Debt crisis averted but where's the rally?

[Clovis]

All right finance guys, here's your chance to chime in :)

For the last few months I've been telling clients to expect a decline in the market as we come closer and closer to the debt ceiling deadline (today).

My thoughts were the debate would be pushed to the deadline but at the last minute an agreement would be signed and the crisis would be "averted" (or at least kicked down the road a bit more). This would cause a sharp decline in the market leading up to the deadline but once an agreement was made we'll see a significant rally.

So what happened?

In the last two weeks the DOW has dropped over 800 points and today an agreement was reached (as predicted). But the market is still going down. What the heck? We're over -200 points just today.

Not to mention gold is up another $30 today ($1649/oz).

What do you think? Too much doom and gloom or are we seeing a double-dip recession?

http://www.forex-news.co/economists-u-s-economy-is-now-double-dip-recession-signs.html

-Clovis

[FZRACE97]

Reaching an agreement has nothing to do with helping the economy. In fact
it could hurt it more because of all the government cutbacks that are coming.
They are saying the big cuts wont take affect till later in their 10 year plan.

[Ricky]

Lack of money to invest due to government budget cuts, lol

[TransNone13]

+1

Debt default averted, Crisis? Just beginning... I'm certainly worried. With the tentative plan for military retirement, the 20 year deal is out. Stand to lose hundreds of thousands over the course of retirement.

[Snowman]

So why didn't they raise taxes for large corporations? Of course because they need that money to create jobs...

Giants hoard cash, small companies "starve": study (http://news.yahoo.com/giants-hoard-cash-small-companies-starve-study-173853319.html)

Yea right...

[vort3xr6]

Nothing really happened except an immediate increase in the debt ceiling.

No "crisis" was averted, it was just shoved back with the promise of cutting spending later.

I am glad there was no rally, because the smart investors know it's just debt deferment, not actual debt reduction.

[vort3xr6]

While I agree that large corporations need to be taxed more, I completely disagree that the "rich" need to be taxed more.

The top 1% of income earners in this country pay 40% of the entire tax bill.

The bottom 50% of income earners paid just 3% of the tax bill.

Everyone needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. But do that, and watch the GDP plummet!

[Snowman]

However, even though the top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. they still pay less of a percentage on average than the bottom 50%....

Strange how I pay over 20% at 80,000 a year and your average millionaire pays 9%...

What does that say about where all the money is sitting?

[spideyrdr]

Not a finance guy here but it would make sense that the longer term cutbacks are going to hurt everyone. Less money for public schools = higher local taxes. Hell, people are already trying to SUE the state because not enough is being spent on public education, but try to raise taxes and I bet 1/2 those loonies are out protesting THAT. If my taxes go up, I have less to spend and less to invest. Medium term outlook is not good there.

Next is higher education - 17 years from now, when my girl wants to get a degree from a state school, how much is THAT going to cost me? Instead of spending or even investing toward her college now, I am try staying afloat and putting away some money in my rainy day fund.

Next is the effect on transportation budgets. We already saw CO pass a 'surcharge' on our registrations for bridges and roads since they weren't getting enough funding. That accounted for almost $200 in my household alone that is not going toward any local business or any investing. Further cuts mean further 'surcharge' bullshit like that from our state.

In the end, until they get spending under control AND increase fiscal efficiencies, they are just putting the nation on a Visa card issued by the Bank of China and the clock is ticking. We will be 'taxed' one way or another and that is still going to weigh on economic recovery and you can forget about substantial economic growth for a long time.

[spideyrdr]

However, even though the top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. they still pay less of a percentage on average than the bottom 50%....

Strange how I pay over 20% at 80,000 a year and your average millionaire pays 9%...

What does that say about where all the money is sitting?

If your actual is tax bill is $16,000 then you need a new accountant ;) Most people don't pay anywhere near their tax bracket due to deductions.

And 9% of $1,000,000 is still $90,000 - that's a hell of a lot of money in taxes! Again, though, not many people end up paying anywhere close to their full taxes. My effective tax rate has been roughly 9% for the past 6 years and I am not making a million a year.

[Snowman]

Between state, fed and sales.. yes I do pay that much...

Simple, take your tax percentage rate that those that make less than 250,000 a year pay. and apply it to everybody. Your rate wouldn't go up...

You remember this..
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)
What has changed?

[spideyrdr]

Between state, fed and sales.. yes I do pay that much...

Simple, take your tax percentage rate that those that make less than 250,000 a year pay. and apply it to everybody. Your rate wouldn't go up...

You remember this..
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)
What has changed?

Ok, state, fed, and sales, maybe. But state sales tax in CO is a straight 4.63% for everyone. And sales tax is the same for everyone in the same location. Federal tax is, for most people, much lower than the advertised 20%, 26%, or whatever tax brackets.

As far as the Buffet statement at a fund raiser is concerned, I am skeptical. The tax on $60K in TAXABLE income on a 2006 return would have been at most $11,564. That's 19.3%. If secretary "earned" $60k, I am guessing her actual taxable income was much lower, and at a minimum would be lower by the standard deduction $5150 which would put her taxable income at $54,850 and her tax $10,276 - or 17.1% of $60K.

[Ghost]

Reaching an agreement has nothing to do with helping the economy. In fact
it could hurt it more because of all the government cutbacks that are coming.
They are saying the big cuts wont take affect till later in their 10 year plan.


+1

Debt default averted, Crisis? Just beginning... I'm certainly worried. With the tentative plan for military retirement, the 20 year deal is out. Stand to lose hundreds of thousands over the course of retirement.


So why didn't they raise taxes for large corporations? Of course because they need that money to create jobs...

Giants hoard cash, small companies "starve": study (http://news.yahoo.com/giants-hoard-cash-small-companies-starve-study-173853319.html)

Yea right...


Between state, fed and sales.. yes I do pay that much...

Simple, take your tax percentage rate that those that make less than 250,000 a year pay. and apply it to everybody. Your rate wouldn't go up...

You remember this..
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)
What has changed?

Basically, we need to move from the idea that pure Austerity and Cutbacks will save us and move to accepting higher taxes and/or simply closing a lot of tax loopholes--especially on corporations and on the 1% (some of whom have even suggested they be taxed more).

You cannot grow an economy purely on cutting back, you need to "spend money to make money" and we're not doing it--or at least the massive profits aren't being invested here they're going overseas and into the pockets of the few.

Plus, we need tighter controls on where the money is going (or went) as outsourcing may help boost corporate bottom lines, but it's not helping to jump our economy--case in point, Chevrolet used bailout money to open a new manufacturing plant in Canada--that's not the job creation we need.

And, of course, cutting government payrolls for its employees and military means a reduction in spending capital for the millions of people the government employs--and they're not really getting overpaid like the Wall Street robber barons who're essentially plundering the system, making off with billions and then sticking it to the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their bad bets...

This whole thing is a mess of partisan rhetoric, Wall Street fear mongering (bail us out or we'll collapse the economy), corporate greed and a general lack of foresight and acceptance that bills need to be paid and taxes are the only way to do it.

I think/fear things will get far uglier before they get better...

[vort3xr6]

Between state, fed and sales.. yes I do pay that much...

Simple, take your tax percentage rate that those that make less than 250,000 a year pay. and apply it to everybody. Your rate wouldn't go up...

You remember this..
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)
What has changed?


Oh god. That stupid buffett story is a crock of shit. If I have to see it posted one more time in another financial discussion, I will hang myself.

Ever heard of Capital Gains and dividends tax? Most wealthy individuals who make over 300k per year invest their money INCLUDING BUFFETT, who really doesn't make ANY salary. ALL he makes is investment money. The reason dividends get taxed at a paltry 15% is because corporations pay a 40% income tax rate. So for every dollar, 40 cents is paid to uncle sam, if the remaining 60 cents is paid as a dividend, the 15% tax rate leaves the stockholder with 51 cents, for a combined tax rate of 49% on the original dollar of income.

I highly doubt that his dumbass secretary pays a 49% income tax in Nebraska. And if she did, she needs to fire her accountant.

[GaribaldiCU]

However, even though the top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. they still pay less of a percentage on average than the bottom 50%....

Strange how I pay over 20% at 80,000 a year and your average millionaire pays 9%...

What does that say about where all the money is sitting?

How do you define "average" millionaire? Salary? Assets? Property? All of the above? I know a few who qualify by a mix of those definitions. For them, being in the top tax brackets, they pay ~39% in taxes between federal and state. Throw in property taxes and it cracks 40% easily.

As for the Buffetts and Gates of the world, those who can afford to have their assets in trusts, etc., they can take their tax advice and stuff it as far as I'm concerned. The US Treasury accepts donations to pay down the national debt. They can't spend it on anything else. How much did they donate last year?

As for where is the rally, I'd say the market is holding it's breath on the credit rating. The various agencies were quite public about wanting to see around $4T in cuts. The whole "crisis" was always more about the long-term sustainability of the debt load as opposed to the short-term issue of raising the debt ceiling.

[vort3xr6]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

Keep in mind our corporate tax rates are very high in the United states. It is only through tax breaks and loopholes that they pay next to nothing. Thanks the lobbyists for that.

[Ricky]

The last 3 years my effective federal tax rate is 15.x%. I have a mortgage, and I itemize. I am at the lower end of the $82,400-$171,850 tax bracket. If I had taken the standard deduction in 2010, I would have paid around 20% of my income to federal taxes.

My boss, the millionaire, paid a lower effective tax rate than I did in 2010. But then, he's got a few investment properties which he depreciates, rental income, and mortgages to pay, so he also gets interest deductions. You can't straight compare a percentage without seeing the entire picture.

[vort3xr6]

http://www.defuncteconomist.com/?p=147

Good read.

[Shea]

Clovis: The market has dropped, and (looking at my crystal ball) continue to drop because of the simple fact that Congress has not done anything to take care of the root causes of our problem. The debt ceiling was political theater and has done, will do, nothing to get us closer to a balanced budget.

If the government actually had to do accounting like every company on the planet (well maybe except GE) our unfunded liabilities would be closer to 50-60 trillion not the 14 trillion that is thrown around. Medicare is broken, Social Security is broken, the Pentagon is broken, you name it, if it's in the government it's broken.

Snowman: Just because someone is a "millionaire" does not mean that they are generating taxable income of a million dollars a year. The story you cited makes perfect sense to anyone with a modicum of economic understanding. Even the story spells it out rather clearly, but you want to use that as justification for taxing them more? Really?

Let me use small words so we all can understand how taxing corporations/businesses work...k? BUSINESSES DON'T PAY FUCKING TAXES! Get over it. Sure they write the check, but just like every other cost of business, they pass ANY INCREASE on to their customers. Cost of labor goes up, the price you pay at the store goes up. The cost of raw materials go up, the price you pay at the store goes up. Yet in some socialist utopian fantasy world, the big government adherents just think that they can tax the shit out of companies and nothing happens. All you're doing is taxing poor people under the table.

The solutions to our problems are not that difficult, but they require a will to make tough choices and leadership, neither of which the current occupant of the WH has, nor the various clowns in Congress.

[Dietrich_R1]

I like the Graph... Think it would be interesting to throw into there a weighted means of gov't healthcare/etc to compare apples to apples...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

Keep in mind our corporate tax rates are very high in the United states. It is only through tax breaks and loopholes that they pay next to nothing. Thanks the lobbyists for that.

[Dr. Joe Siphek]

Let me use small words so we all can understand how taxing corporations/businesses work...k? BUSINESSES DON'T PAY FUCKING TAXES! Get over it. Sure they write the check, but just like every other cost of business, they pass ANY INCREASE on to their customers. Cost of labor goes up, the price you pay at the store goes up. The cost of raw materials go up, the price you pay at the store goes up. Yet in some socialist utopian fantasy world, the big government adherents just think that they can tax the shit out of companies and nothing happens. All you're doing is taxing poor people under the table.
Nicely put shea

[McVaaahhh]

All I know is my portfolio took a beating today...

[TinkerinWstuff]

Strange how I pay over 20% at 80,000 a year and your average millionaire pays 9%...



The cool part about America is that you're free to get off your ass and become a millionaire if you choose rather than bitching about them.

If a black man from humble beginnings can aspire to and become president, who's holding YOU back?

[Clovis]

Sorry, that was supposed to be debt ceiling crisis =P

The debt crisis is very much alive, the default crisis has been averted for the time being.

Given that the default was averted, we expected to see a rally since highs and lows in the market can usually be explained by two things:

Greed and fear. You could replace greed with "confidence" but still means the same thing in this context.

[Dr. Joe Siphek]

Not looking good today that's for sure.

[JohnEffinK]

Hell, shit is starting to be on sale if you have a few dollars and time.

John

[McVaaahhh]

Rally my ass, I got pummeled again today.

Oh well, stocks like Google & Apple are really cheap right now, and CAT looks pretty good at <$90/share. Good time to get in if you can. :cheers:

[Clovis]

-512 on the Dow, in just one day. EVERYTHING'S ON SALE

A good day for the rowing portfolio though :)

[WolFeYeZ]

Dang today sucked for everything of mine :(

[laspariahs]

I'm generally the last to worry about the economy.... However, I'll be honest, this time I'm a little concerned. Mostly because the president and the house/senate seem to be so at odds, they just play too many lame political games. Everyone knew that the debt ceiling needed to be raised, yet it was AGAIN a last minute deal where one party raped and pillaged. What happened to doing what's best for the country, not just getting what they can when we have someone against the wall. Total bullshit. I usually prefer a president and house/senate from different parties, but this time I wish it were just all democrat.

And yes my stock is getting destroyed along with everyone else, good thing I'm a long term investor. SERIOUSLY thinking of buying some stock, but the question is, where is the floor?

[Rhino]

but this time I wish it were just all democrat.



From the Dem leader:

From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006 (http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/alternativestothedebtlimitincreasev20.pdf):
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “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."


Remind yourself who held the purse string at what time. Today alone, they spent 60% of the new limit, $239 BILLION dollars in one day. The previous one-day record debt increase was $186 billion, set on June 30, 2009. That's when your all 3 Dems controlled gubbermint.


Why is it so hot and why are we in this handbasket?


(I have no illusions that the R's are less interested in pissing money away and lining their pockets, but the few fiscal conservatives are trying to pull up from the nose dive we're on.)

[laspariahs]

From the Dem leader:

From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006 (http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/alternativestothedebtlimitincreasev20.pdf):
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “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'll agree with that, raise taxes back on the rich to where they were before the Bush tax cuts, and reduce spending.....

Reality is it would take both a cut in spending AND raising the taxes on someone to get us out of this, a one sided approach would not work, on either side. IMHO but I'm not a economist, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.

[Shea]

I'll agree with that, raise taxes back on the rich to where they were before the Bush tax cuts, and reduce spending.....

Reality is it would take both a cut in spending AND raising the taxes on someone to get us out of this, a one sided approach would not work, on either side. IMHO but I'm not a economist, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.

Just curious how much extra revenue you think will be created by "taxing the rich"(tm)?

[Rhino]

Just curious how much extra revenue you think will be created by "taxing the rich"(tm)?


Good question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

[Vellos]

Good question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

That is the most bias and ridiculous video I've seen in a while.

[TinkerinWstuff]

That is the most bias and ridiculous video I've seen in a while.

You've got a lot of life to live yet college boy. Quick, move out while you still know everything. :slap:

[Clovis]

What did you think was biased?


That is the most bias and ridiculous video I've seen in a while.

[Vellos]

The last balanced budget by a Republican president was Dwight D. Eisenhower ('53-'61). Not sure why the guy in the video thinks Obama has to live up to a perfect budget if the conservatives have failed since then (oh right so when he doesn't it makes him look bad). And the gap the federal budget has to close is $1.102 trillion, why in the hell would you base the entire budget on the revenue of only the rich and not all revenue contributors combine.

Stupid video is stupid. Moving on...

[Vellos]

What did you think was biased?

"Many of us on the right know that the left only wins when they can find one isolated sob-story, and sell that. Statistics, that is to say data, that is to say evidence is usually fatal to the liberal world view."

Bias video is clearly bias. Moving on...

[Rhino]

"Many of us on the right know that the left only wins when they can find one isolated sob-story, and sell that. Statistics, that is to say data, that is to say evidence is usually fatal to the liberal world view."

Bias video is clearly bias. Moving on...

My bad. Your turn to find a fiscally conservative Dim that shows a way out of this mess. Can you argue with the numbers after the 2:56 mark?

:wait:

The next section 8 house I go to with an Escalade out front, big screen tv, and 5 kids, I'm sending their annual bill to you.

[Clovis]

Biased... maybe. But did you see anything inaccurate?

Here's my personal opinion short and sweet. The left wants big government which translates directly to dependency. When people become dependent on others (i.e. society or the government) they give up some of their freedoms. When this dependency tips past a certain point then people can not live without, or think they can't.

With a majority of voters dependent on the government they will continue to vote the left and the left remains in power.

Social programs are one thing and without getting into what's fair and "right", I don't see how they are sustainable if they are not affordable.

To keep this going the two sides (left and right) are trying to create class warfare.

The other major problem with government intervention -- aka market manipulation is it drives the cost up.

Two examples, one recent and one current.

Housing. By mandating housing for all and artificially lowered interest rates this created an excess of demand which drove the price sky high. This is something that I have some experience on. People can afford a certain house payment (typically 33% of their income before taxes). With higher interest rates that payment equals a smaller loan which means a smaller house price (not a smaller house).

With lower interest rates the loans balloon while staying at the same payment. Ie a $1,000 payment at 7% equals a $150,000 loan.

That same $1,000 payment at 5% equals a $186,000 loan.

Initially you might think that would mean they just get $36,000 more house but in reality what happens in the average house prices inflate to the higher amount.

The current example (and the next big bubble in my opinion) is college. Vellos, I know you're a college student so you can probably relate. Are you going to be graduating without significant student loans? If you are (and you're very lucky) what about your friends?

Even in the worst economy since the great depression college tuition is still increasing annually by 5-6% every year. At this rate when Mrs. Clovis goes to law school in a year and a half CU in Boulder will cost $100,000 (just for law school) and DU will cost about $130,000.

My dad is a retired lawyer. He graduated from Stanford and received his JD from Boulder. My mom also went to Boulder. Guess how much debt they had when they graduated? About $1500.

My brother is finishing his PH.D in Physics at UCCS here in the Springs. Guess how much he'll have? Over $100,000.

Student loans of this size create a debt that will last 20-30 years. Kids graduating today are essentially graduating with a mortgage without the house. I would also argue that college is not for everyone despite what we've been told.

But before I get too far off with that, I'll get to the point.

What is the common denominator that has caused college to become so high? Government back student loans. The government is pumping money into the system which essentially creates a localized inflation and drives the price way high. Why? Because everyone deserves a college education. Did you know you can not bankruptcy your way out of a student loan? That's one of only a handful of debts that will follow you through a Chapter 7 BK. You can not escape them (unless you die without having an estate to pay them off) - they have to be paid off.

By pumping money into housing, college and other sectors an artificially high demand is created. If this practice ended and the free market was allowed to take over being governed by supply and demand prices would be much more affordable and there for obtainable for the majority of people.

Right now college graduates are graduating with massive student loans and not getting a job, or at least a job in their field. But they still have the loans.

[Clovis]

Speaking of that, when I did mortgages we shared the building with a company that did short sales and foreclosures. I can not tell you the number of times they hosted a seminar on short sales where people rolled up in their Escalades and rims. They be' spinnin! spinnin!

In Texas you can't do cash out refinances (ie taking money out of the house and using it to pay off other debts, buy a car, take a vacation, ect) like you could everywhere else. 80% max LTV on cash out, period.

When I first started out, I worked for Countrywide. I shit you not, one of the sales pitches we were taught was to use cash out from your home to take a fucking vacation.

We also had 2nd mortgages that allowed 125% loan to value.

But this craziness wasn't just Countrywide, it was EVERYONE. And guess who EVERYONE sold their mortgage loans to? Freddie and Fannie.

Thank you Mr. Clinton.


My bad. Your turn to find a fiscally conservative Dim that shows a way out of this mess. Can you argue with the numbers after the 2:56 mark?

:wait:

The next section 8 house I go to with an Escalade out front, big screen tv, and 5 kids, I'm sending their annual bill to you.

[Vellos]

A balanced budget comes from making more money than you spend. So with two numbers to work on, revenue and expenses, you need to get revenue higher than expenses. So to balance a budget you can increase revenue or decrease expenses.

The problem is Democrats would like to increase revenue and cut very little expenses. While Republicans would like to cut lots of expenses and not increase revenue. Currently the problem to finding a balanced budget that works for both sides is the Tea Party's stance on "never compromising" which is why we're having a very unproductive government this year and past. Obama is open to compromising to the right, but isn't going to go against his voters (more than half the country is in support for a majority of his plans).

What many people should think of is that this country is divided, but still a whole. One side's version to the budget will not work for the other half. There has to be compromise from both parties to be fair to the entirety of the country. So I'm fine with a budget that incorporates both Democrat and Republican approaches.

[dirkterrell]

What is the common denominator that has caused college to become so high? Government back student loans. The government is pumping money into the system which essentially creates a localized inflation and drives the price way high.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-financial-aid-drive-college-costs.html

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/whos-behind-us-higher-education-bubble.html

[Shea]

The last balanced budget by a Republican president was Dwight D. Eisenhower ('53-'61). Not sure why the guy in the video thinks Obama has to live up to a perfect budget if the conservatives have failed since then (oh right so when he doesn't it makes him look bad).

So by your logic, since Republican presidents weren't fiscally responsible, Obama doesn't have to be either? Wow...



And the gap the federal budget has to close is $1.102 trillion, why in the hell would you base the entire budget on the revenue of only the rich and not all revenue contributors combine.

I believe it was rather effective in demonstrating the VAST amount of money the government spends on a daily basis and trying to put it in perspective. Unfortunately for people who believe that all labor is owned by the state, this sort of eye opening video makes them feel very uncomfortable. Is it biased? Sure, but so are you...

Fact is, this level of government spending will crush us. We simply can't afford it and taxing our way out of it is an impossible pipe dream. As the video shows (whether you care to admit it or not is irrelevant) even if we confiscate all the wealth (as many on your side advocate) we could only fund the government for one year at current spending levels, ergo spending must be cut...drastically.



Stupid video is stupid. Moving on...

Calling something stupid without providing any counter-argument is well...stupid. Disagree with something, provide evidence that disputes it. Calling it names only shows how ignorant you really are on the subject.

[Rhino]

A balanced budget comes from making more money than you spend. So with two numbers to work on, revenue and expenses, you need to get revenue higher than expenses. So to balance a budget you can increase revenue or decrease expenses.



So how about raising taxes on the bottom 50% who only pay 3% of the taxes? (per the IRS) Seems like an awful lot of representation without taxation. Sadly, I'm sure the numbers wouldn't add up to what's being spent.

[Clovis]

http://www.shadowstats.com/

This is another one.

Vellos, I know that Obama says he's open to compromise in his speeches but what in his actions says he is? He tries to portray himself as a moderate but his actions are damn near Marxist.

Btw, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. My wife has gone from being conservative to the left (at least on social issues) in the last few years. She just won't fight with me anymore :(

[Shea]

A balanced budget comes from making more money than you spend. So with two numbers to work on, revenue and expenses, you need to get revenue higher than expenses. So to balance a budget you can increase revenue or decrease expenses.

The problem is Democrats would like to increase revenue and cut very little expenses. While Republicans would like to cut lots of expenses and not increase revenue. Currently the problem to finding a balanced budget that works for both sides is the Tea Party's stance on "never compromising" which is why we're having a very unproductive government this year and past. Obama is open to compromising to the right, but isn't going to go against his voters (more than half the country is in support for a majority of his plans).

What many people should think of is that this country is divided, but still a whole. One side's version to the budget will not work for the other half. There has to be compromise from both parties to be fair to the entirety of the country. So I'm fine with a budget that incorporates both Democrat and Republican approaches.

Problem is this: Government doesn't MAKE money, it CONFISCATES it from people who trade their labor for it. Additionally, the level of taxation required to eliminate the deficit would kill any economic activity, further eroding the tax base, causing the government to raise taxes again, further eroding the tax base, and on and on. There is not a bottomless well of tax revenue out there just waiting to be tapped if only those damn tea-party loons would get out of the way.

So tell you what. I'll give you a 4.6% increase in the top marginal income tax bracket (soak the rich, make you feel good about yourself and finally put the Bush tax cut to bed), and you cut 1.4 TRILLION from the federal budget, this year and give me a balanced budget amendment. Compromise.

[Vellos]

Fact is, this level of government spending will crush us. We simply can't afford it and taxing our way out of it is an impossible pipe dream.

Clinton did it with a Republican congress. It's not like the US hasn't been spending in the thirteen-digit range before.

[Clovis]

Liberals act on their heart, aka what feels good.

If you act on what is actually sustainable they call you heartless. That's their best counter...

I mentioned earlier that people give up some of the freedom for security (government). At a certain point this becomes a dependency.

What's another word for dependency? Slavery.

If you think about it, during the slavery period, slaves had it pretty good. They were provided food, shelter, health care, everything they needed to survive.

What's the difference if a person today is dependent on society/government for their food, shelter and health care?

Well... no whippings, lynching and you're free to move from one plantation to another now a days. Now that's progression!

[Clovis]

George, you're missing the point. Spending has been in the red before but never on this level.

Btw, with the debt ceiling raised our national debt has now exceeded our GDP (for the first time since WWII and we're not fighting Nazi's this time). We're on our way to a European vacation folks!


Clinton did it with a Republican congress. It's not like the US hasn't been spending in the thirteen-digit range before.

[Shea]

Clinton did it with a Republican congress. It's not like the US hasn't been spending in the thirteen-digit range before.

What a interesting view of history...wildly inaccurate but interesting nonetheless...

According to the US Treasury, at no time during the vaunted "Clinton years" was there a "surplus" let alone a balanced budget.

Year:__ Ending: ___Debt: __________Deficit:
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Sure we got close, but no cigar.

As you can see we've nearly tripled our debt since Clinton (thanks GW) and thus tripled our interest payments, taking yet more out of the budget, requiring more borrowing. Do you see, the repercussions of our current course of spending or is it simply to uncomfortable to contemplate?

Also just to answer the inevitable question, "but they said we had a surplus"...
Answer: Creative accounting. The social security trust fund has constantly been raided by Congress to fund various things over the years. When the SSTF has surplus cash (as it did until recently) they would just go across the street, take it out and give the SS an IOU (in the form of special treasury notes). The oft-quoted $2.5 trillion in assets in the trust fund exists only in the form of these notes. As any first term accounting student will tell you, cash is an asset but an asset isn't necessarily cash.

[Shea]

Liberals act on their heart, aka what feels good.

If you act on what is actually sustainable they call you heartless. That's their best counter...

I mentioned earlier that people give up some of the freedom for security (government). At a certain point this becomes a dependency.

What's another word for dependency? Slavery.

If you think about it, during the slavery period, slaves had it pretty good. They were provided food, shelter, health care, everything they needed to survive.

What's the difference if a person today is dependent on society/government for their food, shelter and health care?

Well... no whippings, lynching and you're free to move from one plantation to another now a days. Now that's progression!

Jesus Clovis, you are an extreme, racist, right-wing cannibal aren't you...


...actually you sound just like me. :) Dependency is exactly that, slavery.

[Vellos]

You guys just want to argue and not actually have a conversation. Good luck with Bachmann (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm) in 2012. That is all.

[TinkerinWstuff]

You guys just want to argue and not actually have a conversation. Good luck with Bachmann (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm) in 2012. That is all.

It's tough to argue with facts eh?

http://rlv.zcache.com/dont_go_away_mad_card-p137537387117023919q0yk_400.jpg

[Shea]

You guys just want to argue and not actually have a conversation. Good luck with Bachmann (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm) in 2012. That is all.

To have a conversation both sides must offer something. All you've done is call the video "stupid" and offer up an uniformed historical perspective based on inaccurate information. If you want to converse, please begin anytime...

Specifically:
1. How much money must you confiscate in order to balance the budget?
2. From whom?
3. What effect will that have on the market?
4. What will you do to mitigate those effects?
5. What programs will you cut?
6. Explain you economic theory behind above responses.
7. Justify your economic theory using understood economic behavior.
8. As 7. but in a historically perspective.
9. As 7. but from a individual psychological perspective.
10. Explain how debt is 'good'.

[TFOGGuys]

A balanced budget comes from making more money than you spend. So with two numbers to work on, revenue and expenses, you need to get revenue higher than expenses. So to balance a budget you can increase revenue or decrease expenses.

The problem is Democrats would like to increase revenue and cut very little expenses. While Republicans would like to cut lots of expenses and not increase revenue. Currently the problem to finding a balanced budget that works for both sides is the Tea Party's stance on "never compromising" which is why we're having a very unproductive government this year and past. Obama is open to compromising to the right, but isn't going to go against his voters (more than half the country is in support for a majority of his plans).

What many people should think of is that this country is divided, but still a whole. One side's version to the budget will not work for the other half. There has to be compromise from both parties to be fair to the entirety of the country. So I'm fine with a budget that incorporates both Democrat and Republican approaches.

A balanced budget is the result of SPENDING less than projected revenues. When a private citizen engages in "deficit spending", it's called "check kiting" and can result in a number of unpleasant and lasting consequences. The problem, as I see it, is that the people that we have chosen to represent us for the most part do not know what real work is or the value of the dollars they spend. Our election system has evolved to the point where only the rich stand any chance of being elected, because the voters only know the candidates by their ads and media sound bites. I don't remember the exact numbers, but more than a third of the members of congress were multimillionaires in their own right. So we end up with big spending Republicans on one side, and big spending Democrats on the other side, neither of which really understands that a million dollars is an almost incomprehensible amount of money to a lot of people, much less a billion. Add to this the fact that they are beholden to any number of special interests that expect gravy earmarked pork in return for their investment, and you have a perfect storm of financial irresponsibility.
My solution: Term limits, 12 years of total service at the federal level, with no pension, and no career as a lobbyist afterwards.
Line Item Veto: No bundling bridges to nowhere and research projects on the drinking habits of Shanghai prostitutes with legislation that is totally unrelated.
Give the JBC some teeth. Allow them to make cuts that can't be overriden by the House and Senate without a 2/3 majority.
Election funding:All candidates are allowed to spend X on their campaign, from a Federal fund. No 3rd party ads, no outside funding, no personal funds. NO FRIGGIN CAMPAIGNING UNTIL 45 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that if we can eliminate the career politician, maybe we can limit the damage that they do.

[dirkterrell]

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that if we can eliminate the career politician, maybe we can limit the damage that they do.

I've never been real keen on term limits because it doesn't address the underlying problem. The ultimate problem is that people seem to have forgotten what the 10th amendment was all about. The federal government has slowly grown and grown and become this monster with an insatiable appetite. Political power grabs have certainly played a role, but I think the biggest driver has been a change in the way the people see the government, from something that provides a few necessary things at the national level (e.g., defence, infrastructure) to something to be used to enforce moral beliefs (e.g. the War on Poverty on the left, the War on Drugs on the right).

This view of government, combined with an intentional disregard of the 10th amendment leads to a division of the people and the ability of the politicians to use the public coffers to strengthen the divide and ensure their re-election. Nearly HALF of the families in this country have no (or even negative) federal income tax liability, no skin in the game when politicians talk about raising taxes. That should scare the living hell out of any person with some knowledge of history.

In the last century or so we have inverted the power relationship of local/state/federal governments and this leads to inefficiency and instability. We would be much better off to work on flipping it back in the other direction. The farther a government unit is from you, the less responsive it is to your input and needs. For this to happen, we have to return to the view that the federal government should only be doing things that can and should only be done at the national level, and the Founders gave us a pretty good idea of what those things should be. But I really don't see that happening voluntarily when the politicians have promised so much to people from the public coffers. The Free Shit Army is huge and growing. And they are the ones with the power, from the rich end in terms of lobbying power to the poor end where votes go for the promise of handouts. Those of us in the middle are the ones getting squeezed. Killing the tax code and implementing something like the Fair Tax would probably neuter a lot of that. But the FSA would be sure to fight that.

[GixxerCarrie]

You guys just want to argue and not actually have a conversation. Good luck with Bachmann (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm) in 2012. That is all.

Thats what happens in politics..hence it taking so long to get the debt bill even passed :slap:

When you say that is all..does that mean you are going to stop posting. Or we are just supposed to listen to you?:gay:

[Snowman]

Rich Paying Less Income Tax, Half of Households Pay None (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/17/super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramatically/)

"Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Schoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said."




The one thing left on the table wasn't considered was overhauling the tax code. As Dirk put it, it's the primary way our government tries to socially engineer out society. The left believes everyone should own a house, they gave deductions for doing so. The right believes the rich will create jobs they lower the capital gains tax. etc..

So what has happened is basically if your are really rich you don't pay much as a percentage of your income, if you are really poor you pay nothing our get a kick back.

The next major step has to be an honest look at how taxes are paid in this country.

[vort3xr6]

Rich Paying Less Income Tax, Half of Households Pay None (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/17/super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramatically/)

"Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Schoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said."




The one thing left on the table wasn't considered was overhauling the tax code. As Dirk put it, it's the primary way our government tries to socially engineer out society. The left believes everyone should own a house, they gave deductions for doing so. The right believes the rich will create jobs they lower the capital gains tax. etc..

So what has happened is basically if your are really rich you don't pay much as a percentage of your income, if you are really poor you pay nothing our get a kick back.

The next major step has to be an honest look at how taxes are paid in this country.

Mr. Shoenberg's investments were already taxed at 40% on the company who made the profit, then at 15% when he got paid his dividends.

The rich CANNOT fund the nation into prosperity. It won't work!



You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
-Adrian Rogers

[ian22]

There will be no rally until the markets crash a bunch more, IMO. Our monetary system is based off of fiat money....we spend money before we earn it, lots of credit card debt out there. This debt ceiliing increase just made a terrible situation worse. IMO the American people aren't ready for things to change....if we ever get to that point we'll need to eliminate the Fed, career politicians and ridiculous social entitlement programs that we simply can't afford. We don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The more liberal and progressive the American people get, the worse this problem will get. The federal government cannot fix these problems, only the American people can; they just aren't ready to yet.

[ian22]

Oh yeah....I think the fair tax plan could help to alleviate many of these problems.

[ian22]

Everyone knew that the debt ceiling needed to be raised,

Why did the debt ceiling NEED to be raised? What would've actually happened?

[ian22]

Here's my personal opinion short and sweet. The left wants big government which translates directly to dependency. When people become dependent on others (i.e. society or the government) they give up some of their freedoms. When this dependency tips past a certain point then people can not live without, or think they can't.

Exactly right...and it boils down to that...very simple. Gov't can't fix anything and runs any program poorly. Small government that takes care of those who are really in need...everyone else can fend for themselves. I don't buy in to the "people who never had a chance" BS. You can pull yourself up by the bootstraps....stop feeling sorry for yourself and choose to succeed.

Making anyone pay more taxes is not the answer...we'd just piss it away on something anyway, nothing would change. We need to stop spending so much.

[Rhino]

Rich Paying Less Income Tax, Half of Households Pay None (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/17/super-rich-see-federal-taxes-drop-dramatically/)

"Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.
.

Attn: Mr Schoenberg,

If you'd like to do your part, make your check out to the Bureau of the Public Debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/) and send your money to:

Department G
P.O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, West Virginia
26106-2188

Be sure to include a note in the memo section of your check that the money is intended for the national debt.

Even O was touting how he got all these tax breaks that he never asked for and didn't need. Great! Since he's already a millionaire from his books, he can throw a little towards the debt (starting with his $400k salary since his room and board, cars, etc are paid for). Him, Gates, Buffet, they all tout this "we need higher taxes! I can't believe how little I pay" but in typical fashion they mean that for other people's taxes.

[Shea]

I fully support 'reexamining' our tax system, and by that I mean gutting it and replacing it completely. The progressive income tax has done more to impoverish this nation then any single government program ever created. At the same time it has empowered every dumbass politician to use it to create his version of a perfect society. Really want to be free? Get the government out of your pocket.

Also expect a bloodbath on Monday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html

[rforsythe]

Why did the debt ceiling NEED to be raised? What would've actually happened?

Well, if the Fed is to be believed, they had some $70-80 billion in the bank. So, no debt ceiling raise means the gov't cannot borrow more money legally, which means it runs out of cash to pay the bills. This is why they were saying things like Soc Sec would stop, because they couldn't write checks on cash that didn't exist.

[ian22]

quote
which means it runs out of cash to pay the bills. This is why they were saying things like Soc Sec would stop, because they couldn't write checks on cash that didn't exist.


So - isn't that our thing? Isn't that what we've been doing for decades - creating fiat money? If we run out of money, the fed just creates more out of thin air. I think we should've let things fall apart so we could do a better job of putting them back together.

[Vellos]

"In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans. It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill. After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216. The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1998 budget, which was the first balanced budget since 1969. The surplus money was used to pay down the public debt by $452 billion, though the gross federal debt continued to increase. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history, which began during George H. W. Bush's presidency."

[Shea]

See here is the problem Vellos, I post actual US Treasury data that shows the deficit was never zero and the debt never went down during the Clinton years and to dispute that you post a news article you found. Which do you think actually has a basis in fact?

Please show me how the article is factual when this is in direct contradiction to it:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Just as an aside, it's so annoying when politicians inflate their numbers to make the illiterate peasants go "oooohhhh". Five hundred billion....over ten years, is 50 billion a year. Doesn't seem so massive does it? Some of us can actually do math.

[Vellos]

Damn Shea you are a whine-train comin' up the mountain. :violin: Might have better luck getting sympathy here (http://www.topix.com/forum/us/tea-party) where the narrow-mindedness runs strong. :up:

[Shea]

Damn Shea you are a whine-train comin' up the mountain. :violin: Might have better luck getting sympathy here (http://www.topix.com/forum/us/tea-party) where the narrow-mindedness runs strong. :up:

It's far more psychologically comfortable to denigrate someone who disagrees with your position then actually assimilating information contrary to your world view. This, is the very definition of being 'close-minded'. I don't believe I fall into that category, but you do what you need to do....

[TinkerinWstuff]

+1 Shea

[dirkterrell]

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=191576

[Shea]

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=191576

Fear-mongering racist.

[Vellos]

This'll be the last time I get in a political thread. They're just prime places for people who get their information from one single bias source and regurgitate it as fact. Then the bandwagon joins in (Tinkerin) just being douche-bags and not really contributing to the discussion. Not that it is really a conversation if someone just says "you're wrong WHA WHA WHA WHA cry cry cry" instead of opposing a different idea.

[Clovis]

Ask one of your professors for some sources.

[Shea]

This'll be the last time I get in a political thread. They're just prime places for people who get their information from one single bias source and regurgitate it as fact. Then the bandwagon joins in (Tinkerin) just being douche-bags and not really contributing to the discussion. Not that it is really a conversation if someone just says "you're wrong WHA WHA WHA WHA cry cry cry" instead of opposing a different idea.

You are as guilty of the above more then most. That you cannot see that only adds to the frustration of trying to have any sort of reasonable conversation with you. You have offered no facts and simply said that people were wrong, called them names or bashed the tea party/Bachman. If you think people are wrong, so be it, but confront them with FACTS, not spun news stories (that are shown to be factually incorrect).

I understand shifting your fragile world view is possibly (in this stage of your life) extraordinarily difficult and coming to the realization that your beliefs are constructed on lies, painful. But in order to be a truly intelligent adult we must confront our own biases, put aside our comfortable myths and attempt to be honestly objective. This requires mental effort that most people would rather not exert....watching American Idol and taking a politician at his word if far less mentally time consuming.

In psychology we postulate that for the vast majority of the human populace there are two motivating factors:

A. Feeling good about yourself.
B. Being right.

When these two are in conflict (as the very often are) one must be sacrificed in order to maintain the other. Studies have repeatedly shown that 'being right' will be thrown by the wayside to keep feeling good about yourself. If you are aware of that behavior you can circumvent/shift it, if you choose to...

...or you can just go down the easy path and anyone that disagrees with you, belittle them, call them names and do everything in your power to avoid taking on new information. It's an all too common tactic of small minds, on both the left and the right...just watch CSPAN for five minutes.

[Zach929rr]

The real question is: how long will it take before the American people start voting from the rooftops?

On topic, I imagine there were a lot of margin calls being met this past week by people withdrawing from gold, silver, and other commodities. My buddy was recanting his day this week when his 2x leveraged silver etf took a near 20% dive while he was flirting with the hot office secretary. Quote, " next time AGX should let me put on some lipstick before they fuck me" lol

[longrider]

Fear-mongering racist.

I dont see where you get that, i saw no racist (kick out the illegals applies just as much to a white man from Canada as it does to a Mexican) and while there may be a little fear mongering he brings up a lot of good points. On the medical care front we really need to look at the huge expenses spent at end of life. If you have 6 months to live and $100K will extend that to 12 months (which will probably be bedridden anyway) that is not a reasonable expenditure.

regarding taxes it is true that we cant just 'tax the rich' To be honest it is the middle class that needs to be taxed, I will use myself as an example. Last year my effective tax rate after all deductions and exemptions was about 8% I did nothing fancy, just deducted mortgage interest and taxes, maybe $500 to charity, contributed to a 401K. Bump that a couple percent and take in all the millions of middle class workers and how many billions would that bring in?

We need to bring the mission of the military back to defending our borders and not being the worlds police force. Some bases need to be closed, while that sucks for the city the base is in that's the way it is.

I could go on and on but you get my point

[Vellos]

Guess who?

http://i35.tinypic.com/2hygbr5.jpg

[Vellos]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

[Vellos]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877339,00.html

[Vellos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05poll.html?_r=3&amp;hp

[Shea]

I dont see where you get that

A joke. Since Dirk and I share extremely similar outlooks, I make it my mission to explain to him how evil he is every chance I get :)

[Vellos]

Since Dirk and I extremely similar outlooks

:?

[Vellos]

I'm going to take a break now, I'll let you do your reading so you can come up with "facts" that contradict statistics. :roll:

[Shea]

:yay:

Now you're getting it Vellos, congrats.

First problem, posting unemployment data really is pointless since this was never about unemployment and only implies that in your desire to be taken seriously you just posted "something" remotely scientific.

Second, interesting CBO numbers. Here is the real data from them http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.xls

As you can see it confirms what I was saying earlier, the vast bulk of the "surplus" was just Social Security money raided from the trust fund. But it also shows that in '99 and '00 real revenues exceeded outlays. However the US Treasury numbers (that I posted prior) tell a completely different story. Why the discrepancy? Hmm, more investigation is needed.

Third, the NY Times and Time are not credible sources. Also, wikipedia? Tsk, tsk :) If you don't believe me, try turning in a research paper with them cited. Both are biased (as are all news sources) and exceedingly poor at getting information right. For instance in the Time 'article', there was no mention of Chris Dodd, nor Barney Frank, nor the monumental failure of the US Government in skewing the market, nor our Federal Reserve System, nor Brenton Woods, etc etc. It was/is a very complex problem and finding 25 people 'to blame', at least to me, seems very childish.


I'm going to take a break now, I'll let you do your reading so you can come up with "facts" that contradict statistics. :roll:

Unnecessary. Let's elevate the debate, shall we?

[Clovis]

Vellos, what's the point you're trying to make here?

Just post some graphs and news articles from the NY times (which totally isn't biased or anything) that affirm the points that everyone else had made.

The democrats took over congress in 2006 and the white house. The gap between spending and GDP grew larger and unemployment skyrockted.

I don't see your counter evidence here or am I missing something?

Also, because I'm curious, what are your thoughts? It's easy.

I think:

Big government is not the answer. The government should provide services such as national defense, policing (in the country), infrastructure and a public education option.

For most other things the free market should be allowed to run. People and corporations should succeed or fail on their own merits. Life has rewards and life has risk. Privatized risk, privatized gains.

Also, when social security was originally introduced the average life expectancy was some 30 years lower then today. A tax that's paid for 30-35 years that provides benefits in the last 5-10 years of life is one thing. It's quite another when that same 30-35 years of paying translates to support for the last 30 years of life.

[Ezzzzy1]

Ha... I know 3 people right now that are on un-employment and NOT taking jobs being offered to them because they would be for less than 1. they were making before and 2. they feel that they are worth more.

That said I have a hard time blaming anyone but the stupid Americans that are the root cause for our countries demise. Everyone taking/getting every bit they can without giving two shits what it does to their family/community/city/state and country.

Blame whoever you want but at the end of the day the correct question to ask yourself in the mirror would be "am I doing my part?". Most are not, most do not think they are part of the problem and because of that, without a large loss of life, we will continue to go down the same path of broken ass broken. We no longer solve problems as a country, we come up with solutions to the problems that create other problems. We are so fucking dumb as a country that we need to even be told to not text and drive.... No one cares till it effects them then all they do is cry.

So there... all you selfish pricks that are leaches on the government, you turd bucket humans that care more about your own goodwill than anyone elses. When the shit goes down the first of you that I am shooting in the head will be the fucks that are driving while talking without using their blinkers.:guns:Like it or not it says a lot about the douche that you are.

That is all...

[Clovis]

When the shit goes down the first of you that I am shooting in the head will be the fucks that are driving while talking without using their blinkers.:guns:Like it or not it says a lot about the douche that you are.

That is all...

This is the platform I'm going to run for Governor on.

A chicken in every pot. Two cars in every drive way. Death to asshole inattentive drivers.

[Ezzzzy1]

Ha ha... YES!

You got my vote brotha!

[Vellos]

Shea you should look into this (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/). Might help you understand a few things here in the real world. Might be able to understand things such as sources and relevancy. I find it amusing that you dodge addressing your own opinion, you just bitch and moan at other people's posts. Grow up kiddo.

And Clovis this is your thread, read it. My opinion is the fourth thing I posted.

FFS guys. This is just pathetic.

[Scatterbrain]

I truly believe we are headed for another recession. Probably as bad as teh one we were just in a few years ago. Don't know about you but for me it just means cutting back on the spending and a little bit more saving.

[Vellos]

'Cutting back on spending' and 'saving' are the same thing.

[Ezzzzy1]

I truly believe we are headed for another recession. Probably as bad as teh one we were just in a few years ago. Don't know about you but for me it just means cutting back on the spending and a little bit more saving.

Spot on. That is exactly the direction that we are heading. Its more of "when not if". Its great that you are in a position to just have to make minor changes to get by. I dont really have that much sympathy for the people that have their whole life backwards and the only thing keeping them up is their paycheck. Its actually funny to me to listen to people bitch about the economy when it is them and their habits that are fucked.

[Ezzzzy1]

'Cutting back on spending' and 'saving' are the same thing.
Not always... No surprise that most people dont know what "saving" is

[Shea]

Shea you should look into this (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/). Might help you understand a few things here in the real world. Might be able to understand things such as sources and relevancy. I find it amusing that you dodge addressing your own opinion, you just bitch and moan at other people's posts. Grow up kiddo.

And Clovis this is your thread, read it. My opinion is the fourth thing I posted.

FFS guys. This is just pathetic.

/sigh

Vellos, I am easily twice your age, far more educated and have experience in the 'real world' that you couldn't shake a stick at. It is clear that the only discussion that you real want is to belittle those who disagree with you. Unemployment in this discussion has marginal relevance unless you wish to clarify why you introduced it. And while I will admit that the CBO numbers show a minimal 'surplus' in two years (minus the raiding of the SS trust fund, which you do not acknowledge), the discrepancy between the Treasury numbers is cause to bring the whole thing into question (which you further sidestep).

[rforsythe]

'Cutting back on spending' and 'saving' are the same thing.

Not necessarily. A lot of people spend with debt, so even cutting back on spending does not automatically equate to money saved - just less money owed.

[Shea]

Also expect a bloodbath on Monday:
[/URL]

It has begun, Tel Aviv stock exchange is down 7%.

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/telavivstocks-idUSL6E7J702O20110807 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html)

[Vellos]

You'd have to pay off debt in order to be "saving". And the only way to start doing that is earning more than you're spending. So cutting back on things heads down that road, but actually saving money is far far away.

[Ezzzzy1]

You'd have to pay off debt in order to be "saving". And the only way to start doing that is earning more than you're spending. So cutting back on things heads down that road, but actually saving money is far far away.

Wrong... If you really knew what saving was you would be doing it even if you had accrued debt.

You pay yourself first, always. Then you can work on digging yourself out of the mess you thought was so fun to get into. After that, when/if you pay the debt off, you will not be a ground zero.

What would be the point of making payments to pay off your debt for 2 years to have an "emergency" happen....? All that would do is force you to pull out the credit card and start the whole process over vs. if you had savings you could have helped yourself out not some bank.

[Vellos]

Also I'm on this forum to go on rides and get/give motorcycle related advice. I have no idea why these political related threads even start. Even you Shea created one and said "/flamesuit on" in the first post. You're no better than a high school girl when it comes to seeking drama, and your "participation" in this thread echos that. As annoying as it is to read all the nonsense that people try to state as "fact" so their ignorance can spread, I'd rather just ignore those posts because anyone with two thumbs could see through it.

If you have all the answers then you should run for congress. Good luck fixing the country while only associating strongly with one point of view. Cya.

[Vellos]

What would be the point of making payments to pay off your debt for 2 years to have an "emergency" happen....? All that would do is force you to pull out the credit card and start the whole process over vs. if you had savings you could have helped yourself out not some bank.

It works the same either way if an emergency happened, you'd stay in debt the same amount of time. The more debt you pay off though the less interest there will be if an emergency doesn't happen. If you have $25,000 in savings but owe $100,000 you're still down $75,000.

[Ezzzzy1]

It works the same either way if an emergency happened, you'd stay in debt the same amount of time. The more debt you pay off though the less interest there will be if an emergency doesn't happen. If you have $25,000 in savings but owe $100,000 you're still down $75,000.

No... Because the emergency cost $25k taking you up to $125k without the cash. You will stay in debt longer if your debt goes up, bottom line. You have to work it from both angles or you will be stuck in the "rut". You are talking to the wrong person about this tho... I dont know what debt is, well besides 1 car and the house.

[Vellos]

No. Because you don't get savings out of thin air. If you use the $25,000 to pay down your debt you'd be back at $100,000 when you needed to spend $25,00 again. If you just saved the $25,000 and spent that separately your debt would sit at $100,000 and you'd be paying interest on that full amount.

The goal is to get more revenue than expenditures to have a stable budget. Savings can be valid after debt is paid off.

[Ezzzzy1]

No. Because you don't get savings out of thin air. If you use the $25,000 to pay down your debt you'd be back at $100,000 when you needed to spend $25,00 again. If you just saved the $25,000 and spent that separately your debt would sit at $100,000 and you'd be paying interest on that full amount.

The goal is to get more revenue than expenditures to have a stable budget. Savings can be valid after debt is paid off.

Foools.... You think that people that have an extra $500 put it towards their debt? Ha. Never.

You might not get savings out of thin air but you can get it even when in debt. Im fairly confident that through your logic on paper you will be fine, just like the rest of the country :roll:

The whole point is to keep the two separate. Why would you exhaust your savings to make a small dent in your debt? If you have more debt than you can pay off in a reasonable amount of time you are doing something wrong in the first place.

Either way... Do what you do YO! Like you said you dont have any interest in talking about any of this stuff on a motorcycle forum ;)

[Vellos]

Political related discussions on the internet can die in a fire. I'm not referring to people's personal budgets, I'm referring to the government saving money: money not being spent is fairly useless if you're in debt.

[Clovis]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies

We just finished our first semester at college, our professors opened our eyes.



Shea you should look into this (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/). Might help you understand a few things here in the real world. Might be able to understand things such as sources and relevancy.

[Dr. Joe Siphek]

Here's a pretty good way of explaining it...

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey

[bennice]

I've never participated in a political discussion here, but thought I'd put this out there.

What did the world think would happen? This is a problem that cannot and will not ever be fixed. In a world where companies and individuals can legally count someone's debt as their asset, and then borrow against said asset there are bound to be big, complex issues like this. That's just one example.

The fact is, there is not enough real money in circulation to sustain the amount of alleged wealth there is. Taxation, employment, spending, so-called entitlements, illegal immigration and healthcare are all symptoms of this much larger issue.

Politics only serves to keep the common folk preoccupied and divided. As stated earlier, most of these politicians charged with "serving their constituents" are already millionaires, whose lives and lifestyles bear about as much resemblance to most of ours as MotoGP bikes bear to our store bought rides.

Now, it would be a very good idea for the government to spend more wisely. If trillions of dollars are going to be spent, then it would be nice to have something to show for it. But the reality is that they'll never stop spending, or really even spend much less. It will only be allocated differently. A trillion dollars is a trillion dollars whether you take it all out of the left pocket, right pocket, or if you take half from each. And if you take trillions of dollars out of the world economy, watch the world economy go boom REAL quick.

[Ezzzzy1]

I've never participated in a political discussion here, but thought I'd put this out there.

What did the world think would happen? This is a problem that cannot and will not ever be fixed. In a world where companies and individuals can legally count someone's debt as their asset, and then borrow against said asset there are bound to be big, complex issues like this. That's just one example.

The fact is, there is not enough real money in circulation to sustain the amount of alleged wealth there is. Taxation, employment, spending, so-called entitlements, illegal immigration and healthcare are all symptoms of this much larger issue.

Politics only serves to keep the common folk preoccupied and divided. As stated earlier, most of these politicians charged with "serving their constituents" are already millionaires, whose lives and lifestyles bear about as much resemblance to most of ours as MotoGP bikes bear to our store bought rides.

Now, it would be a very good idea for the government to spend more wisely. If trillions of dollars are going to be spent, then it would be nice to have something to show for it. But the reality is that they'll never stop spending, or really even spend much less. It will only be allocated differently. A trillion dollars is a trillion dollars whether you take it all out of the left pocket, right pocket, or if you take half from each. And if you take trillions of dollars out of the world economy, watch the world economy go boom REAL quick.

You are one smart feller...:yes: