FOG TALKS POLITICS!

[Gunneh]

Alright, boys and girls, here are the rules: I know that this subject can get a lot of people fired up pretty damn quickly, but I'm gonna have to ask anyone that participates in this thread to keep your shit in check and don't let your egos become too overinflated that you feel like you're going to burst. Fate knows that this thread is happening and I'm going to inform the mods that they may need to keep a heavy eye on this little gem just in case.

ANYONE WHO BREAKS THESE RULES OR ANY OF FOG'S PRINCIPLE RULES WILL BE RIDICULED MERCILESSLY BY THEIR PEERS.

Oh, and they'll be "banned" from posting in this thread for a week until they've learned their lesson and can behave themselves well enough to pull their nose out of the corner.

FIRST TOPIC:

WHO THE EFF IS RIGHT AND HOW ARE WE GONNA FIX THIS DEBT CEILING THING?

I'm sure you've heard about it all by now, but here's the recap: The United States owes a shit ton of money, and according to most Democrats, we've got until August 2, 2011 to raise the debt ceiling or America will default on our loans and our AAA credit rating is going to go down the shitter, causing people all around the world to wonder if America is a safe bet anymore.

"But what will happen if we default, Gunneh?"

THE WORLD WILL END AND WE'LL ALL DIE!

Actually, no, random person asking me questions in my own head, that won't happen. What will happen though is that interest rates on almost everything will go up. People with mortgages will be paying more, the college kids with all those god forsaken student loans will pay more, et al.

SO WHAT ARE THE PLANS?

Democrats want a plan that balances tax increases on the wealthy with government spending cuts. With this balanced approach, the spending cuts won't have to be as drastic, which will still leave us with the option to get some things done.

Republicans want a spending cuts only plan, but because they don't want to raise taxes on anybody, they're spending cuts would be much more drastic. Republican Majority Leader, John Boehner, already has a plan that will raise the debt ceiling for six months, but it may also lead to increased interest rates anyway.

THIS IS WHERE YOU COME IN! PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS ABOVE FOR A MORE BALANCED OPINION AND DISCUSS!

[Squall Reyes]

Since taxes are lowest they've been since the 50's I think the American people (mostly tea party) can shut the fuck up and pitch in with more taxes. I'm in favor of the Democrats plan to take away the Bush rich tax cut. I mean really this isn't something that should be an issue. On party has a plan which is a happy medium and the other is simply bowing down to a bunch of right wing nuts with tea bags in their hats.

[The Melancholy Spirit]

I agree completely with Squall.

[Crazy Hobo]

As do I. I mean, I really don't have anything to add, because I think Squall said it very well. The Republicans are being pussies because they don't want to piss off the crazies and the Democrats are actually trying to fix something.

[Chainlinc3]

I completely agree with the above statements-- the Democrats ARE trying to fix things. I further believe that their plan demonstrates little to no comprehension of the issues at hand.

When people are taxed, they try to avoid the taxes. Which social class has the capability to easily relocate to a foreign nation? The rich. Empirical evidence says that if we increase taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy move overseas. So we can get a smaller percentage of their taxes, or we can get none at all. Interestingly, the wealthy aren't incredibly patriotic when it comes to financial matters.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are taking the unpopular, but vital, stance of "stop hemorrhaging money all over the room." The issue isn't that the taxes are too low (well, that is part of it, but they are still at a workable level). The issue is that the government is paying money on five kajillion projects that it shouldn't be. Social security, medicare/medicaid, and other forms of welfare are sucking the government dry.

Now, I know what you're asking-- "But Chainlinc3, why did those silly politicians commit to these plans if they weren't sustainable?" It's rather simple, if you think about it: they're popular, oh so popular. And then they stick around forever, because the minute you try to cut an entitlement the media pops up talking about how Old Man Jenkins is gonna lose his farm if the government stops the Dentures Subsidizing Act of 1873.

Don't get me wrong-- some of these programs are important. Maybe even most of them. But a huge amount of money is being sent to people who don't need it (link is old but point is still there), and with the Baby Boomers starting to draw on Social Security (Just fish around, you'll see plenty), the tax-to-benefit ratio is dropping like a rock.

The US government CANNOT continue with these aid programs-- delay as much as they like, politicians MUST implement DRASTIC cuts in welfare.

Oh, point two against welfare:
People wonder why our economy's in the tank, why our children aren't motivated to learn. Perhaps, just maybe, it's because we live in a nation where a person of moderate intellect can exploit the system so that they are entitled to comfortable living simply because they are alive. We have fostered the growth of a culture where many simply do not feel like they need to work in order to live the lifestyle they want to live. Many feel entitled to luxury, others simply lack the motivation because the entire culture is projecting a message that you don't need to hold down a serious job to be all right. Granted, this isn't everywhere, but I've seen a hell of a lot of it where I'm from (ATL). I'm running low on time here, but if anyone expresses another opinion on this point I suppose I'll flesh my argument out later. Otherwise I guess nobody cares. xD

--Cheers!
Chainlinc3

[Kalon Ordona II]

Finance 101, don't spend more than you earn. Government doesn't earn money; businesses earn money. If you want more money, help the businesses, which will help the people working in those businesses. In the meantime, stop spending the money you don't have. Obama has been by far the worst president in US history in this regard, all the time complaining that "Oh, I inherited all these problems from my predecessor. It's not my fault." If we thought Bush spent too much, Obama is many times worse. He can keep his "change," thank you very much.

You don't put more taxes on the people; those hardly make a dent. What you do is help businesses prosper without all this government interference, and spend the taxes from that.

But really what I'd like to see is a switch away from our entire economic model of fiat money and deficit spending. The budget should always be balanced, and we should be paying with things that actually have value, instead of paper I.O.U.'s which ALWAYS ruin countries. Remember wheelbarrows full of cash?

The US government could print all the money it wanted, but it chooses to play the taxes game because if it just printed so much money at once, inflation would spike and too many people would notice and ask inconvenient questions like, "Whose idea was this in the first place?" And maybe end up saying things like, "Hey, stop!"

Obama's a smooth talker, but Boehner's got the right idea. Republicans aren't perfect, but I'd rather see them "have their way" than see the spendy, forced-healthcare president get "something he can sign."

[Squall Reyes]

When people are taxed, they try to avoid the taxes. Which social class has the capability to easily relocate to a foreign nation? The rich. Empirical evidence says that if we increase taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy move overseas. So we can get a smaller percentage of their taxes, or we can get none at all. Interestingly, the wealthy aren't incredibly patriotic when it comes to financial matters.

Sorry Chain but the rich have been relocating to foreign nations for DECADES. Taxes or no taxes, they have been leaving this country for the cheapest labor possible in other countries. As you said they are no patriotic so they can go fuck themselves for all I care.

Don't get me wrong-- some of these programs are important. Maybe even most of them. But a huge amount of money is being sent to people who don't need it (link is old but point is still there), and with the Baby Boomers starting to draw on Social Security (Just fish around, you'll see plenty), the tax-to-benefit ratio is dropping like a rock.

I'm sorry Chain, but you can't stop people from getting old. Unless you of course are suggesting that Social Security simply not help the old with their stupidly outrageous medical bills brought on by a corrupt and whole unimaginably stupid medical system which we have.

People wonder why our economy's in the tank, why our children aren't motivated to learn. Perhaps, just maybe, it's because we live in a nation where a person of moderate intellect can exploit the system so that they are entitled to comfortable living simply because they are alive. We have fostered the growth of a culture where many simply do not feel like they need to work in order to live the lifestyle they want to live. Many feel entitled to luxury, others simply lack the motivation because the entire culture is projecting a message that you don't need to hold down a serious job to be all right. Granted, this isn't everywhere, but I've seen a hell of a lot of it where I'm from (ATL). I'm running low on time here, but if anyone expresses another opinion on this point I suppose I'll flesh my argument out later. Otherwise I guess nobody cares. xD

Is something we agree on BUT the republicans have no right to whole the entire world economic stability hostage to get this cut. Nor should it ever be cut. If they are wanting to draw attention to it so they could pursue it's reform (Which they totally should) then that is one thing but that time is long passed and they need to drop the tough man act make a compromise.Oh and the economy is not in the tank because our generation or the one after us is lazy. No it's in the tank because of massive deregulation brought out on Republican party which lead to those rich (who have been leaving this country in droves despite the tax breaks) creating a world of corruption and fast making money scemes in Wall Street and then having the balls to look at the poor and government and say "it's their fault. Oh we need money, bend over." Those same Republicans who are now willing to see the world go to hell so they get the votes of some crazy tea bagging bastards.

Finance 101, don't spend more than you earn. Government doesn't earn
money; businesses earn money. If you want more money, help the
businesses, which will help the people working in those businesses. In
the meantime, stop spending the money you don't have.

Economics 101. The trickle down theory has never and perhaps will never ever work. EVER. Help businesses? You mean like the bail outs? Ah yes. After which every CEO gave himself a nice bonus for doing such a good job. Sorry Kalon but the fact of the matter is, every Economic professor worth his salt will tell you that if you want to help an economy, you give tax breaks to the poor and middle class, because oh you know they actually spend the money and put it back in the economy. Unlike the rich who you know just save it or send it the cayman island. Oh by the way how is this for helping businesses? BP oil got near 10 BILLION dollars in tax credit, by listing the gulf spill as losses? Or how GE got 3.2 billion in credits last year as well. Oh and lets not forget the lovely people of Walmart who got 30B in credit as well. The government is helping the rich/business plenty, but the rich won't help America.

Boehner doesn't have the right idea. He has the idea which will most help his campaign contributors make more money. That's it. The man motives are a fake and sprayed on as his damn tan.

[Chainlinc3]

Sorry Chain but the rich have been relocating to foreign nations for DECADES. Taxes or no taxes, they have been leaving this country for the cheapest labor possible in other countries. As you said they are no patriotic so they can go fuck themselves for all I care.

I'm not talking about where they're business is located-- labor prices only have to do with the location of their labor. I'm talking about their actual citizenship. As long as they are US citizens, they pay US taxes. The US offers a lot of advantages for a businessman to be a citizen-- solid recognition of intellectual property, etc. But higher taxes have been known to drive them off regardless.

And, just for the record, arguing that it's already happening doesn't justify exacerbating the problem. I mean, if your gas tank has a leak, ripping the bottom out isn't going to make your car go any further.

I'm sorry Chain, but you can't stop people from getting old. Unless you of course are suggesting that Social Security simply not help the old with their stupidly outrageous medical bills brought on by a corrupt and whole unimaginably stupid medical system which we have.

Basically, yeah. I'm saying that it sucks, but the government is going to collapse under it's own weight if we try to help all these people. I advocate cutting back to a very strict means test, helping only those in the most desperate situations. But basically, either we let these people go without help or the economy and government will fall apart at the seams and everyone will be without help. True wisdom is knowing when to retreat.

Is something we agree on BUT the republicans have no right to whole the entire world economic stability hostage to get this cut. Nor should it ever be cut. If they are wanting to draw attention to it so they could pursue it's reform (Which they totally should) then that is one thing but that time is long passed and they need to drop the tough man act make a compromise.

Reform, in this case, is most easily enacted by massive funding cuts. If services find themselves with only enough funding to provide a small amount of aid, they will naturally enact methods to allocate it as efficiently as possible.

No matter what bills are passed, government services NEVER have excess funding. If they do, then the next budget gives them less funding, which no program actually wants. (Note: this budgeting mechanism is a large factor behind the corruption you're so enraged by) In other words, you could try to reform the system, but it would still absorb ever increasing amounts of cash aiding people who are less and less in need until the government literally cannot cover itself any longer and we have the collapse I discussed above. Basically-- reform cannot cut costs, but cutting costs CAN lead to reform.

Oh and the economy is not in the tank because our generation or the one after us is lazy. No it's in the tank because of massive deregulation brought out on Republican party which lead to those rich (who have been leaving this country in droves despite the tax breaks) creating a world of corruption and fast making money scemes in Wall Street and then having the balls to look at the poor and government and say "it's their fault. Oh we need money, bend over." Those same Republicans who are now willing to see the world go to hell so they get the votes of some crazy tea bagging bastards.

That's the direct reason, yes. But look at America historically-- we've been an economic power SOLELY because we continue to innovate. Every man (,woman, and child) is in it for themselves, and people have achieved greatness because they were DRIVEN to achieve greatness.

In the modern scheme, there is no drive. People can live comfortably without striving for glory. The fight for success is what has always made America great. But people started looking at the casualties, the people who got burned in the great race, and said "Oh no, we need to help these poor souls!" This is going to sound like Social Darwinism, but frankly-- we've cut out the survival of the fittest from our economics. In order to protect those who do little to nothing to return our country's efforts, America caters to prevent companies collapsing, protect corrupt industries, and tell those unwilling to work that it is FINE for them to be that way.

So yes. While corrupt business dealings are the cause of our immediate economic downturn, social welfare is the reason we will never recover.

Finance 101, don't spend more than you earn. Government doesn't earn
money; businesses earn money. If you want more money, help the
businesses, which will help the people working in those businesses. In
the meantime, stop spending the money you don't have.

I'm leaning towards Squall on this one. You shouldn't spend more than you earn, but helping the businesses on the premise that it would help the people is faulty reasoning at best.

[Kalon Ordona II]

No, not bail-outs, that's just spending more money to keep them going to tax them to make more money. Seems backwards to me. I'm sure there are better ways. Focusing on smaller businesses, perhaps? Just let other businesses take over. That's part of a free market, isn't it? Competition? Less competition, higher prices, wider gap between rich and poor, not good, get more competition.

Doesn't helping businesses help people? Businesses need people to run. Perhaps encouraging a higher quantity of businesses so that products and services are cheaper?

So yeah, not help as in give money to. Help as in make easy for.

As for taxing super-rich people, won't they just leave? The wealthy are becoming more and more internationally minded these days. If we start putting it on them to bend over backwards just because they have more money, wouldn't they get the idea to just relocate? If that's the case, we end up having fewer rich people to tax, and they'll go take their success somewhere else.

Though the other side of THAT coin, as far as I can see, are people who are more rich than they ought to be because of the way other things in this country are set up, like lobbying or banking or law or medicine. Though who are we to say how rich someone "ought" to be unless there's some sort of objective standard, as opposed to a subjective one.

Corruption is on all sides, things have been messed up for generations, but we still have to deal with this problem. I'm not really sure how, short of major reforms overnight, which is unlikely to happen. But, given the two options between some spending cuts plus a bunch of other stuff, or just a ton of spending cuts, right now I'm more in favor of the latter. We've been spending way too much; let's try stopping that before we put the burden on the people.

[Chainlinc3]

Too lazy to do the fancy quotes--

Rich people leaving: I fully agree.

Helping businesses helping people: Not so much-- many pro-business policies (like reduced minimum wage) come at the expense of the worker's quality of life/work environment (like reduced minimum wage)

Competition:
Competition actually tends to increase the gap between the rich and poor-- the trick is that it also makes it easier to flip between those categories.

[Lord Revan]

Well I am new here, but I thought I would give my two cents on this topic. Being a moderate democrat I can see both sides of the issue. The Republicans want to cut spending, the Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Of course neither party wants to do what the other wants. They need to realize that by not coming to some sort of compromise, they are going to destroy our economy, and our way of living.

Boehner and his GOP Congress needs to understand that the wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes. I am not saying you should take 50% of their money, but when a person makes $50 million a year, they can afford to pay a lot more in taxes than a middle class citizen making $50,000 a year. Obama and the rest of the Democrats can't continue to spend money on all these programs, especially money we do not have. Social Security, Medicare things like that are essential and shouldn't be cut. There should be stricter standards on who gets Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Welfare, but that is for another day. However, there are other programs that can be cut down, or eliminated completely. I just hope for our countries sake, Obama and the GOP and compromise. Raise some taxes, cut some spending, solve this before it becomes a horrific crisis that cripples our economy for the next 20 years. Oh, and cut our deficit before China owns us completely.

Marc

[Squall Reyes]

Ok people here's the thing. Those Democrats who are "spend crazy." As is put by a few people on here. Their plan, would cut spending to it's lowest point since the 1950's. No really. Their plans is not more taxes, which I thought most people knew. No no no. It's the largest amount of cutting to spending in the last 30 years. Politifacts people. It's a beautiful site and seemingly wholey unused. Anyways. The Republicans are holding the world hostage for simply the tax cuts. The Democrats already agreed that the spending cuts are needed. So in the end it's all about the Republicans wanting to keep the tax breaks to their friends.

As for the super rich leaving. And they would go where? China? HA! Europe would tax them even more than the States. India? Sure could work for a bit, but the problem is there are Indian corperations just beginning to get on their feet. The Indian government would no doubt tax the incoming Americans to oblivion in order to keep their own corporations growing. The Middle East? Well I suppose they have some friends there.

In the end, they would have few places to go and no places they'd WANT to go. They already have more of a tax break here than any other nation on the planet. As I said before they need to suck it up and put some money in. We CANNOT continue to pay them for screwing us over.

In the end the party that is holding this whole process up, is near fully resonsible for the mess we are in. (Yes, Democrats did nothing to stop in and I'm sure some of them go their beaks wet as well.) Oh what you don't remember? Hm, who lowered taxes only for the super rich to the point where the government pays THEM? Who began two unfunded wars? One of which WAS indeed necessary and the other started for nearly completely unknown reasons? Oh and lets not forget that unfunded trillion dollar medicare prescription bill. Oh right, that badly tanned bastard's party.

Sometimes I think America is a child with short term memory loss. "Owwww I burned my self on the stove." A week later. "Ohhh I wonder what would happen if I touch the stove."

I think we should shelve the talk about welfare for another time Chain. It's something that needs it's own time and attention.

[The Ghost Writer]

I'm not one to get too involved in these threads simple because I don't care what either side has to say. I like to play the optimistic fool and believe that everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, then it's not the end.

For the time being, I will offer this following political cartoon to bring some humor to this discussion:

[Chainlinc3]

Marcus, I'm not trying to be offensive here (Seriously. I know I'm going to be anyway, but it's NOT my goal)... but "CAN'T YOU SEE THIS CONSTANT BICKERING IS TEARING US ALL APART?" isn't going to move America anytime soon. The moderate view has never, and (in all likelihood) will never prevail due to the nature of American politics.

Ok people here's the thing. Those Democrats who are "spend crazy." As is put by a few people on here. Their plan, would cut spending to it's lowest point since the 1950's. No really. Their plans is not more taxes, which I thought most people knew. No no no. It's the largest amount of cutting to spending in the last 30 years. Politifacts people. It's a beautiful site and seemingly wholey unused. Anyways. The Republicans are holding the world hostage for simply the tax cuts. The Democrats already agreed that the spending cuts are needed. So in the end it's all about the Republicans wanting to keep the tax breaks to their friends.

Um...
The Democrats are saving some money...
But...
Boehner isn't the only Republican.

You say that the Republicans are providing only minimal cuts, but even what Boehner was aiming for was higher than what the Democrats are attempting-- there were serious miscalculations, granted, but it is the GOAL not the specific BILL by which a party should be judged. Especially when Boehner didn't even try to pass the faulty bill, opting instead to delay a vote on it and revise it to move it closer to his goals.

Furthermore, you say that the Democrats aren't trying to increase taxes, but, well, they basically are. The Democrats advocate a relatively moderate cut (not even eliminating the entire deficit-- see first link), along with a tax boost on the wealthy, thus leading into my whole "no more taxes from the wealthy" thing. The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying simply to cut more spending that the Democrats are even considering, which is the logical way to go about this (in my mind at least) when increased taxes will reduce tax income.

As for the super rich leaving. And they would go where? China? HA! Europe would tax them even more than the States. India? Sure could work for a bit, but the problem is there are Indian corperations just beginning to get on their feet. The Indian government would no doubt tax the incoming Americans to oblivion in order to keep their own corporations growing. The Middle East? Well I suppose they have some friends there.

In the end, they would have few places to go and no places they'd WANT to go. They already have more of a tax break here than any other nation on the planet. As I said before they need to suck it up and put some money in. We CANNOT continue to pay them for screwing us over.

China. Or India. Or Bermuda. Or the Middle East. Or Africa. Or any number of tiny countries you can hardly find on the map. There are thousands of places to go that have a more friendly tax policy for them.

You talk about how they have "no places they'd WANT to go"? I'm pretty sure that the fabulously wealthy can establish a comfortable living situation just about anywhere. In other words, the only factor they need to take into account is taxes.

And governments can't really put a higher income tax on immigrants who obtain citizenship than on native citizens. So the whole theory of India/where ever they go taxing them to hell? They'd have to tax their own people to pieces as well, or else risk being brought into the international spotlight due to scandalous discrimination-- thus leading to trade sanctions that would be the end of them.

In the end the party that is holding this whole process up, is near fully resonsible for the mess we are in. (Yes, Democrats did nothing to stop in and I'm sure some of them go their beaks wet as well.) Oh what you don't remember? Hm, who lowered taxes only for the super rich to the point where the government pays THEM? Who began two unfunded wars? One of which WAS indeed necessary and the other started for nearly completely unknown reasons? Oh and lets not forget that unfunded trillion dollar medicare prescription bill. Oh right, that badly tanned bastard's party.

If we want to play the blame game, I'm sure we can find millions of things the Democrats have done wrong-- but I think that's crossing the line into mindless hate The trick, in my opinion, is to see who has the best plan to fix things, not to see who screwed them up in the first place.

Sometimes I think America is a child with short term memory loss. "Owwww I burned my self on the stove." A week later. "Ohhh I wonder what would happen if I touch the stove."

Fully agreed. The American public wants everything it can get, doesn't want to pay for it, and is willing to back each and every half-brained politician who says "I CAN SAVE YOU MONEY FOR FREE!"

Seriously. This behavior is why we still get spam emails along the lines of "MAKE $$$ IN UR SPARE TIEM! PROVEN TESTEMUNIALS!"

I think we should shelve the talk about welfare for another time Chain. It's something that needs it's own time and attention.

Agreed, this needs it's own attention. But it is also important here, because budget cuts need to come FROM somewhere, and I personally think we have an assload of excess spending tied up in welfare. So, unless everyone is in agreement that welfare needs tremendous cuts (which I doubt), the topic needs to remain a portion of this discussion.

[Lord Revan]

Marcus, I'm not trying to be offensive here (Seriously. I know I'm going to be anyway, but it's NOT my goal)... but "CAN'T YOU SEE THIS CONSTANT BICKERING IS TEARING US ALL APART?" isn't going to move America anytime soon. The moderate view has never, and (in all likelihood) will never prevail due to the nature of American politics.

Ok people here's the thing. Those Democrats who are "spend crazy." As is put by a few people on here. Their plan, would cut spending to it's lowest point since the 1950's. No really. Their plans is not more taxes, which I thought most people knew. No no no. It's the largest amount of cutting to spending in the last 30 years. Politifacts people. It's a beautiful site and seemingly wholey unused. Anyways. The Republicans are holding the world hostage for simply the tax cuts. The Democrats already agreed that the spending cuts are needed. So in the end it's all about the Republicans wanting to keep the tax breaks to their friends.

Um...
The Democrats are saving some money...
But...
Boehner isn't the only Republican.

You say that the Republicans are providing only minimal cuts, but even what Boehner was aiming for was higher than what the Democrats are attempting-- there were serious miscalculations, granted, but it is the GOAL not the specific BILL by which a party should be judged. Especially when Boehner didn't even try to pass the faulty bill, opting instead to delay a vote on it and revise it to move it closer to his goals.

Furthermore, you say that the Democrats aren't trying to increase taxes, but, well, they basically are. The Democrats advocate a relatively moderate cut (not even eliminating the entire deficit-- see first link), along with a tax boost on the wealthy, thus leading into my whole "no more taxes from the wealthy" thing. The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying simply to cut more spending that the Democrats are even considering, which is the logical way to go about this (in my mind at least) when increased taxes will reduce tax income.

As for the super rich leaving. And they would go where? China? HA! Europe would tax them even more than the States. India? Sure could work for a bit, but the problem is there are Indian corperations just beginning to get on their feet. The Indian government would no doubt tax the incoming Americans to oblivion in order to keep their own corporations growing. The Middle East? Well I suppose they have some friends there.

In the end, they would have few places to go and no places they'd WANT to go. They already have more of a tax break here than any other nation on the planet. As I said before they need to suck it up and put some money in. We CANNOT continue to pay them for screwing us over.

China. Or India. Or Bermuda. Or the Middle East. Or Africa. Or any number of tiny countries you can hardly find on the map. There are thousands of places to go that have a more friendly tax policy for them.

You talk about how they have "no places they'd WANT to go"? I'm pretty sure that the fabulously wealthy can establish a comfortable living situation just about anywhere. In other words, the only factor they need to take into account is taxes.

And governments can't really put a higher income tax on immigrants who obtain citizenship than on native citizens. So the whole theory of India/where ever they go taxing them to hell? They'd have to tax their own people to pieces as well, or else risk being brought into the international spotlight due to scandalous discrimination-- thus leading to trade sanctions that would be the end of them.

In the end the party that is holding this whole process up, is near fully resonsible for the mess we are in. (Yes, Democrats did nothing to stop in and I'm sure some of them go their beaks wet as well.) Oh what you don't remember? Hm, who lowered taxes only for the super rich to the point where the government pays THEM? Who began two unfunded wars? One of which WAS indeed necessary and the other started for nearly completely unknown reasons? Oh and lets not forget that unfunded trillion dollar medicare prescription bill. Oh right, that badly tanned bastard's party.

If we want to play the blame game, I'm sure we can find millions of things the Democrats have done wrong-- but I think that's crossing the line into mindless hate The trick, in my opinion, is to see who has the best plan to fix things, not to see who screwed them up in the first place.

Sometimes I think America is a child with short term memory loss. "Owwww I burned my self on the stove." A week later. "Ohhh I wonder what would happen if I touch the stove."

Fully agreed. The American public wants everything it can get, doesn't want to pay for it, and is willing to back each and every half-brained politician who says "I CAN SAVE YOU MONEY FOR FREE!"

Seriously. This behavior is why we still get spam emails along the lines of "MAKE $$$ IN UR SPARE TIEM! PROVEN TESTEMUNIALS!"

I think we should shelve the talk about welfare for another time Chain. It's something that needs it's own time and attention.

Agreed, this needs it's own attention. But it is also important here, because budget cuts need to come FROM somewhere, and I personally think we have an assload of excess spending tied up in welfare. So, unless everyone is in agreement that welfare needs tremendous cuts (which I doubt), the topic needs to remain a portion of this discussion.

Actually Chain I agree with you. I know the moderate position doesn't prevail in our bipartisan system. Each party is more worried with pleasing their constituents, than doing what is best as a whole. In most situations, I understand wanting to please the people who voted you into office. However, when it is a crisis this big, one that will affect everyone from the rich to the poor, some sort of compromise needs to be reached. Even if that compromise gets some of your constituents upset with you. I think they would be more upset if the economy crashes completely and their standard of living drops. I try and look at both sides of an issue, republican and democratic. However, due to my lack of respect for the Republican Right, I tend to lean Democrat. I just hope that in the end, the two sides can come to some sort of compromise, that helps this country avoid the disaster that would be defaulting on our loans.

[Gunneh]

First of all, the talk about the wealthy leaving the country isn't entirely applicable in this case because the taxes would affect anyone making over $250,000/yr. It's 2011, boys and girls, and your friendly, neighborhood grocery store can make that just as easily as the big boys can, so there's not always the option to move out.

Oh, and cut our deficit before China owns us completely.

Actually, only 8% of our debt is owed to China. The largest percentage (68%) is actually owed to the American people.

[Dax]

I have to say, I, from Canada, have been watching this go on and on for awhile now in the US… and I am ashamed to hold dual citizenship. It is simple: your government doesn’t work. No wait, that’s not true. It does. Sometimes. For about 2 years. Only, and ONLY when your president gets a majority both in the HoR AND in the Senate. I say only two years because, since Americans have the political attention span of a brain dead squirrel (no offense), they wham bam the government every. Single. Mid-term. Election. In fact, it is so notorious your own media calls the first two years of a presidency their political ‘honeymoon’… until November of their second year in power arrives. You may say it’s because no president ever gets stuff done/they’re all the same/none of them bring REAL change, etc. That’s true. But that’s because I can go on and on over how drowned in red tape and paperwork DC is… and so can any Poli. Scientist.


It may seem off-topic, but it isn’t, because it is part of my point: the first part of the reason why you guys are having a hard time with your debt is because of basic malfunctions in your government that you have already tried to correct and failed because of the twits who think that your founding fathers were gods and that your constitution is infallible, etc.


To continue onto my second point: Why do Republicans want to not raise taxes, even when Warren Buffet has said “Hey, morons, tax me please!”? Yes, it’s partly because they want to offer an alternative to Democrats or that they don’t believe in tax hikes.. but guess what: it’s also because they CAN’T. And by can’t, I mean literally cannot. Over 60% of Republicans have signed a legally binding contract, forbidding them to raise taxes or allow taxes to be raised while in office. Ever. How retarded you have to be to sign something that is so against the basics of leading is completely beyond me. Personally, I am very happy I moved back to Canada after living in California for 7 years.


On another point: losing billionaires. Yah, you guys are. And GUESS TO WHO! Nope, not China. Nope, not India. Nope, not socialist Europe. No no, you’re losing them to a country much closer to home! You’re losing them to us, the Canadians. Within the last year the Cdn. Fed. Govt. has gained 10 billion in revenue thanks to billionaire immigration. Billionaires are not the only thing you are losing. You are losing jobs and businesses… again, to Canada.


Let me explain the businesses part first. Canada’s corporate tax rate is the lowest in the western world, and being reduced even more by our Conservative Govt. to 15%. Yah, you heard me right, 15%, while the US’s is at, I think, double or more that (either 30, 35 or 40%). That is not the only reason: many businesses are leaving the US for political maturity and stability. I know this because I know people, who know people (the person I know is the CEO of the Canadian Division of ARI, who knows a ton of people I don’t, but told me) that he lost track of the number of guys he has talked to over a good golf game on how they are moving part or all of their business to Canada for the above mentioned reasons.


Now, for the jobs part, I am going include this: Governments can help business other than bailouts! Ever heard of a subsidy? Recently, since the data for Q2 of this fiscal year is piling in, Canadian business news is raving on how the province of Quebec is becoming an ever more rapidly growing and sizable player in the gaming industry… thanks to SUBSIDIES. In the last 10 years, Quebec has attracted over 8k (and getting very close to OVER NINE THOUSAND) jobs from the video gaming industry (that is a crap load, economically). Granted, they are not all from the US, but I also wanted to point this out: an American economist has said that Quebec is now for video games what Hollywood was for movies back in the 1920’s. That is a very interesting statement. What did this entire paragraph mean? It means that helping companies work. It means that 8k more people now have jobs in the province. It means that the trickle down effect happens (just not as much as we would like it to).


In parallel, take a look at Canada, who’s economy is forecast to grow 3.4% this year, the most in the G8 (ok, so during Q2 we dropped 0.4%, but that’s due to a drop in exports which is anti proportional to recovering economies thanks to mindsets by financial centers in foreign, importing countries, that is procyclical in its economic fluctuations, influencing its level of imports/exports per said cycle… sorry about technical jargon, basically what it says is that a drop in exports is normal in a recovering economy IF consumer spending, interest rates, inflation, manufacturing grow… which it did in Cnd). Our deficit is not too high and planned to vanish by around 2015, we are attracting businesses everywhere and I can’t tell you how many newspapers around the world (even the NYtimes and WSJ) have said, ‘Canada: the new land of opportunity’ when compared to the US. Why? Because our system works, because we don’t have evangelicals, and because of intelligent laws and restrictions that would be cast as unholy in the US.


So, what is my point? My point is this: the US government cannot fix its debt because your government is fundamentally flawed (not just the politicians, but the establishment), it seems as if your politicians think that governing your country is just for fun (or in it for personal gain) and that the American population is just way too ill informed for its on good.


My solution to recessions? Scrap multi-trillion dollar stimulus that don’t do scrap but throw you in debt, instead roll out multi-trillion dollar subsidies that are a proven function that are an incitement of already established corps. to work and hire permanently, instead of random bailouts and temporary jobs stimulus do. That, and instead of piling debt on yourself all at once, it will come at you over a period of time (of course plus the additional cost of implementing it).



Why have I just found out about this thread today?

[Sponsored content]