TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- So the US government starts shutting down tomorrow...
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

Glad you replied, PKC. I was going to start yelling at my monitor

Do people actually expect something bad to happen from this? Or do you think there will end up being some magic solution at the last minute that will string us along a little further..

Re: Who is John Galt?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker

That post was too good.

Kudos.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter Do people actually expect something bad to happen from this? Or do you think there will end up being some magic solution at the last minute that will string us along a little further..

I believe they will raise the debt ceiling right at the last minute, through a series of compromises. Basically, to kick the can a little further down the road. How else will they be able to fund their 3 kinetic actions around the world?

If they don't have something comprehensive one ratings agency already said they will lower our rating. We are pretty much fucked either way, its just a matter of how much.

So Kevin, what is going to be your excuse August 3rd? It is clear that public sentiment is growing against your party and its hostage taking of the American people. Even the stupid people are waking up now and realizing that it is your party that is ultimately going to ruin this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby So Kevin, what is going to be your excuse August 3rd? It is clear that public sentiment is growing against your party and its hostage taking of the American people. Even the stupid people are waking up now and realizing that it is your party that is ultimately going to ruin this country.

It's still going to be Obama's fault.

i liked government better back when it was more focused on back-room deals
than being media-whore, public-relations, bullshit-generators.

I think I saw a Re/Max sign up on the White House's lawn.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby So Kevin, what is going to be your excuse August 3rd? It is clear that public sentiment is growing against your party and its hostage taking of the American people. Even the stupid people are waking up now and realizing that it is your party that is ultimately going to ruin this country.

NO NEW TAXES! THE JOB CREATORS NEED MORE 00'S IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS TO CREATE JOBS!

So, I heard they raised the debt limit

Crisis averted?

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzQi So, I heard they raised the debt limit Crisis averted?

I think it still has to be voted on or something? I might be wrong though.

Still needs to be voted on. I really hope the Democrats grow a fucking pair and vote this shit down. I know they wont though. The Democrats basically rolled over again and let the fucking rich walk all over the middle and lower class. This is getting fucking pathetic. Luckily for the rich in this country the poor are also incredibly stupid, and actually vote in the ones that are anally raping them all the way to the bank.

I hope you are happy you fucking retards.

Damn, I hoped the US would go bankrupt, as they deserve to. It's what you get when voting a socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Damn, I hoped the US would go bankrupt, as they deserve to. It's what you get when voting a socialist.

Im sure you�re trolling, but the US could always print more money if it wished to, much to the chagrin of bond holders. And tax cuts, the wars and the economic downturn are the principle factors in re-emerging deficits, and none of those issues are particularly socialist in nature.

I shudder at the thought of american im migrants crossing the big pond for a chance at a better life in the free world. Only a matter of time now.

What really annoys me is the stupid "it's all the Republicans' / Democrats' fault". Everyone is blaming shit on the others and thinks his party is doing things right. I have said for a long time that politics is just like being a sports team's fan. I've also said for a long time that all politicians are idiots at best and criminals at worst. In the US it is really silly imho, cause everything is so black and white.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby So Kevin, what is going to be your excuse August 3rd? It is clear that public sentiment is growing against your party and its hostage taking of the American people. Even the stupid people are waking up now and realizing that it is your party that is ultimately going to ruin this country.

Talk about stupidity, and being unable to think for yourself... look at you taking your cues from the obviously coordinated efforts of last week's new Democrat talking point. Like a dutiful little useful idiot, you fall right in line and repeat like the parrot you are.

quote:

STENY HOYER: The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage. HARRY REID: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage. CHUCK SCHUMER: ...It didn't say, "Hold America hostage." LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ... Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage. JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage. BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage. EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling. JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage. ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage. JOHN LARSON: ...ideological hostage situation... LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages. JAMES CLYBURN: ...holding the American economy hostage

I guess this is part of that "new civility" Democrats were talking about after the Arizona congresswoman was shot?


And PKC, your graph was stupid. First of all, I totally agree that Bush spent and grew government way too fucking much. But if you want to use that as your argument for why we are in such a mess, then you should be fair and point out that Obama has already committed to more spending in under 3 years than Bush did in all 8 of his; that Obama DOUBLED our debt and more than tripled our deficit; that the failed "stimulus" cost more than all wars prior to Iraq combined. Descretionary spending is up 84% under Obama and overall, government has grown 25-30% higher than what Bush did.

Obama is in his 3rd year... plenty of time for his economic policies to take effect. You're smarter than that to keep blaming George Bush; at some point, the President and his party has to be accountable for their policies and actions.

Finally, it is such a tired, overly simplistic talking point to say "Bush tax cuts" are a cause of the recession. They "cost" who exactly? Government? Because to say that is Statist thinking; you assume all money belongs to government first, and the people just get to keep what they deem we should keep when it is the opposite. So by cutting taxes in 2001 and 2003 (and Nou, all income brackets were cut, not just "the rich" you disingenuous fuck), you can project that the government didn't end up collecting X amount of dollars they would have if taxes hadn't been cut, right? Well you Statists never cop to the other side of that coin: following Bush's tax cuts, more money immediately flowed into the treasury than at any point in history between 2003 and 2007... it's just unfortunate how it was spent; but it cannot be denied that the deficit went from about $450 billion down to $162 billion between 2003 and 2007... over 60% reduction. Do you get that? About 4 years of steady decline AFTER tax cuts were in place. Then the housing market crapped out and the rest is history.

Boy, I'd sure hate to go back to the days of 5% unemployment under Bush's horrible tenure.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss And PKC, your graph was stupid. First of all, I totally agree that Bush spent and grew government way too fucking much. But if you want to use that as your argument for why we are in such a mess, then you should be fair and point out that Obama has already committed to more spending in under 3 years than Bush did in all 8 of his; that Obama DOUBLED our debt and more than tripled our deficit; that the failed "stimulus" cost more than all wars prior to Iraq combined. Descretionary spending is up 84% under Obama and overall, government has grown 25-30% higher than what Bush did.

if you refuse to understand the math behind the analysis (even after put in a very nice graph for you) then there's not a lot i can do for you. it has already been explained to you what is driving the deficits.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Obama is in his 3rd year... plenty of time for his economic policies to take effect. You're smarter than that to keep blaming George Bush; at some point, the President and his party has to be accountable for their policies and actions.

sure, and when anyone can illustrate how exactly obama "tripled the deficit" then i am more than happy to be convinced. as it stands, the global financial crisis (ie tax receipts in the toilet), the wars & tax cuts are the principle contributors according to non partisan economists. you know i love you kev, but you're not nearly as compelling as they are

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Finally, it is such a tired, overly simplistic talking point to say "Bush tax cuts" are a cause of the recession.

i dont know who is arguing that bush's tax cuts caused the recession. i think the causes are well explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2...inancial_crisis

anyone that suggests it was a single policy or politician that caused this level of fuck has rocks in their head.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Well you Statists never cop to the other side of that coin: following Bush's tax cuts, more money immediately flowed into the treasury than at any point in history between 2003 and 2007... it's just unfortunate how it was spent; but it cannot be denied that the deficit went from about $450 billion down to $162 billion between 2003 and 2007... over 60% reduction. Do you get that? About 4 years of steady decline AFTER tax cuts were in place. Then the housing market crapped out and the rest is history.

i already corrected this nonsense previously:

http://avb.tranceaddict.com/forums/...4&pagenumber=12

quote:

Myth 1: Tax cuts �pay for themselves.� �You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.� � President Bush, February 8, 2006 �You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.� � Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006 Reality: A study by the President�s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues. Proponents of tax cuts often claim that �dynamic scoring� � that is, considering tax cuts� economic effects when calculating their costs � would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts. But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President�s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts� total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm) The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm) Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that �the best estimates of taxpayers� response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains � and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.� That�s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm

and opus did the same:

http://avb.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=569107&perpage=12&forumid=54&pagenumber=10

quote:

Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007. �Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit� Today�s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.� � President Bush, July 11, 2006 Reality: Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years. When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials typically focus only on revenue growth since 2004. This provides a convenient starting point for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959. Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered since then. Supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past three years to argue that the tax cuts fueled increases in revenues. Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal years 2005-2007, total revenues have just barely increased over the 2001-2007 business cycle, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. (The business cycle began in March 2001, when the 1990s business cycle hit its peak and thereby came to an end.) In contrast, six and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 12 percent, and in the 1990s, real per-capita revenues were up 16 percent (see Table 1). Revenues in 2007 were still more than $250 billion short of where they would have been had they grown at the rates typical in other recoveries. Further, while the Administration has credited the tax cuts with the drop in the fiscal year 2007 deficit to �only� $162 billion, the 2007 budget would have been in surplus were it not for the tax cuts. Based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the total 2007 cost of tax cuts enacted since January 2001 was $300 billion (taking into account the increased interest costs on the debt that have resulted from the deficit financing of the tax cuts). This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset. While supporters of these tax cuts claim that their positive economic effects have lowered their cost, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in a September, 2006 report that �at the current time, as the stimulus effects have faded and the effect of added debt service has grown, the 2001-2004 tax cuts are probably costing more than their estimated revenue cost.� Looking out over the next several decades, when deficits are projected to be far larger (because of the impact on the budget of the continued rise in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers), the tax cuts, if extended, will still be a major contributor to the nation�s fiscal problems. (http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.htm) To put the long-run cost of the tax cuts in perspective, the 75-year Social Security shortfall, about which the President and Congressional leaders have expressed grave concern, is less than one-third the cost of the tax cuts over the same period. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-31-08socsec.htm) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

stop talking absolute bollocks.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Boy, I'd sure hate to go back to the days of 5% unemployment under Bush's horrible tenure.

was certainly a fun bubble. how'd it work out for you?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I guess this is part of that "new civility" Democrats were talking about after the Arizona congresswoman was shot?

Fuck you. You are of the party that has NEVER been civil. Your party runs on fucking over people, crying like a little bitch, and then refusing to budge on any issue.

Do not expect us to always roll over.

Believe me I have made these opinions on my own, it is plainly clear that it is exactly what you do. You held us hostage, and we capitulated and paid the ransom.

Luckily the policy we support is essentially more of what dooms us. Lets see how well it works out the next time around.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Fuck you. You are of the party that has NEVER been civil. Your party runs on fucking over people, crying like a little bitch, and then refusing to budge on any issue. Do not expect us to always roll over. Believe me I have made these opinions on my own, it is plainly clear that it is exactly what you do. You held us hostage, and we capitulated and paid the ransom.

Yes, you represent all that is civil. So when is Obama going to be responsible for anything? Seriously, tell me. Almost 3 years deep, a Democrat president, first 2 years with complete Democrat control of the House and the Senate for the first time in decades. His spending, his economic policies, his everything. When are you going to stop making excuses? It burns you up that all the gumdrops, rainbows, and unicorns you were promised from this inexperienced hack are not coming to fruition with his Keynesian spending madness. You don't want to admit you were played for a fool by a politician with a silver tongue. When will he be responsible for the economy he presides over? WHEN.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN was certainly a fun bubble. how'd it work out for you?

I'm doing alright actually, since I don't rely on handouts from government or expect things to be given to me. Anyway, we can bat the tax cuts vs. tax raises thing back and forth forever... I can see you're as stuck to your viewpoint as I am. But cutting taxes does not = government spending and that's all there is too it.

Only in Washington does such mythical accounting fantasy language take place... only there does it make sense to spend more money than you take in... only there is the idea of balancing a budget ridiculous.


Oh, and this... look who is pushing us over the debt being 100% of GDP line that marks a country's inevitable destruction. Not shown on the graph- Obama's spending commitments, if not rolled back, will put our debt at 200% of GDP in 10 years. This is the Tea Party's fault I assume.





This will make your head explode too:

Can we start doing something other than Kevin vs. Liberals? Aren't you guys tired of doing the same fucking thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...












































... and over?

It bears repeating for rage-festering liberals like Nou who live in an ideological cocoon with no actual exposure to real world responsibilities or job/business experience. The fuckin guy is in his 20s, lacks a formal education of any kind, lives in his Aunt's basement or mom's house depending on the month, and tries to lecture those who have actually been there before. Supporting liberal policies are great if you want to feel good, but they are disastrous if you want to DO good. Social programs/entitlement/welfare spending is why we are in this mess, not fucking tax cuts or whatever war he wants to reference; when vote hungry politicians adopt policies that reward people for riding in the wagon and punish those who are pulling the wagon.

For example, this came out today in the Toronto Sun, provides plenty of facts easily and clearly articulating what makes him so wrong (and PKC for that matter on this subject), but he has a narrative to stick to, facts me damned. Perhaps I'm a bit too optimistic, but I'm hoping one day he wakes up and realizes how mistaken he is.

Nou, this is for you (hint: it's a spending problem, not revenue):

quote:

How did the United States get into this debt mess? President Obama blames both parties, and he�s right. But the real question isn�t who did it, it�s how. The answer is social programs. America�s previous debt problems all came from major national emergencies, beginning with the Revolutionary War. The Civil War saw debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.5 billion in 1870; World War I from $2.6 billion in 1910 to $26 billion in 1920; World War II from $43 billion in 1940 to $257 billion in 1950. But when the clearly defined crisis ended, so did the extra spending, and the debt stabilized. Even the Cold War produced little borrowing; 1960�s $290-billion debt was just 13% higher than in 1950. But then it exploded: $389 billion in 1970; $930 billion in 1980; $3.2 trillion in 1990; $5.7 trillion in 2000; and 2010�s $13.6 trillion. The best way to gauge the seriousness of government debt, though far from perfect, is by its share of GDP. That measure shows U.S. federal debt staying under 40% even in the Civil War and World War I, rising a bit above it in the Great Depression, spiking in World War II at over 110%, then falling steadily to under 30% by the early 1980s. Then it rebounded and, after a dip in the late 1990s, shot upward.

A little background for the main point.... followed below by a perfect illustration of the folly you keep spouting without thinking:

quote:

A �discourse� on the left blames it all on the right. The Toronto Star�s Heather Mallick just blamed this year�s $1.4 trillion deficit on �George W. Bush�s tax cuts and by Barack Obama�s continuing to wage two unwinnable, unaffordable wars and starting a third in Libya�. But it just ain�t so. Tax cuts cannot be the culprit because the United States does not have a revenue problem. For six decades federal taxes took an average of just under 18% of GDP and, after a sharp recessionary dip, are heading back that way. The U.S. has a spending problem. From an average of just over 18% of GDP from 1950 to 1974, federal spending rose to an average of 20.8% from 1975 to 2007 then shot up to over 25%. And not on wars: at $666.7 billion in 2010 (about 4.5% of GDP) the military budget is less than half the deficit. Moreover, defence�s share of GDP fell from nearly 15% in the early 1950s to under 10% by 1970 to under 5% by 2000 yet the budget was not on fire in the 1950s or even 1970s. As Sherlock Holmes says, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The guilty party is non-defence spending and, more particularly, social programs.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/2...-us-debt-crisis

More details, facts and figures in the article if you're interested. But I doubt you'll read it, Nou, because such facts don't help further your screeching froth at the mouth agenda. You're one of those sad types who feels good when those who succeed and achieve "get theirs" in the form of wealth confiscation, even if there's no actual benefit to you. A truly pathetic envy-riddled troll you are.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss facts me damned.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This will make your head explode too:

Your sources are biased. The Toronto Sun? Seriously, Kevin. Corroborate your position with what can be affirmed as a neutral source or don't have one, at all. There's about a million ways I can find where all of the charts and editorials you've put forth are intellectually disingenuous, and with my dad about to lose his home because of a financial calamity routinely maintained by those who keep saying, "don't tax the job-creators" I'm about in the mood to really start shredding this fallacious narrative you keep invoking.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.