US Debt Predictions for Aug. 2.

[cindy CD/TV]

Dear, HOT MEGA,
I'm done being baited and goaded by you. Since there is no reasoning with you, there will be no further posts from me on this thread. But here's a parting gift :baconsalt:






:wave2:

 

[Facetious]

Dear, HOT MEGA,
I'm done being baited and goaded by you. Since there is no reasoning with you, there will be no further posts from me on this thread.

Yep, he's definitely the ''short trader of argument''... always seeking and defending the lowest possible common denominator, that's for certain. :1orglaugh
_________________________________________________________________

I can't stand the build up to these political dog and pony shows... all of the drama... all of the finger pointing, all of the demagoguery, all of the scare tactics and accusations and for what? They just compounded the problem!

...Meanwhile the S&P suffered a 2 +% loss today....


....good for nothing politicians and the loosers who subject themselves to relying on them! :steamroller:

 

[Rey C.]

I think you've mistaken the intent of my credit card example. I'm not arguing against RAISING the debt ceiling. The U.S. must indeed pay its creditors. At this point, it MUST be done. I was responding to Mega's absurd insinuation that we should simply raise the debt ceiling because it's already been done many times in the past, including by Reagan a whole bunch of times. Yes, we have to raise the debt ceiling. Everyone knows it. But to prevent us from being in this position again in the near future WHY NOT TRY TO CONTROL SPENDING? Why is that such an alien concept here, everyone?

Controlling spending is a fine goal... a necessary goal. But if we're going to be honest here, you and I both know that ALL spending should be addressed (including foreign aid and military spending), as well as measures to increase government revenues. And that does not just mean taxes. Additiionally, this clown show that the Congress Critters and Obama have put on has harmed our GDP growth, and THAT, by itself, will put a damper on government revenues.

And since United We Stand is the only political movement you've been a part of, I would urge you to not pass judgment on that which you clearly lack a true understanding.

Point taken.

You said, "The TEA party is, at its core, just a radical off-shoot of the Republican Party." According to whom? That is a complete, uninformed pile of crap spewed by some leftist media type (just let me guess who!).

Since the TEA party is not a single top down entity, I have to admit that you have a point here. There is a wide variety of TEA party groups and some of them don't even get along. I should have been more specific. The TEA Party Express is nothing but an off-shoot of the Republican party. When I see a bunch of people, who were Evangelicals and big spending neocons 6-8 years ago, now calling themselves "libertarians" and "fiscal conservatives (or "physical conservative", as S@rah Palin said ), I smell a rat. Some of the TEA Party people are sincere. I know some of them. They're OK. But these late to the party, run to the front guys & gals are the same people that Pat Buchanan called out as neocons not ten years ago. The same damn faces keep showing up when a new right-wing movement gathers steam! Don't you see that? You're (apparently) a proud member of this movement. Doesn't that make you angry... that your movement is being used???!!!

And it only demonstrates my point. If what you say was true, then Boehner would've rammed through his initial debt legislation w/o any problems. But he didn't because the tea party House members, basically, refused to support his plan because more serious cuts are needed to rescue the economy.

No, I can't agree with you here. Boehner is not part of the TEA Party club. So what makes you think that he would have any influence over them? My guess is, by this time next year, Johnny Boner will be sitting at the kids' table and Eric Cantor (or someone of that ilk) will have his Big Boy seat anyway. It's going to come down to how the American people/voters view the TEA partiers after this shameful episode.

Raising taxes on those big bad wealth people alone won't accomplish this. Not even close. Want to eliminate tax breaks? Go right ahead, but beware the consequences. Many small businesses tread a thin line between success and failure, and small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy. If these things start closing up shop and more people become unemployed, we're in deeper shit than we are already.

Uhhh... I'm one of those people who would be affected by the ending of the Bush era tax cuts. And I can tell you right here, right now, an incremental increase in rates at the upper margin would not have a meaningful negative affect on GDP or business activity, just as the incremental cut had no meaningful positive affect on GDP. All it really does is add to the deficit. Even Laffer has admitted this! This is simply an urban myth perpetuated by those who want to make it seem that the sky will fall if those tax breaks disappear. Look, if your business is THAT marginal, you're not paying tax at the highest rate anyway!!!

I do not, have not and will not make (major) investment and business decisions based solely on a given tax rate. I make investment and business decisions based on the likelihood that the investment will produce a given internal rate of return or yield. And yes, taxes play into that. But if someone tells you that they would rather sit on their ass, rather than invest, based solely on a marginal tax rate, you're either talking to a fool or a liar. Possibly both.

You cite some of the crap that shows up on the news whenever the tea party comes up. Yes the tea party rails against socialism and communism, because some of us believe that's where this country is headed.

This is something that really does frustrate me. I spent four (looooong) years of my life sitting in classrooms getting an Econ degree and another two and a half getting my MBA. And after hearing people use and confuse the words "communism", "socialism" and "fascism" repeatedly for the past two years, I am on the verge of going postal. You see, what I find rather curious is that now, all of a sudden, so many are worried about "creeping socialism". But many of those same people would kiss Ronald Reagan's pickled dick if I put it on a plate in front of them. Yet, he is the man who signed bills into law that were (by definition) just as "socialist" as what Obama has signed. Same with W. Bush. For us to become communists, our governmental structure would have to change. And I have seen no (realistic) signs that that is happening. But when I was younger, I drank some bad moonshine and I saw snow in August - I really did! So given the right circumstances and desire, a person can, I suppose, see what they WANT to see.

Want to eliminate socialism? Let's start with the public school system. I own properties in three states. I have no children (that have found me yet). But I pay property taxes, which are used to educate every rug rat in each of those locations... and because of George W. Bush and the GOP supported No Child Left Behind Act (unfunded mandate), I even pay for bilingual teachers for the illegals that live in those localities. Where was the TEA party, S@rah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann then, my friend... where??? :dunno:

Many Americans, for whatever reason, have latched onto this word, "socialism", attached a stigma to it and then selectively twist its (actual) definition, depending on how they feel about a given program or initiative.

I'm not smart enough to change definitions of words depending on which way the wind is blowing. Just as I apply one set of standards to people (male, female, Black, White, Jew, Gentile, etc.) and treat them all the same (whether they like it or not!), my mind is only capable of applying one definition to a word... the correct definition. I truly wish that others would follow that same example. Though... that would virtually eliminate much hyperbole and many strawman arguments.

We DO NOT want to end up like Greece. In 5-10 years, that's very well where we'll be if we stay on this course. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a sign in the road that says "Bridge Out - 1 mile." And just because ONE person (who was black man at the "white" tea party rally) showed up with an (unloaded) assault rifle slung over his shoulder in support of the 2nd Amendment does not brand the ENTIRE movement as crazy. That conclusion/assertion is way beyond reason and way beyond the pale. I can't even believe you went there. Most people at tea party rallies are older folks sitting in lawn chairs with American flags asking the same question: How can we fix this mess we're in?

Hopefully we do get our act together in a rational manner and do not end up like Greece. But considering Greece's structural issues, it's an apples vs. oranges argument as is. Anyway, allowing people like S@rah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, et al, to speak for you gets you branded as crazy. Sorry if that's unfair. But if I hang out with street corner preachers who have imaginary friends (that only they can see and speak to), I'm prepared to be labeled as cray. Just how it works - fair or not. Ya know?

Raise the debt ceiling this one last time. Period. Then pass a balanced budget

amendment. The country has added $5 trillion in debt in the last 2 1/2 years. Where has all that money been spent? Bank/auto bail-outs, stimulus, health care. Villify the oil industry and fat-cat Wall Street types and target them for tax hikes all you want, but then you let GE, Obama's best supporter, walk away with $14 billion in revenue UNTAXED?

As far as I know, GE followed the current tax laws. As did Microsoft. As did P&G. As did all the others who have managed to trim their tax bills by taking advantage of whatever breaks and credits are out there. Certain (select) companies within the oil industry get ADDITIONAL tax breaks, over and above what GE and other companies get. My uncle has been writing off his vacations as business trips for 30 years. Why? Because he follows the law and conducts an acceptable amount of business... while he's playing golf or going to shows. But I am also all for tax reform. I've said that more than a few times in various threads. But until people who like steak are prepared to give up their sacred cows too, I don't expect anything meaningful to happen. What's taken place over the past month or so simply confirms that in my mind.

Repeal that albatross of a health care bill first. Put the states on a payment plan to pay back the stimulus. Recoup every last cent of the bailouts. The alternative to this or to the raising of the debt ceiling would be to gut the entitlement programs (i.e. social security, medicare). No one wishes that. So compromise. Raise the debt ceiling, cut spending NOW and drastically -- no matter how much it hurts -- pay our creditors to keep our AAA rating, and make it the law of the land that the federal budget must be balanced. We do it in our own households. Our businesses do it. Some states even do it. The clods in D.C. must do the same or it's game over.

I'm not dismissing you here. But understand that as good as that sounds, there are always unintended consequences. Let's say we actually had a cause (a real cause, not a made up one) to go to war. If it's not within the budget, what do we do? And to be honest, unless ALEC approves a tax reform provision, I know it's going to leak like a sieve (and you should too, if you're aware of what ALEC is and what it does).

Bill Maher? Well, that speaks for itself?

So you are (also) one who judges the validity of a statement simply by who says it? You realize you're setting yourself up for a logical fallacy when you do that, right? We all do it from time to time. So I'm not picking on you. But it is intellectually disingenuous to do that. If Bill Maher (or Michele Bachmann... or Donald Duck) said 2+2=4, and you disagreed with that, you'd be facing an epic fail. That's all I mean. And as I said, I'm not a Bill Maher fan, but from all that I've seen over the past few months, I believe he is dead on the money with that one. Of course, your mileage may vary. :hatsoff:

 

[Petra]

Flaming, Personal Attack, and Harassment

I really shouldn't have to be saying this since this is an ADULT board, but for some reason whenever talking politics or religion people suddenly become experts and their opinions are the only ones and be damned to everyone else's opinions.

That being said...

Calling each other names directly, not kosher.

Calling political or religious groups, political or religious movements, cults, or whatever else names that you MAY be a part of...kosher.

Put your friggen big boy and big girl panties on and be the bigger person. Or don't and jump in feet first as a keyboard warrior and sleep in the bed you made. Either is fine with me, just don't go running to the moderators because you can't take the heat.

Got it? Excellent. I'm going to go back and do things that actually matter.

 

[Hot Mega]

These are your own words: "I believe that the US economy though down now still has the greatest potential of any economy in the world. I told you a fact that the debt as a pct. of GDP was near 90 pct. in 1950 but eventually became on 30 pct..."


That was what I was responding to you. :hairpull: :hairpull:

You should stop pulling you hair and try reading.:2 cents: My exact quote;

For a governmental example; in 1950 US debt as a pct of GDP was near 90%. That debt largely a result of WWII could have been considered as you put it as "unsustainable" as today's debt..no?:o You do know from there the debt as a pct. of GDP decreased consistently until it was in the low 30 pct. It didn't start to increase as a pct of GDP again until the early 1980s.

Point is, no one panicked in 1950 over the debt even though it was at near 90% of GDP. And guess what? In spite of that we paid it down.:eek:

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=5924044&postcount=71

Contrastingly, your exact response;

So have it your way, for goodness sake! :angels: A big difference between 1950 with the GDP at 90% vs. right now is the massive amount of money that must now go to fund the nation's entitlements, an amount which will only explode as time goes on (Baby Boomers are retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day, remember).

:wtf:?? :error: :wtf::1orglaugh

:dunno: Now I'm convinced you were just clueless on the point relating to GDP. Sometimes it's just better for a person to remain silent when certain aspects of their persona are in question.:2 cents:

You asked me to address a specific example that you gave, and I did, and now you play fucking stupid? So, no, I don't want to care to revise whose being obtuse. You are the posterchild for it.

:1orglaugh I'm sure there's no reason for me to even dignify this based on the facts. Thanks for playing though.

Again, these are your own words: But this is the 2nd such time you tried calling me that ('tard)...That is against the rules. And My u/name is "Hot Mega", not Gilligan.

First of all, great grammar there. So, it's NOT considered flaming when you do you it to me? :wtf: Don't quote the rules to me :kettle:. You have called me a retard and a teabagger repeatedly.

I would advise you to report it then. Usually I give someone a second chance but if they keep it up I let the mods do their jobs as advised by their boss. However, if you've read the rules and feel I've violated them....locate the post and there's a button for reporting it.:dunno:

Consider this before you do though, you'll have to find where I referred to you directly as anything...To the degree I did, I referred to you as a 'self professed tea bagger'. FTR while you see a distinction between tea partier and tea bagger I don't. Why? Because I've seen both descriptions and even tea baggers refer to themselves that way. So don't blame me for the fact that tea baggers can't get their shit together on what to call themselves.:o

http://www.eyeonlifemag.com/a-hat-for-all-seasons/hats-off-to-tea-party-fashionistas.html

Translation: Good luck.

Getting back to the debt discussion, I think the overall package wasn't really a responsible approach. But if that's what congress could come up with to avert disaster (or at minimum a much worse circumstance than we have now) then it was Obama's duty to sign it IMO.

The country elect their representatives to do this. If they are unhappy, theoretically they should change the people out who gave them what they didn't want.

FWIW as an example, if the tea baggers had their way they would have let GM, Chrysler and the banks fail out. We know what happened since the autos and banks didn't fail out...they are back and profitable and we are in a better position to recover.

The tea baggers position on the debt ceiling....let the country default. They were wrong then and they are most definitely wrong now. Thankfully in both cases neither was allowed to fail out.

 

[titsrock]

Yep, he's definitely the ''short trader of argument''... always seeking and defending the lowest possible common denominator, that's for certain. :1orglaugh

Anyone with half a brain who has been on this site for any reasonable period of time and read more than 5 of your posts knows you've just described yourself, actually. I'm not even sure if "defending the lowest possible common denominator" makes any sense in a real world :dunno: Faux orator-ish

 

[Hot Mega]

Anyone with half a brain who has been on this site for any reasonable period of time and read more than 5 of your posts knows you've just described yourself, actually. I'm not even sure if "defending the lowest possible common denominator" makes any sense in a real world :dunno: Faux orator-ish

He's just being Facetious I guess...:1orglaugh....

<<<<<:rofl2:

Perfect egghead 'emoticon':o

 

[bustybbwlover]

the democrats caved like pussies...or something more caveable like...a sand castle

 

[Hot Mega]

the democrats caved like pussies...or something more caveable like...a sand castle

They did but not this time...that was actually when they had the power to do this without GOPers and didn't because GOPers threatened to beat them in the elections by running the raise taxes talking point.

Demos lost anyway...

Let this be a lesson to them...do what's right in the first place because they are dealing with children on the other side of the aisle who will blow up anything...from Iraq to the economy to the country's credit rating for the sake of politics.

 

[Rey C.]

Not to wander too far off topic, but here's another thing about the TEA party group(s) that I don't get: many/most claim to be economic libertarians, and that's fine. But IMO, that's often taking the easy way out. In addition to the debt debate, let's look at another area that is tied to our debt/deficit: the banking system. We still have "too big to fail"... now more than ever, in fact. And one thing progressives and the TEA party has in common is a distaste for any more bailouts for Wall St. money houses. So what has been done with respect to financial reform in this area? Nothing! The libertarian approach of "what will be, will be" will not work, because we all live in a giant apartment building, and just letting the drug dealer's apartment burn won't work... because our apartments will catch fire too. So now that we see how much influence the TEA party has over the status quo/traditional GOPers, why don't they put pressure on their boys & girls in Congress, the progressives could put pressure on their boys & girls in Congress, and we could maybe get something done about "too big to fail"??? Why don't we ALL (except those who benefit from it) want to dismantle a system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized? Isn't this an area where progressives and the TEA party might have some common ground???

But if not, why not?

 

[PirateKing]

Such despair.

 

[titsrock]

ReyC
How do we actually solve "Too Big to fail"? Seriously, how? The economy is too complex. Who will write new regulations? :dunno: If we find someone that left and right agree on to write regulations then we have to do something to prevent lobbyists from shredding the new regulations?

The only way to protect businesses and consumers is through regulation. Without regulation the Moms and Pops and majority of "Idiot America" will simply be taken to the cleaners time and time again by big business.


On a separate note: Is anyone really excited over the "Super Congress" of 12 who will be tasked with coming up with spending cuts? Doesn't this sound like an incredibly dumb idea given how great our present elected officials just showed us their ability to work together? Simply giving the same clowns more authority will only bring out gridlock or the very easiest cuts....

The train is coming off the tracks...and we've got panicked Republicans and spineless Dems at the helm....

 

[Rey C.]

ReyC
How do we actually solve "Too Big to fail"? Seriously, how? The economy is too complex. Who will write new regulations? :dunno: If we find someone that left and right agree on to write regulations then we have to do something to prevent lobbyists from shredding the new regulations?

The only way to protect businesses and consumers is through regulation. Without regulation the Moms and Pops and majority of "Idiot America" will simply be taken to the cleaners time and time again by big business.

I don't have any well thought out ideas. But one idea/concept I read, that I liked, involved a "regulatory firewall". So we wouldn't waste time trying to limit the size of these banks (because they'd just form other related organizations by pawning off stock to less than arms-length entities). We'd make CERTAIN that if they reach the point where they're about to fail, a legal mechanism is triggered, they're taken over by something like a court appointed receiver, the equity holders are wiped out, the executives are dismissed (with only future legal claims for their compensation) and the bondholders take a haircut too. In too many of the cases during the financial crisis, the stock holders got something, the bondholders got nearly 100% and the execs who caused the failures walked away with hundreds of millions, if not billions.

Would the lobbyists fight it? You damn right they would. And hard too! But here's where I see a use for the TEA Party Shock Troops. I mean, let's be honest... everybody is afraid of them (Dems, Repubs, business types... everybody!). Why not make use of that, while they still have their shock & awe powers?

 

[titsrock]

^
I think Tea Baggers are for less regulation across the board...not more. Some Tea Baggers seem pro Corporation and some seem populistic anti-Corporation. The ones who think "let the invisible hand" of the market decide winners/losers and whether or not consumers live or die through consumption seem to be the loudest yellers.

I just watched John Stewart's latest clip from Huffingtonpost. It's pretty hilarious. If we didn't actually pass anything -- then our deficit goes to $26 tril in 15+ years. Our great Congress merely did enough to HOLD THE LINE at $24tril

We need so much change everywhere...and when Obama tries to bring a big issue to the table (Healthcare, the Debt ceiling, tax increases) the panic in the GOP sets in and they become entrenched in "NO" thinking...

 

[Rey C.]

^
I think Tea Baggers are for less regulation across the board...not more. Some Tea Baggers seem pro Corporation and some seem populistic anti-Corporation. The ones who think "let the invisible hand" of the market decide winners/losers and whether or not consumers live or die through consumption seem to be the loudest yellers.

I just watched John Stewart's latest clip from Huffingtonpost. It's pretty hilarious. If we didn't actually pass anything -- then our deficit goes to $26 tril in 15+ years. Our great Congress merely did enough to HOLD THE LINE at $24tril

We need so much change everywhere...and when Obama tries to bring a big issue to the table (Healthcare, the Debt ceiling, tax increases) the panic in the GOP sets in and they become entrenched in "NO" thinking...

Well, yeah, I think you're right about most of them being for less regulation. So maybe we could get them to the table and make them (for once) say something other than, "No, that won't work!!!" I mean, they've shown that they're really good at just saying "no!!!"... but anybody can do that (one of the first words a baby learns is "no"). If they can come up with an idea to address "too big to fail", it would be worth at least listening to them... especially since they'd probably have a better chance of forcing it through Congress than the Dems or Obama right now. But now, I'm talking about the smaller, less connected TEA Party groups... not the TEA Party Express/Fox News/neocon Zionists/Evangelical GOP'ers wearing libertarian masks. Those people are just role playing... kind of like Marcus Bachmann pretending to be a straight man. IMO, Eric Cantor is role playing too. From what I know of him, that creepy lil man just sees the TEA Party as a means to an end... his end: the House Speakership.

But without some sort of cross-party coalition, I don't think anything will happen with "too big to fail" either. And what's sadly funny (and eaten up with bad timing) is we may be facing another global financial/economic crisis. As I watch the news today (Bloomberg, BBC, Reuters news stories), we may need to get ready (again) for "something evil this way comes." The debt crisis in Europe, combined with slowing growth here and abroad will not be good for any of us.

 

[Straight Shooter]

^
I think Tea Baggers are for less regulation across the board...not more. Some Tea Baggers seem pro Corporation and some seem populistic anti-Corporation. The ones who think "let the invisible hand" of the market decide winners/losers and whether or not consumers live or die through consumption seem to be the loudest yellers.

I just watched John Stewart's latest clip from Huffingtonpost. It's pretty hilarious. If we didn't actually pass anything -- then our deficit goes to $26 tril in 15+ years. Our great Congress merely did enough to HOLD THE LINE at $24tril

We need so much change everywhere...and when Obama tries to bring a big issue to the table (Healthcare, the Debt ceiling, tax increases) the panic in the GOP sets in and they become entrenched in "NO" thinking...

They want to get rid of government all together. I don't want to get rid of government, I just want a better one.

 

[Hot Mega]

They want to get rid of government all together. I don't want to get rid of government

Yeah...after all, who's going to pull you over and do you the favor of charging you a fine for not wearing your seat belt or saying 'hi' to your woman on a cellphone?

 

[himperv203]

ummm has anyone mentioned pull out of the war?

 

[monicasilver]

ummm has anyone mentioned pull out of the war?

What a good point. Do we really need to spend more on "defense" than all other countries combined?