.com/global-warming-conspiracy.jpg)
-
Um, I understand that gov. corruption and its love affair with corporate America are horrendous, but I think that's all it is. Makes a lot more sense than some vague theory about reptiles and the Crusades and how bankers make money off of WW1.
Why exactly do people believe in that?
-
In order to deal with the vast complexities of real life that they find challenging to cope or deal with, they require simple explanations that put everyone but them at fault.
-
Because Americans are stupid.
And what SD said. ;D
-
That's fine. Believe in your Federal Reserve. They're looking out for the interests of the country, they swear. :rollin
-
That's fine. Believe in your Federal Reserve. They're looking out for the interests of the country, they swear. :rollin
And you can go on believing the entire world is out to get you if that really makes you happy. But I can't imagine how anyone can feel good with that sort of mindset.
-
1913 seems such an arbitrary date.
-
That's when the fat cat bankers decided it was time to start a world war, duh.
-
I hate to sound like just some mindless Obama defender, but I genuinely think there's a good reason he sidesteps the word 'corruption.' In my mind he's probably trying to avoid pissing off a certain someone or someones who'd really make his presidency hell.
Ya, that doesn't fly with me. Giving up is the easiest way to ensure the status quo stays the status quo.
-
Yeah, I mean, really now, there's no way a war in Europe that America entered during the final year could have anything to do with something like massive amounts of pre-existing nationalism and militarism, as well as a convoluted alliance system. :lol
And, also, I don't like Obama, but I doubt I'd of liked McCain, either.
-
On a somewhat related note, what the hell is up with Bohner's suit/shirt/tie combo? Black on blue on green...
-
I hate to sound like just some mindless Obama defender, but I genuinely think there's a good reason he sidesteps the word 'corruption.' In my mind he's probably trying to avoid pissing off a certain someone or someones who'd really make his presidency hell.
Ya, that doesn't fly with me. Giving up is the easiest way to ensure the status quo stays the status quo.
I'm not saying he's giving up, but I can imagine there might be some tremendous difficulties he's trying to avoid while trying to bring about his vision in other ways. Obviously that's not working well, but it could be that the shit would really hit the fan even more than now if he went the other route. We may never know.
-
Sorry to double-post, but I've found a bit of pretty impartial commentary debunking some of the myths associated with the whole saga:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/crazy-things-on-the-us-debt-ceiling/story-e6frg9if-1226102022322
EDIT: Saved by Super Dude.
-
Sorry to double-post, but I've found a bit of pretty impartial commentary debunking some of the myths associated with the whole saga:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/crazy-things-on-the-us-debt-ceiling/story-e6frg9if-1226102022322
EDIT: Saved by Super Dude.
Good article, unfortunately our 2 party system does not allow for such level headedness and common sense in solving our problems.
-
On a somewhat related note, what the hell is up with Bohner's suit/shirt/tie combo? Black on blue on green...
You forgot to mention the orange.
-
Of course. We have a one party crony-capitalist system masquerading as a false paradigm of a two party system. It is designed to pin left vs right, Dem vs. Repub, etc etc.
Alright, I agree with you so fa-
It's people like me who support the law of the land over the statists who have been controlled by the banksters since 1913
wait wat
-
Sorry to double-post, but I've found a bit of pretty impartial commentary debunking some of the myths associated with the whole saga:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/crazy-things-on-the-us-debt-ceiling/story-e6frg9if-1226102022322
EDIT: Saved by Super Dude.
Hey thanks for that, I think I might use that IRL at some point. The only issue I had was his dispelling "Default means Armageddon." I realize that for most countries, it really is as he describes: the sun comes up the next morning. The distinction in this case is of course the U.S. exception; America sits at the heart of the global economy. If Argentina defaults as it did in 2001 or 2002 or whenever it was, it's no big deal; it may rock the global economy for a while, but they have the IMF to step in and get them back on their feet. If the country whose currency is the current global lending standard collapses...well, maybe not Armageddon but at least halfway there.
-
Of course. We have a one party crony-capitalist system masquerading as a false paradigm of a two party system. It is designed to pin left vs right, Dem vs. Repub, etc etc.
Alright, I agree with you so fa-
It's people like me who support the law of the land over the statists who have been controlled by the banksters since 1913
wait wat
1913 - the year we got the income tax and a private central bank (Federal Reserve).
https://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts
-
lol
WASHINGTON: THE US debt plan put up by the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, looks destined to be sunk - by members of his own party.
The two-stage plan, an attempt to break the deadlock that is threatening a US default on its $US14.3 trillion ($13.1 trillion) debt, is expected to be put to a vote in the House on Thursday.
But the bill faces fierce opposition from a rump of hardline Tea Party-backed conservatives, some of whom have pledged not to agree to lift the nation's debt ceiling under any circumstances.
https://www.watoday.com.au/world/republican-debt-deal-set-for-dunking-by-tea-party-20110727-1i0do.html
-
Well boys and girls, what have we learned today? :lol
-
That nobody in Washington is capable of compromise
-
And that it's a fucking horrendous idea for a country to be borrowing money from others, especially when it's used for the purpose of funding idiotic and pointless wars and other blatant attempts of forcing US-ian agendas down the throats of the non-western world.
-
That nobody in the Republican Party is capable of compromise
Fixed.
-
And that it's a fucking horrendous idea for a country to be borrowing money from others, especially when it's used for the purpose of funding idiotic and pointless wars and other blatant attempts of forcing US-ian agendas down the throats of the non-western world.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure that this discussion should be had 5 days before the country goes bankrupt.
-
Yeah. I mean, as much as I am for isolationism, or the closest thing, as a solution for our nation's issues, that, unfortunately won't do too much to repair these issues, which were caused by the US's long term non-isolationism.
My god do I resent the US's refusal to have stuck to isolationism.
-
Riceball, you brought us an article earlier that said that a default would be really bad but not cataclysmic. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/opinion/28thu1.html
-
Your speaker sounds like a bit of a git to be quite frank.
-
You're referring to the article I assume? Please explain.
-
Boehner is a raging git
-
I think part of the problem is the belief that if the deadline passes we will automatically default. A default would only occur if we fail to pay our obligations on paying our debt which can be put off, though for how long I don't know. The government recieves approximately $200B a month in revenues, while our debt obligations are about $20B a month. While the revenues are received daily we just have to make sure we have enough to make any large payments such as the large social security payment due Aug. 3. It seems many people believe the problem is lack of revenues but did you know goverment expenditures have increased from $1.8 trillion in 2001 to $3.8 trillion yearly now? Raising taxes will never be able to keep up with this level of increases. Another problem with the idea of raising taxes is that both during the Reagan admin and the Clinton admin there were deals made to raise taxes and lower expeditures and the Republicans went along with it only to have the revenues raised but the decrease in expenditures never came about. If Obama is serious about any possible default he should go along with a short term package to reduce expenditures in a real way and then a long term plan can be developed to find out in which ways revenues can be increased without harming the economy and develop further cuts in expenditures. For those who think the answer lies solely in taxing the so called rich, and since the US currently borrows $0.43 out of every dollar we spend, and given that the the top 1% ($380,000+) of earners pay 38% of the total taxes, the top 10% ($113,000+) pay 70% of the taxes and the top 50% ($33,000+) pay 98% of the taxes, even raising taxes significantly on the top 10% will not put a dent in our effort to solve this issue. If you want to talk about corporate taxes, the US already has the highest corporate tax in the world. I know there are lots of loopholes that can be tightened up and subsidies that are not needed, but obviously our problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
-
For those who think the answer lies solely in taxing the so called rich, and since the US currently borrows $0.43 out of every dollar we spend, and given that the the top 1% ($380,000+) of earners pay 38% of the total taxes, the top 10% ($113,000+) pay 70% of the taxes and the top 50% ($33,000+) pay 98% of the taxes, even raising taxes significantly on the top 10% will not put a dent in our effort to solve this issue. If you want to talk about corporate taxes, the US already has the highest corporate tax in the world. I know there are lots of loopholes that can be tightened up and subsidies that are not needed, but obviously our problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Some problems with this: It ignores how much money the "so called rich" (sorry, I laughed when I read this) make, so it ignores why they're paying that much of the total taxes. You may not realize it, but when you point to how much of taxes the rich pay, you're only showing the huge gap between the rich and the poor. The top 10% owns more money, gains more income, then the lowest 80% combined. That is the reason why the pay so much in taxes, and to say anything else ignores math and the reality on the ground.
It also ignores the effective tax rate that rich people and the biggest corporations pay. Okay, so we have a high tax rate on paper... but just look at what is actually paid. Rich people pay effectively around 17% of their total income, which is nearly half of what middle-income people pay of around 30%. Giant corporations are even worse. GE made billions of dollars last year, and they paid nothing to the federal government - hell, they got a rebate.
Our problem is as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. We never financed the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and government corruption has been skyrocketing, meaning the rich and the powerful are paying less in taxes then they used to. The status quo is ensured, as start up companies and the less powerful have to face much harder rules than powerful companies.
-
For those who think the answer lies solely in taxing the so called rich, and since the US currently borrows $0.43 out of every dollar we spend, and given that the the top 1% ($380,000+) of earners pay 38% of the total taxes, the top 10% ($113,000+) pay 70% of the taxes and the top 50% ($33,000+) pay 98% of the taxes, even raising taxes significantly on the top 10% will not put a dent in our effort to solve this issue. If you want to talk about corporate taxes, the US already has the highest corporate tax in the world. I know there are lots of loopholes that can be tightened up and subsidies that are not needed, but obviously our problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Some problems with this: It ignores how much money the "so called rich" (sorry, I laughed when I read this) make, so it ignores why they're paying that much of the total taxes. You may not realize it, but when you point to how much of taxes the rich pay, you're only showing the huge gap between the rich and the poor. The top 10% owns more money, gains more income, then the lowest 80% combined. That is the reason why the pay so much in taxes, and to say anything else ignores math and the reality on the ground.
It also ignores the effective tax rate that rich people and the biggest corporations pay. Okay, so we have a high tax rate on paper... but just look at what is actually paid. Rich people pay effectively around 17% of their total income, which is nearly half of what middle-income people pay of around 30%. Giant corporations are even worse. GE made billions of dollars last year, and they paid nothing to the federal government - hell, they got a rebate.
Our problem is as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. We never financed the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and government corruption has been skyrocketing, meaning the rich and the powerful are paying less in taxes then they used to. The status quo is ensured, as start up companies and the less powerful have to face much harder rules than powerful companies.
Don't tell that to PraXis, he'll thrust right into his usual spiel about America's bottomfeeders.
-
Yeah the credibility thing is a bit of an issue; although given all of the shit thats happened over the past month, I dare say alot of America's creditors are already looking at the US and its political system in a new light. The tipping point (god I hate that term...most overused coloquialism ever) will be if the ratings agencies downgrade the US, which from what I've seen is likely whether or not the deadline passes. Thats because they rate a sovereign's ability to pay their debts on time, and given a) the relentlessly fucked up politics in the US at the moment, b) the slowdown in the recovery and c) the physical fact that they are really close to their arbitrary debt ceiling will impact on this.
I've got to say, I think the empire may be on its way out...hate to say it but given how the political system has evolved, I can't see the US returning to its preeminant status as "world leader". Who will replace them? Too early to say, China's too young, Europe's too concerned about its own problems. Australia, hehe, we're available :p
But seriously, as I was writing that, I started to question myself, who realistically could take up America's mantle? Probably noone. So, the most likely outcome from where I see it is the US will remain a superpower, but its credibility and reputation will be severely damaged. Which is kind of what I started this post with, funny that.
-
I believe the US would be much better off as a non-superpower. Perhaps that would put an end to its gov consistently trying to throw its weight around the non-Western world in the name of cheap shit. I mean, if people and natural resources have to be exploited in order to sustain a consumerist society, I'd much rather have my country be exploiting its own people. I see plenty of people every day who I know are deserving of sweatshop labour and would be doing that, had the US gov not forced business to outsource everything through an inflated minimum wage and needless employee benefit requirements.
-
Hey listen Shak, I appreciate the sentiment, but throwing our weight around has more to do with having cheap shit. And believe me, being a non-superpower would not be fun. Ask any postwar European nation.
-
Has to do with more than* having cheap shit. Sorry for the double post, on the phone.
-
lol in one post you managed to critisize 'merica for being too capitalist and too socialist; bravo ;)
And, yes, cheap shit is a global phenomenon, not reserved for the US. Australia's CPI figures came out on Wednesday, they showed clothing prices remained the same in nominal terms as 20 years ago; when a dollar could buy you about what 3 or 4 dollars will now.
-
I guess in short what I'm trying to say is the world *might* be better off without US as a superpower, but the US would definitely be worse for wear, especially when a new superpower arises, particularly if that superpower has a score to settle with ex-American hegemony in its local sphere.
-
Um, I suppose so, Riceball, though I'd say I was more criticizing elements of Merka that I hate that are associated with capitalism and socialism.
I am primarily upset with the nation having such a great obsession with getting caught in world affairs, often with the motive of exploiting them for US-ian interests.
Mainly, because A. there is plenty left to exploit out of the US's land and people, and B. Practically every attempt at exploiting world events has resulted in a major money pit that would waste our tax dollars, and has also resulted in yet more international resentment of the US.
I doubt the US would have developed so many enemies and so much violent opposition to its existence had it remained isolationist from about, I dunno, 1900 onwards.
-
What you said:
I doubt the US would have developed so many enemies and so much violent opposition to its existence had it remained isolationist from about, I dunno, 1900 onwards.
True.
What you implied:
Things would be just as they are now, with the internet, cheap stuff, fast food, porn etc etc had it remained isolationist from about, I dunno, 1900 onwards.
False.
-
You make a solid point there, but I, for one, would be willing to give up those luxuries, if if meant living in a country that isn't at risk of being blown off of the face of the earth by the many nations it has pissed off in the last century.
Also, about Super Dude's comparison of the US as a non-superpower to that of post-war Western Europe, do you mean post WW1 or post WW2?
It seems post WW2, western Europe recovered quite well, though it did require rough decade or two. However, after their recovery, it seems they've been better off than ever.
But if you mean post WW1, then I suppose a non-superpower US would be rather weak, considering the conditions in post WW1 Europe and what they lead to.
-
Okay, I'm sorry, but there are...a few things I need to correct here:
The U.S. is not "obsessed" with getting caught in world affairs. Yes, we may take on a world police role in our defense policy, but the nature of being a superpower is...well, you kinda have to have your nose in everybody's business. If you don't get involved in world affairs in a deep way when you're a hyperpower (as we were post-Cold War) or even a superpower, the international community will see to it you're dragged in, even if kicking and screaming. Exemplary cases: genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Kyoto Protocols.
Part of being a superpower, also, is having interests that lie outside of our borders. Robert Art (brilliant professor btw, had him in my freshman year) identifies six major goals of our foreign policy: the physical defense of the country, Eurasian great power peace, security of Persian Gulf oil, spread of democracy, opening of global international markets, and protection of the environment. Say what you want about any of the six, even the oil one, but you have no idea what it would be like trying to secure those interests sticking to an isolationist foreign policy vision.
Practically every attempt at securing our interests abroad has not been a major money pit and a disaster. Winning World War II was an example of us sticking our nose in world affairs. So was the bombing of Kosovo, so was the First Gulf War. Not all of these foreign involvements have been failures. Hell, the creation of the EU is said to have had ideological roots in the way the US united Europe against the Soviet bloc.
Furthermore, the US has always had bitter enemies throughout its history. Before the Soviets were the Nazis and the Japanese; before them it was the Kaiser; before the Kaiser it was the British Empire (and historical records find that the existential threat they constantly posed to the US was actually far superior to the Soviets or today's terrorist groups), and so on and so forth.
And finally, the US has never truly been isolationist. I repeat: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FROM 1776 UNTIL 2011, HAS NEVER BEEN COMPLETELY ISOLATIONIST. The War of 1812. Our extensive involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Our imperialist forays into Central and South America and the Caribbean. Hell we even sent a naval fleet to Guam or the Philippines (somewhere in Pacific Asia) because some American colony over there burned an American flag. And that was in the 1880s. It is a fact that the US has never been isolationist, not even following the Great War. In fact that's an example of what's called revisionist history, formulated to prevent Americans from declaring war on Germany and Japan in the 40s. What George Washington and the Founders expected of the federal government was to not get involved in European realist affairs; they warned against getting involved in the Great Contest, in the balance of power games, in European war above all. They never said anything about US involvement in foreign affairs to secure US interests, and in fact they had a tacit deal with Britain to give them most favored nation status in their trade relations if British kept the cork on Europe so the US could have their way with the Americas.
WHEW!
You make a solid point there, but I, for one, would be willing to give up those luxuries, if if meant living in a country that isn't at risk of being blown off of the face of the earth by the many nations it has pissed off in the last century.
You may be (but when push comes to shove, I know I even wouldn't want to give it up, so I don't see how you could seriously claim so), but there's about 300 million people who might tell you to shove it up yer ass.
-
Hmm.. you did quite well in kicking my ass on many of these points, primairly the US never having been truly isolationist, however there are some things I do question:
Um, though the US did get dragged against its will into Kosovo/Bosnia and the Israeli/Palestine issues, um, is it not a sign of weakness on the US's part for giving into such pressure to participate?
Then, the six major goals of the US foreign policy, though an near-isolationist policy would not meat these goals, um aside from the defense of home soil and protection of the environment, what exactly does the US have to gain from the others, and why should the US want interest in those. Also, I know the US has a major reliance on oil, but I'm much for abandoning all foreign oil and instead, enacting mass drilling on home soil to gain that same amount, as well as mass investment in alternative fuel sources that could effectively replace oil. Sounds a lot safer than dealing with the Persian gulf.
And, this is curiosity, not disagreeing with this point: what would of been the results if the US had not participated in either world war, or had had nothing to do with Bush the I's gulf war or Kosovo?
-
Hmm.. you did quite well in kicking my ass on many of these points, primairly the US never having been truly isolationist, however there are some things I do question:
Um, though the US did get dragged against its will into Kosovo/Bosnia and the Israeli/Palestine issues, um, is it not a sign of weakness on the US's part for giving into such pressure to participate?
Then, the six major goals of the US foreign policy, though an near-isolationist policy would not meat these goals, um aside from the defense of home soil and protection of the environment, what exactly does the US have to gain from the others, and why should the US want interest in those. Also, I know the US has a major reliance on oil, but I'm much for abandoning all foreign oil and instead, enacting mass drilling on home soil to gain that same amount, as well as mass investment in alternative fuel sources that could effectively replace oil. Sounds a lot safer than dealing with the Persian gulf.
And, this is curiosity, not disagreeing with this point: what would of been the results if the US had not participated in either world war, or had had nothing to do with Bush the I's gulf war or Kosovo?
It is not a sign of weakness that they got dragged in. Rather, it would have been severely damaging both to the reputation of the United States and that of the United Nations if we hadn't gotten involved, because in the Kosovo and Bosnia cases at least, it demonstrates that we turn a blind eye to genocide. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, it would signal that we shirk away from our leadership duties as a superpower. And believe me, where the absence is, people notice. National prestige is way more important than you or even I can fully fathom.
Eurasian great power peace is very important. Because we've lived in an almost conflict-free Europe for the better part of a century, we've forgotten what it's like when states with significant regional power duke it out on the Continent. And that's not even limited to Europe; think about keeping the Russians at peace with Georgia, keeping Iran and Iraq from butting heads, keeping China from fucking everybody...that's what makes Eurasian great power peace important. If we don't rein it in, it's dangerous not only for us but everybody in the area, and eventually the crisis spreads across the international system.
The opening of international markets...I feel like that should be so obvious that I don't need to explain that. Riceball you can go ahead if you want to, but it's common sense to me so I don't really know how to explain why it requires we get involved in foreign affairs. The best I can do is to say that open global trade requires opening markets in different countries around the world, getting them to drop protectionist policies and things like that, convincing them of the benefits of immersing themselves in global trade.
To democratization: the democratic peace theory. There are other (far more significant) implications but I'm so exhausted, I don't feel like getting into it.
The Persian Gulf oil thing can be avoided by alternative energy development, and I am a strong proponent of clean tech (as should be obvious from all the rest of my P/R activity :p), but that day has not yet come, so in the meantime, it's up to us to ensure that no one country becomes so great a regional power that it forms an oil monopoly. Not to mention this vital interest obligates us not only to our own oil security interests but to that of our allies; even if we make the alternative fuel switch, doesn't mean we won't be required to ensure oil security for an ally that hasn't.
If the US had not participated in World War II: the global financial system and international monetary system would not be based on the dollar, thereby preventing America from becoming the wealthiest country not only of the day but in the entirety of human history, and Taiwan and the Koreas would belong to Japan. In fact, Japan might have had the monetary standard tied to the Yen instead, and they'd be the wealthiest postwar country and the wealthiest in the history of human civilization. Germany would belong entirely to the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe would most likely be in economic shambles absent the Marshall Plan, which may have led, however unlikely, to the eventual takeover of all of Europe, even Britain, by the Soviet sphere of influence. Also we'd still be suffering from the Great Depression unless Japan decided to bail us out, which they might've considering in this universe we didn't drop the bomb on them.
If we didn't get involved in Kuwait: Iraq would have created for itself an oil monopoly in the Persian Gulf, well before anyone was concerned with alternative fuels, making our procurement of said oil extremely difficult. Our nation's pro-Israel leanings would have made the consequences of said oil control even worse, as Iraq would be able to twist our arm on any Middle East policies of ours he didn't approve of by manipulating oil prices or cutting us off entirely. Iraq would also have nukes by now, and instead of talking about the nuclear standoff in India and Pakistan we'd probably be talking about the one between Iraq and Iran. Oh and Israel would be a crater by the end of the (last) decade.
If we didn't get involved in Kosovo: the consequences of this one aren't as severe (for America, anyway), but they do hurt American prestige. As I said, the world was looking to the US to provide some leadership in the face of what was obviously genocide, having just gotten off the heels of another genocide just next door. There would have been accusations of American favoritism and things of that nature; our entire interventionist strategy would be completely discredited, and the UN would be a useless, meaningless institution (yeah I know people already say that, but it would literally be a non-entity if we hadn't stepped in). By the way that last bit would result in the collapse of the collective/cooperative security doctrine, and with the rise of terrorism, the end of the Westphalian state system. In other words, the international system collapses into anarchy in which international law does not exist and anyone can attack anyone and there's no one to complain to or seek reparations from.
-----------------------
Edit: Another point that should clear things up:
Physical security, Eurasian great power peace, and Persian Gulf oil security all represent vital interests: those things whose acquisition are of incalculable benefit to the US's well-being, and whose loss would be severe if not catastrophic.
The spread of democracy, the opening of international markets, and environmental protection represent desirable interests: those interests whose realization would bring about great benefits for the US and in some cases the world, but whose non-realization have only mild or minimal consequences.
-
Wow, I have learned a great deal today.
And you've certainly done a fine job at making it clear to me that I am wrong and why I'm wrong.
Though, I do have one question, before I head to General Discussion, to talk about things likely to get my ass intellectually kicked:
Regarding Eurasian peace and probably democratization, are these other nations not able to resolve their issues themselves? I mean, I can understand why they would want aid from others, but it seem perfectly possible for them to solve their problems without us.
(Also, what are you studying in college/going to pursue afterwards? You seem well-educated.)
-
I'm actually studying environmental politics, but I've taken a good number of international relations courses.
As to your question...
It's a number of things. I mean, sometimes the truth is they aren't able to work out their problems on their own. A lot of times that's the reason war starts; they try and the two sides can't reconcile their differences, so it just devolves into conflict.
Another part of it is that the world looks to the superpower of the day (there was a time when it was Britain) to resolve conflicts and keep the peace. Usually outside powers step into a nasty situation or a situation that looks like it will turn nasty, because obviously you want to organize peace before wars start and people have to get killed. That's how it should be, international system or not. Which leads me to...
The superpower steps in because the whole point of being involved in international relations, when you're more than a regional power (and even when you are less than that), is to preserve the status quo. If Iraq developing an oil monopoly jeopardizes your ability to maintain your superpower status, you'll fuck 'em. Similarly though, as a superpower (or even as a participant in an international community with a collective security doctrine), you and your allies are beholden to one another to protect each other's foreign policy interests. So where Japan is concerned, since WWII we've been tasked with making sure none of the former Japanese colonies (the Koreas, China, among others) don't decide one day to fuck their shit up.
And nuclear weapons has also changed this equation entirely. Before WWII, even though Britain and other world powers saw fit to stick their nose in everyone's business because it suited them, nuclear weapons makes such nosiness an absolute necessity now. When a small state like North Korea can potentially inflict the damage of a major power like China or a terrorist organization can acquire the destructive power of a nation-state, a phenomenon that is literally without precedent in the whole of human history, it turns international relations into a much more unpredictable and far more dangerous game than it ever was before the bomb. As such, being a nosy superpower is now basically a job requirement. If you can't keep Iran from nuking the shit out of Israel...game over, man. For like...everyone.
-
Wow, I have learned a great deal today.
And you've certainly done a fine job at making it clear to me that I am wrong and why I'm wrong.
Holy fuck, have these sentences ever been typed in P/R before?
-
:lol
-
This is an historic moment; archive the thread.
-
If you take a look at how the bond market is trading it appears the big money is saying we will not default. Money is pouring into bonds. If the big money was afraid of default money would be leaving bonds.
-
They're not worried because we're not going to automatically default on Tuesday. I think we still have some time after that to get our shit together, the reason we set that deadline is because of something to do with the East Asian markets.
-
If the US had not participated in World War II: the global financial system and international monetary system would not be based on the dollar, thereby preventing America from becoming the wealthiest country not only of the day but in the entirety of human history, and Taiwan and the Koreas would belong to Japan. In fact, Japan might have had the monetary standard tied to the Yen instead, and they'd be the wealthiest postwar country and the wealthiest in the history of human civilization. Germany would belong entirely to the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe would most likely be in economic shambles absent the Marshall Plan, which may have led, however unlikely, to the eventual takeover of all of Europe, even Britain, by the Soviet sphere of influence. Also we'd still be suffering from the Great Depression unless Japan decided to bail us out, which they might've considering in this universe we didn't drop the bomb on them.
Sorry, I have to make a bit of correction on this paragraph because I believe your interpretation of the US involvement is off. Had the US not participated in WWII and kept an isolationist world view there is a great chance Germany would not of been defeated and also a great chance that the war would of extended to our soil. Britain could not of staged a European offensive on it's own and it is questionable they would of won out in N. Africa. Germany would of been able to dedicated a hell of a lot more resources against Russia who probably would of eventually cracked. After securing victory in Europe, the Germans may of staged an East Coast US offensive. Also, Japan would of eventually staged a West Coast US offensive.
-
See I give more credit to the Russian front, I think they could've done it without us, and subsequently obliterated Germany. Like they say that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the late war bombings of Germany, Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.
-
See I give more credit to the Russian front, I think they could've done it without us, and subsequently obliterated Germany. Like they say that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the late war bombings of Germany, Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.
Perhaps, but I think that is a big perhaps. Germany was still a very strong Army even after their defeat at Stalingrad and had the US not been a threat the dynamics of their war resources would of changed dramatically. Troop placement would of changed, the Germans might of controlled the air and diminished bombings on their industry, they would of controlled the seas, Italy might of grown stronger as an ally. All this means at worse Germany would of greatly slowed the Russian advance giving them time to perfect some of their 'super weapons' which could of turned the war in their favor. More than likely though, they would of been able to make another advance toward the oil fields of the Caucuses (their objective before being sidetracked by Hitler's ego with Stalingrad) as an end around through the middle east. With all that oil resource they would of become invincible.
Sorry to sidetrack into WWII talk.
-
See I give more credit to the Russian front, I think they could've done it without us, and subsequently obliterated Germany. Like they say that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the late war bombings of Germany, Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.
Perhaps, but I think that is a big perhaps. Germany was still a very strong Army even after their defeat at Stalingrad and had the US not been a threat the dynamics of their war resources would of changed dramatically. Troop placement would of changed, the Germans might of controlled the air and diminished bombings on their industry, they would of controlled the seas, Italy might have grown stronger as an ally. All this means at worse Germany would of greatly slowed the Russian advance giving them time to perfect some of their 'super weapons' which could of turned the war in their favor. More than likely though, they would of been able to make another advance toward the oil fields of the Caucuses (their objective before being sidetracked by Hitler's ego with Stalingrad) as an end around through the middle east. With all that oil resource they would of become invincible.
Sorry to sidetrack into WWII talk.
After Greece, Italy was finished. And once Hitler was forced to go bail out Italy, he was pretty much finished too.
-
After Greece, Italy was finished. And once Hitler was forced to go bail out Italy, he was pretty much finished too.
For the time being but without the US Italy is probably not invaded and comes back to life under more control of German command making them more dangerous.
-
If you take a look at how the bond market is trading it appears the big money is saying we will not default. Money is pouring into bonds. If the big money was afraid of default money would be leaving bonds.
I don't think following the markets is always the best idea of what is safe and sound... remember, the big money investors are the one's who went crazy with credit default swaps which almost destroyed the financial system and is a major contributor to the recession.
-
If you take a look at how the bond market is trading it appears the big money is saying we will not default. Money is pouring into bonds. If the big money was afraid of default money would be leaving bonds.
I don't think following the markets is always the best idea of what is safe and sound... remember, the big money investors are the one's who went crazy with credit default swaps which almost destroyed the financial system and is a major contributor to the recession.
Yeah, and while markets normally get it right, I think this is such a freaky, one-off event that traders really just dont know what to do. That, and if you take a look at forex right now, basically every western economy that doesnt have problems with debt is rallyinf...shit even the NZ dollar and their economy is cows, sheep and apples
:p
-
So, the Republican bill is through the house; now to see what comes out of the Senate process...
Chances?
-
If the US had not participated in World War II: the global financial system and international monetary system would not be based on the dollar, thereby preventing America from becoming the wealthiest country not only of the day but in the entirety of human history, and Taiwan and the Koreas would belong to Japan. In fact, Japan might have had the monetary standard tied to the Yen instead, and they'd be the wealthiest postwar country and the wealthiest in the history of human civilization. Germany would belong entirely to the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe would most likely be in economic shambles absent the Marshall Plan, which may have led, however unlikely, to the eventual takeover of all of Europe, even Britain, by the Soviet sphere of influence. Also we'd still be suffering from the Great Depression unless Japan decided to bail us out, which they might've considering in this universe we didn't drop the bomb on them.
Sorry, I have to make a bit of correction on this paragraph because I believe your interpretation of the US involvement is off. Had the US not participated in WWII and kept an isolationist world view there is a great chance Germany would not of been defeated and also a great chance that the war would of extended to our soil. Britain could not of staged a European offensive on it's own and it is questionable they would of won out in N. Africa. Germany would of been able to dedicated a hell of a lot more resources against Russia who probably would of eventually cracked. After securing victory in Europe, the Germans may of staged an East Coast US offensive. Also, Japan would of eventually staged a West Coast US offensive.
I agree with you about Germany's eventual victory over the Soviet Union if they had successfully secured the Western front, which I believe they totally would have if the U.S hadn't joined.
But without a direct conflict of interests Germany wouldn't have attacked the U.S. I think Germany's territorial interest has always been continental, Russia was viewed as Germany's future version of what India is to England and once that war on the Eastern Front had ended in Germany's favor they would have had enormous territories in the east to take care of and manage + maintain power over underground resistance in this huge land. It wouldn't have worked like Belgium or Holland for example.
There would have been an eventual decision point for Germany when Japan desperately asks for military aid against the U.S but an unprovoked German invasion attempt of the U.S? I don't think so. (Sorry for off-topic discussion)
-
“All they would do was criticize what I put out there,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising during a rare appearance on the floor. “I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table.”
He added: “A lot of people in this town can never say yes.”
I really can't believe him, what scum.
-
Um, Boner seems to have been one of the most troublesome Repubs for Obama to make a deal with, and now the guy claims to have been putting his all into making a deal?
Um, yeah, I'm not too confident in our legislative branch, as of lately.
Not that the executive is too hot, either, but some of those legislators seem like total selfish and callous human beings.
-
“All they would do was criticize what I put out there,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising during a rare appearance on the floor. “I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table.”
He added: “A lot of people in this town can never say yes.”
I really can't believe him, what scum.
I agree, Reid handled his presser so much better. Boehner is going to o down in history as the one who wrecked the US and global economies because he played politics...
-
Yeah the thing that I find most unfortunate is how good he is at playing politics...a bit better than Obama, unfortunately.
The problem with Obama is he went into the White House promising to do away with the game. The thing I've learned from his term is there's no killing the game. You have to learn to play it if you want to get rid of it. Once you get the prestige and respect of a powerful president, then you can get people to do what you want without wheeling and dealing.
-
Yeah, our current Prime Minister campaigned on this thing her minders called 'The New Paradigm'...and now things are worse than ever in the house. If you ever need some night time US time entertainment, our parliamentary question time is broadcast on the internet; gets pretty hilarous from time to time.
But anyway, things are looking pretty grim now, will be interesting to hear Treasury's plan of attack come Tuesday, anyone know where PraXis lives?
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/big-oil-profits_n_913452.html?ir=Green
Oh, well look at that... :police:
-
I agree with you about Germany's eventual victory over the Soviet Union if they had successfully secured the Western front, which I believe they totally would have if the U.S hadn't joined.
But without a direct conflict of interests Germany wouldn't have attacked the U.S. I think Germany's territorial interest has always been continental, Russia was viewed as Germany's future version of what India is to England and once that war on the Eastern Front had ended in Germany's favor they would have had enormous territories in the east to take care of and manage + maintain power over underground resistance in this huge land. It wouldn't have worked like Belgium or Holland for example.
There would have been an eventual decision point for Germany when Japan desperately asks for military aid against the U.S but an unprovoked German invasion attempt of the U.S? I don't think so. (Sorry for off-topic discussion)
It's all speculation as to what would of happened, but Hitler was testing US defenses along the Eastern seaboard with his U-Boats, one even came into New York harbor, and he didn't think highly of the US militarily so it is not beyond reason that once he did get his house in order he might of waged war with the US on our soil. Especially if he had control of advanced technology.
Damn...I could talk WWII all day long. Perhaps we need a WWII thread so I don't hi-jack this one.
-
Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.
They did that to Berlin.
-
Yeah the thing that I find most unfortunate is how good he is at playing politics...a bit better than Obama, unfortunately.
You mean that he's more ridiculously bull-headed about never diverging from his party line? I'm not sure I'd call that being "good" at anything, as that implies some kind of admirable quality.
The problem with Obama is he went into the White House promising to do away with the game. The thing I've learned from his term is there's no killing the game. You have to learn to play it if you want to get rid of it. Once you get the prestige and respect of a powerful president, then you can get people to do what you want without wheeling and dealing.
Can you think of any modern examples that lend a shred of credence to your last sentence? Regardless, I do applaud your optimism.
-J
-
Yeah the thing that I find most unfortunate is how good he is at playing politics...a bit better than Obama, unfortunately.
You mean that he's more ridiculously bull-headed about never diverging from his party line? I'm not sure I'd call that being "good" at anything, as that implies some kind of admirable quality.
I didn't mean that and certainly not as an admirable quality. He shows he plays politics well by refusing to move an inch, and then claiming that he was the one making all the compromise.
The problem with Obama is he went into the White House promising to do away with the game. The thing I've learned from his term is there's no killing the game. You have to learn to play it if you want to get rid of it. Once you get the prestige and respect of a powerful president, then you can get people to do what you want without wheeling and dealing.
Can you think of any modern examples that lend a shred of credence to your last sentence? Regardless, I do applaud your optimism.
-J
Two words: Ronald Reagan. He started out as every president does, having to use his negotiating and wheeling-and-dealing skills to make things happen. Once he was able to accomplish tangible goals in his first term, the prestige he gained from having made things happen made acquisition of his policy goals easier for him, right up until the Iran-Contra scandal.
-
So, rather than talking to eachother, the Democrats and Republicans are still sitting in their own little corners of the Whitehouse trying to second guess the other and come up with a comprimise deal. Shit guys, are you retarded?
Anyway, I'm hearing that Tea Party members aren't going to support anything that isn't what they want, this is getting scary :mehlin
-
So, rather than talking to eachother, the Democrats and Republicans are still sitting in their own little corners of the Whitehouse trying to second guess the other and come up with a comprimise deal. Shit guys, are you retarded?
Anyway, I'm hearing that Tea Party members aren't going to support anything that isn't what they want, this is getting scary :mehlin
That's been their policy on everything since they entered office. That's why every major legislative debate this year has been resolved at the eleventh hour.
-
Tada!
Now, for the detail.
Will be interesting to see what happens to the credit rating now, thats the next hurdle.
-
Anyway, I'm hearing that Tea Party members aren't going to support anything that isn't what they want, this is getting scary :mehlin
That's what they were elected to do.
-
Tada!
Now, for the detail.
Will be interesting to see what happens to the credit rating now, thats the next hurdle.
Well I haven't heard much, but apparently Obama is letting by a deal in which national spending goes back to the Eisenhower-era levels. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but there's something about that just doesn't sit right with me.
Mostly I'm hoping some personal favorites of mine don't get cut, i.e. EPA funding and my girlfriend's student loans. Chop away at defense spending for all I care though; we are a full generation of air power and water power ahead of our top competitors anyway.
-
Ah, crap. Everybody knew they would get the deal in the last minute, yet I wanted the US to default...
-
Woah thats a cool sig lol.
Wait, Eisenhower-era; as in, 1950s? Dayum, thats a bit cut. Lets think about the numbers at a broad level for a second. One trillion in cuts over ten years, so say 100 billion a year. Thats 0.7 per cent of the total economy. Now, Federal Government spending accounts for about 8 per cent of total expenditure in the US economy. Therefore, in current price terms, we are looking at a contraction of about one per cent of economic activity per year for the next ten years. Fuck. That number looks wrong, I'll take another look later this arvo if I get a chance.
Now, thats a real back-of-the-envelope calculation - but thats the kind of scale we are talking here.
-
I would be very hesitant to believe any of the numbers coming out right now. Most likely it is filled with gimmicks and most of the cuts will never happen. I did read that the first year was supposed to be a $1 trillion cut in expenditures. That is what I will be interested in hearing about. Anything 5 to 10 years down the road never ends up happening so I don't really care about that. I will also be curious in hearing about what number they are using as the baseline for the cuts. Washington has a habit of saying they are cutting spending when all they are doing is reducing how much spending was going to be increased, ie instead of increasing spending $1T we will only increase it $500B so we cut $500B from the budget. That isn't really a cut but a decrease in the increase. It will be interesting because something has to be done about the US debt.
-
https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/debt-deal-info?source=20110801_BO_FB
Zero tax increases, no tax breaks eliminated...the Republicans really got everything they wanted on this one.
-
https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/debt-deal-info?source=20110801_BO_FB
Zero tax increases, no tax breaks eliminated...the Republicans really got everything they wanted on this one.
Actually, they're kind of working on the assumption that the expiry of the Bush tax cuts will be a component of the reductions. They're not discussing it for obvious reasons, but I suspect Boner and his cronies know quite well that there'll be new-old taxes in 2013.
I kind of like the built in doomsday device of this solution. If they don't come to a reasonable conclusion by the end of the year they both get hit in areas crucial to their platforms. Interesting tactic. Of course we're talking about politicians here, so they'll probably both find a way to circumvent it as they always do, but still a nifty notion.
-
"Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs will be protected from any cuts."
So basically, nothing of substance happened.
And also, I'm sure the spending cuts on the military will be taken well, but most likely it won't result in any cuts when it comes to evil, evil weapons, but services like the Walter Reed Army medical hospital.
-
I mean I don't know for certain what the implications of that are, although an article I just read reported that if they can't reach a bipartisan agreement on the second round of cuts, $600 billion (almost the entire defense budget, which for once I'm not sure how I feel about that) will be cut.
Anyway, what I originally came here for was to post this image from said article:
(https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/08/01/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0801-fineprint/fivethirtyeight-0801-fineprint-blog480.jpg)
Now that gives you a real good look at what the crucial spending areas are. ;)
-
Boy that last point isn't loaded or anything.
-
Maybe so but it is census data for the actual Congressmen and Senators, so it's not like it's untrue. :P
-
And, breath out...
161 members still voted against it...does Congress publish a list of voters?
-
(https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/08/01/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0801-fineprint/fivethirtyeight-0801-fineprint-blog480.jpg)
There's an awful lot of red on that board (red denoting spending increases) from both sides.
-
That chart is interesting (except the last point lol), but nothing really surprising.
Not that I think any currently sitting politicians fit this paradigm, but I hate that any desire to cut spending in a broad area will be met with the opposition spinning it to "that guy doesn't care about this issue or think it is important". For example, I think our public education system (largely) and most of our social welfare programs suck large sums of dick. They're ineffective, inefficient, and abused to hell. I wouldn't pour more money into those period without the imminent prospect of implementing serious reform. But I'm FOR such programs on principle.
Same goes for defense, I'd cut the fuck out of that, but that doesn't mean I hate America and want to expose it to terror attacks. We're just hemorrhaging a ton of funds in the name of "security" that's actually a gigantic waste.
But you won't see a Democrat do the former or a Republican the latter in normal times, it'd be political suicide. They'll barely budge NOW, on the brink of a default. Yeah, reform costs money too, but you never reach that point of consideration with everybody harping on the flat dollar amount.
Flying in the face of the point of the rest of my post--so that we can judge each other based on our preferences for budget cuts--if you had to pick 5 programs from that list to cut significantly, what would they be (excluding the last one obviously)? I'd probably go with defense, space exploration, drug addiction, foreign aid, and either welfare or "environment", depending upon what that last one entails. Keep in mind I'm not sure what "child care" or "problems of big cities" entail either, but I'd probably cut them instead of one of the others if i did.
I'd INCREASE spending (carefully and properly allocated of course) on alternative energy, even now. Biggest failure of this country's government over the last 30+ years is inadequate investment in alternate energy sources.
-J
-
Actually my priorities line up pretty well with Democrats on the chart (the top 4), and then begrudingly conceding drug addiction (in favor of my pro-environment programs).
-
If I had my way, all those categories (Except for Alt. energy, highways, and scientific research) in that chart would get their fair share of cuts.
With defense, foreign aid, welfare, space, Social Security, and health care getting particularly massive cuts.
The fact that the gov. has spent so much of its money over the years to the point of being in trillions of dollars of debt is rather shameful.
-
I find it quite interesting also that both parties have a high propensity to cut foreign aid.
My final snippet observation is that the Welfare index is quite high for the Democrats to be honest; based on a ranking its their fourth-lowest spending priority (or fouth-highest cutting priority). That amazes me.
-
I find it quite interesting also that both parties have a high propensity to cut foreign aid.
My final snippet observation is that the Welfare index is quite high for the Democrats to be honest; based on a ranking its their fourth-lowest spending priority (or fouth-highest cutting priority). That amazes me.
While I can't explain that second one except to say prioritizing sometimes sacrifices even pet projects, the first one may have more to do with the long and hard road Bosnia and Kosovo have met going towards stability (note I didn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan). Nation-building requires a lot of money, which we don't have atm.
-
Afghanistan). Nation-building requires a lot of money, which we don't have atm.
atm :lol
-
Looks like this game is coming to a close. I'm sure Obama's top donors are quite pleased with the deal.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-voted-against-the-debt-deal/2011/08/02/gIQArHlopI_story.html
So assuming Tom Coburn is right, which I'm willing to do (for better or worse, his actions reflect his beliefs), then nothing happened. What a surprise?
-
Nation-building requires a lot of money, which we don't have atm.
Super Dude I just gotta ask cause I've been confused for a long ass time; where are you from?!?
-
Murrca. Fuck yeah.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-voted-against-the-debt-deal/2011/08/02/gIQArHlopI_story.html
So assuming Tom Coburn is right, which I'm willing to do (for better or worse, his actions reflect his beliefs), then nothing happened. What a surprise?
I still wonder if this wasn't all known theatrics. Both sides laughing, trying to play up their base, and all along knowing, hey, at the last minute here's the deal we put forward.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-voted-against-the-debt-deal/2011/08/02/gIQArHlopI_story.html
So assuming Tom Coburn is right, which I'm willing to do (for better or worse, his actions reflect his beliefs), then nothing happened. What a surprise?
I still wonder if this wasn't all known theatrics. Both sides laughing, trying to play up their base, and all along knowing, hey, at the last minute here's the deal we put forward.
Sorta. Obviously all the stuff about helping people is meaningless and silly. But both sides were making the other look politically stupid, and a default would obviously be horrible for them. So the stakes were legitimate.
But this whole thing where Obama gets angry about the Republicans hurting the future of America while Boehner acts like they're trying to protect the underrepresented part of America? All bullshit.
-
In the starkest, bluntest sense, political posturing has a single goal: the party not in power wants to make sure the party in power has the hardest time possible getting things done during their "term" and that the least possible progress is achieved; if they manage to make it look like the party in power hurt the nation in their time as the dominant party, all the better. That translates into a switcheroo the next time presidential, congressional, and other elections roll around. Then the ousted party will do the same.
-
In the starkest, bluntest sense, political posturing has a single goal: the party not in power wants to make sure the party in power has the hardest time possible getting things done during their "term" and that the least possible progress is achieved; if they manage to make it look like the party in power hurt the nation in their time as the dominant party, all the better. That translates into a switcheroo the next time presidential, congressional, and other elections roll around. Then the ousted party will do the same.
I'm so proud of you SD. *wipes away a tear* You're really coming around! :biggrin:
-J
-
I've espoused that theory since I began really getting involved in these debates. Just I'd rather have the party in power be the one with good, sound policies that have the future in mind (i.e. Dems) than those set on eating the seed corn. If they have to play said game to enact such policies, well so be it.
-
Thats the beauty and frustration of democratic politics; the incentive is always there to wreck and ruin the plans of the other guy to further your own chances of being elected.
-
So parliamentary democracy is about the same? Because I'd think the coalition element would foster cooperation, not rivalry.
-
Well, I think within coalitions, particularly in the instance Australia finds itself in at the moment (a 'hung' parliament, where neither major party won an outright majority and government was determined by a couple of independent MPs), there is certainly co-operation as the major party in the coalition has to keep the minor parties in the coalition happy, otherwise they lose government. But, at the same time, within the coalition there is no doubt tension as these independents who helped the major party form government hold a massive amount of power, and so can bargain for things in their favour. This has definately been whats happened in Australia: we've had poker machine reform that was unnecessary, are holding a tax forum which won't achieve anything, have developed a carbon pricing mechanism, are spending AU$43 billion on a broadband network thats (mainly) for rural areas; all which were demanded by independent MPs in the "bargaining phase" after our last election.
That situation also means that the opposition has alot more power than usual, as all it takes is for one of the independent MPs to side with them and they can do all kinds of stuff to wreck the Government. While it may be parliamentary democracy in its purest form; it sucks, it makes things 10 times more difficult, and at the end of the day pretty much nothing of substance has been achieved over the past 12 months.
I've probably not answered your question, reading that back it seems like a bit of a rant. Maybe politics has invaded my prose now too :(
-
Believe me, coming from our country's system, I can totally understand your frustration. :lol