Republicans want to wreck the US economy

[Sovereign]

Seriously. This seems rather clear. They don't care about the debt at all.

 

[Matt]

Nice measured post by sin again.

 

[Andreus Makaryk]

...And this is news HOW?

 

[Horizon]

Yeah but I sometimes wonder the same.

 

[Malon]

I'm afraid if I say something, I gonna get sucked into some heated debate, so I'll just leave it at this; Obama is the one storming out of talks like a 3 year old child, not the Republicans. I don't see how this is all their fault. Both sides are playing politics.

 

[Juice]

I can imagine it is very frustrating for Obama however, as he does not have absolute power. He relies heavily on Republican support to reform a lot of things, and its common knowledge most Republicans have somebody's hands in their pockets, and interests apart from reforming.

So of course, I would also be very frustrated if I had to deal with rich old white men who were unwilling to change America, to change how the middle class is slowly being shifted to the low class. How the rich are indefinitely getting richer and the poor are definitely getting poorer.

I equate to the childhood story of "Robin Hood" its hilarity makes me wonder.

Robin Hood is a story told to many children, and even watched. The poor steal from the rich, and give back to the poor. This is considered a humane deed and teaches children to share and give what you have to others who may not. To help the fellow man.

We look at Obama, wanting to tax the upper class more so that more can be given to America's ever increasing impoverished citizens. He is met by opposition from the elitist right wing, they call his agenda "Socialist" and in turn call him a "Socialist" and claim it is going to ruin America. When in fact, everyone knows it will not ruin America, America has already been ruined by Pharmaceutical companies and privatized health care.

The story we all grew up with, and the lessons it taught no longer applies...And why? Because a bunch of rich people say it is "Socialist".

It sickens me that so many people will not offer to help their fellow man, that intolerance exists for those in need. It sickens me that people call helping out someone in need Socialist. Do the CEO's need multi billion dollar cheques? Do governors need to take vacations of taxpayers money? The current system of Capitalism has taken the ideology of the "American Dream" to far, and now its just become "The American Nightmare".

 

[Malon]

I can imagine it is very frustrating for Obama however, as he does not have absolute power. He relies heavily on Republican support to reform a lot of things, and its common knowledge most Republicans have somebody's hands in their pockets, and interests apart from reforming.

That is the typical Democratic response to anything dealing with Republicans. It's gotten to the point where I don't even listen to it anymore.

So of course, I would also be very frustrated if I had to deal with rich old white men who were unwilling to change America, to change how the middle class is slowly being shifted to the low class. How the rich are indefinitely getting richer and the poor are definitely getting poorer.

Ummm, if you look at the factual numbers, most everything Obama has done since he took office has hurt the middle-class, not improved it. Secondly, society will never get rid of the poor. Ever. Deal with it, its a fact of life. Also, if people want to be charitable, let them, but you cannot force people to be charitable. What they do with their money is their business. Period.

I equate to the childhood story of "Robin Hood" its hilarity makes me wonder.

Robin Hood is a story told to many children, and even watched. The poor steal from the rich, and give back to the poor. This is considered a humane deed and teaches children to share and give what you have to others who may not. To help the fellow man.

We look at Obama, wanting to tax the upper class more so that more can be given to America's ever increasing impoverished citizens. He is met by opposition from the elitist right wing, they call his agenda "Socialist" and in turn call him a "Socialist" and claim it is going to ruin America. When in fact, everyone knows it will not ruin America, America has already been ruined by Pharmaceutical companies and privatized health care.

The story we all grew up with, and the lessons it taught no longer applies...And why? Because a bunch of rich people say it is "Socialist".

Ummm... it is socialist. Look up the definition of Socialist. Stealing is a crime and does not help your fellow man in any way, whatsoever. Robin Hood is a cute story, but the morals behind it are wrong, period. Again, if people want to be charitable, that's one thing, but you cannot force them to be.

It sickens me that so many people will not offer to help their fellow man, that intolerance exists for those in need. It sickens me that people call helping out someone in need Socialist. Do the CEO's need multi billion dollar cheques? Do governors need to take vacations of taxpayers money? The current system of Capitalism has taken the ideology of the "American Dream" to far, and now its just become "The American Nightmare".

Helping out someone in need is not Socialist, I agree with you there. What is socialist is taking someone else's possessions forcefully, and giving it to someone else. Really, it astonishes me that anyone thinks that is moral, but apparently there are those out there that would have you believe that. And you wanna talk about governors taking vacations on the taxpayer dime? Why don't you look up how much the taxpayers are paying for Obama's many vacations or Nancy Pelosi's military-grade jet and all the booze she drinks on it and then come back and tell me who is sucking up our money.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'm afraid if I say something, I gonna get sucked into some heated debate, so I'll just leave it at this; Obama is the one storming out of talks like a 3 year old child, not the Republicans. I don't see how this is all their fault. Both sides are playing politics.

Obama got pissed yesterday and walked off to cool himself down, and the Republicans didn't criticize him for it. Why didn't they criticize him? Because a few weeks ago, they walked away from the White House completely and threw a public bitch fit.

The Republicans are the ones being stubborn on this debate. They're perfectly willing to make deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to raise the debt ceiling, but they draw the line at a 3% tax hike for millionaires.

 

[Malon]

Obama got pissed yesterday and walked off to cool himself down, and the Republicans didn't criticize him for it. Why didn't they criticize him? Because a few weeks ago, they walked away from the White House completely and threw a public bitch fit.

You're right, forgot to include that. That was part of my "both sides are playing politics". Honestly, I'm tired of both parties. I'd be just as happy if we got rid of them both and put two new ones in there.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

You're right, forgot to include that. That was part of my "both sides are playing politics". Honestly, I'm tired of both parties. I'd be just as happy if we got rid of them both and put two new ones in there.

Both parties in Congress are playing politics. Obama is finally showing some leadership and political courage. I'm sure he's making political calculations, but the fact of the matter is that he wants to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security AND raise taxes on the upper 2% as part of a giant deal -- all nearly one year before he's up for re-election.

Politically, doing that is tantamount to putting a gun to your head and shooting yourself. He's not perfect, but he's the only one coming close to being a grown up in this debt ceiling debate.

 

[Santoro]

Good god I hate loaded posts like this.

 

[Malon]

Both parties in Congress are playing politics. Obama is finally showing some leadership and political courage. I'm sure he's making political calculations, but the fact of the matter is that he wants to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security AND raise taxes on the upper 2% as part of a giant deal -- all nearly one year before he's up for re-election.

Politically, doing that is tantamount to putting a gun to your head and shooting yourself. He's not perfect, but he's the only one coming close to being a grown up in this debt ceiling debate.

Perhaps, but the one thing I'm not buying that he keeps saying is that the U.S. will default on its debt if they don't come to an agreement by the deadline. That is simply not true. It just means we'll start having to pay our debts. Even most economists (or at least from what I hear) believe that the chances are very slim that the U.S. will default on its debt, even if an agreement isn't reached.

I understand that either way, the economy is going to plummet if an agreement isn't reached, but there is no way the government will default August 2nd (or whatever the date is) if an agreement isn't made.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That is the typical Democratic response to anything dealing with Republicans. It's gotten to the point where I don't even listen to it anymore.



Ummm, if you look at the factual numbers, most everything Obama has done since he took office has hurt the middle-class, not improved it. Secondly, society will never get rid of the poor. Ever. Deal with it, its a fact of life. Also, if people want to be charitable, let them, but you cannot force people to be charitable. What they do with their money is their business. Period.


Ummm... it is socialist. Look up the definition of Socialist. Stealing is a crime and does not help your fellow man in any way, whatsoever. Robin Hood is a cute story, but the morals behind it are wrong, period. Again, if people want to be charitable, that's one thing, but you cannot force them to be.



Helping out someone in need is not Socialist, I agree with you there. What is socialist is taking someone else's possessions forcefully, and giving it to someone else. Really, it astonishes me that anyone thinks that is moral, but apparently there are those out there that would have you believe that. And you wanna talk about governors taking vacations on the taxpayer dime? Why don't you look up how much the taxpayers are paying for Obama's many vacations or Nancy Pelosi's military-grade jet and all the booze she drinks on it and then come back and tell me who is sucking up our money.

What you're defending in this post is the reverse of socialism. Over the last thirty years, we've had a massive redistribution of wealth in this country -- and that wealth has gone to the upper class, not from them.

Since the Reagan administration, the economy has doubled in size. Just thinking about it like that, you'd think it was great. Doubling the size of the economy isn't a bad thing in and of itself. But then you look deeper and you realize where all that money has gone, and it's gone to the wealthiest Americans.

While the economy has doubled, when you adjust for inflation the wage of the average worker has remained exactly the same. In fact, also adjusting for inflation, the average worker actually earned about $400 dollars less in 2008 than they did in 1988.

Since the wages have remained the same, the wealth of the doubled economy has concentrated with the richest Americans. This has sucked the economic resources from the middle class and brought down demand.

Meanwhile, we have the dogmatic, nearly-religious adherence to the idea that the richest Americans are "job creators" and if you raise taxes on them, even by restoring them to Clinton-era levels when we had the best post-World War II economy ever, it will kill jobs. This is despite the fact that studies show that the richest Americans pocket their tax cuts and spend it on themselves.

So here we are today. In 2001, George W. Bush took the Clinton era surplus and got rid of it. How? He cut taxes when he didn't need to, because he thought that surpluses were immoral or some such nonsense.

Then we had 2003, the most fiscally irresponsible year in the history of forever. We launched a war that we didn't need to fight and we cut taxes that didn't need to be cut --- IN A WAR!

Then in 2010, Obama was forced to sustain those Bush tax cuts, because the Republicans would've said no to everything he proposed (hey look, they're doing it anyway). And now, when we have a massive debt and deficit and we're nearing default on our debt, the Republicans still refuse to raise taxes by 3% on the wealthiest Americans.

Republicans have gutted discretionary spending for low income wage earners this year, and now they want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without any tax increases for the wealthiest Americans at all. They're perfectly willing to make everyone except for millionaires sacrifice, even when it's impossible to bring down the debt with spending cuts only.

So if you want to know who's hurting the middle class, it's the Republicans.

Perhaps, but the one thing I'm not buying that he keeps saying is that the U.S. will default on its debt if they don't come to an agreement by the deadline. That is simply not true. It just means we'll start having to pay our debts. Even most economists (or at least from what I hear) believe that the chances are very slim that the U.S. will default on its debt, even if an agreement isn't reached.

I understand that either way, the economy is going to plummet if an agreement isn't reached, but there is no way the government will default August 2nd (or whatever the date is) if an agreement isn't made.

That's a simplistic view. Whether or not the government can pay the public debt isn't really the issue. The issue is uncertainty in the domestic markets, uncertainty in the global markets, and the affect it will have on our credit rating -- which, if made worse due to default, means we have to pay more interest.

If an agreement isn't reached, the markets will plunge due to investors no longer having faith in the government's ability to stave off default, and we'll very likely be in another recession.

 

[Malon]

Point made, hahaha.

Honestly, I try not to defend Republicans, though it may come off that way. I think both parties are fatally corrupt and just need to go. I'm not defending George Bush, and I think a lot of the things he did in office were incredibly unnecessary and stupid.

I agree with you about the markets though. That is something to be worried about, for sure, I just don't particularly like the fact that he's [Obama] hopping around screaming "default" when a lack of an agreement wouldn't result in a default; at least not right away.

Ugh, I knew I'd get sucked into something if I opened my mouth >_< lol

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Point made, hahaha.

Honestly, I try not to defend Republicans, though it may come off that way. I think both parties are fatally corrupt and just need to go. I'm not defending George Bush, and I think a lot of the things he did in office were incredibly unnecessary and stupid.

I agree with you about the markets though. That is something to be worried about, for sure, I just don't particularly like the fact that he's [Obama] hopping around screaming "default" when a lack of an agreement wouldn't result in a default; at least not right away.

Ugh, I knew I'd get sucked into something if I opened my mouth >_< lol

The deadline is arbitrary, yes, but it's also a best guess that comes directly from the Secretary of the Treasury. It's an estimation about how long the government has until it can no longer pay all of its obligations.

So yes, we will continue to pay debts after the default point is reached, but that means there are other things we can't pay for -- like welfare money, perhaps military pay, etc.

It's a matter of priorities. Unless we want China to repossess our TV, we have to sacrifice paying for our own domestic priorities in favor of paying our future Chinese overlords.

 

[jpchewy01]

It's a matter of priorities. Unless we want China to repossess our TV, we have to sacrifice paying for our own domestic priorities in favor of paying our future Chinese overlords.

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords...

 

[Malon]

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords...

Speak for yourself :CStern

 

[Juice]

That is the typical Democratic response to anything dealing with Republicans. It's gotten to the point where I don't even listen to it anymore.

Let me clear up the fact I am not Democratic or Liberal. I vote for what works, and if it doesn't work and Revolution does I will partake in that as well. But facts are facts, if a section or arm of Government refuses to work with the other and provides stops and ends to try to slow down a process than Government, period does not work. In fact, the Obama administration has done quite a few things that have made me question their leadership. But next to the Bush Administration it doesn't look all that bad. At least progress, as small as it is; is being made.

Ummm, if you look at the factual numbers, most everything Obama has done since he took office has hurt the middle-class, not improved it. Secondly, society will never get rid of the poor. Ever. Deal with it, its a fact of life. Also, if people want to be charitable, let them, but you cannot force people to be charitable. What they do with their money is their business. Period.

Society will never be rid of the poor, that is indeed fact. But when the lower class and the impoverished start to outnumber the middle class, something is incredibly wrong. Citizens start to lose opportunities, schooling becomes little more than a dream and the entire American society itself gets turned inside out. The aim of ANY Government should be the well-being of their Citizens, not the well being of CERTAIN Citizens. While there will always be the few that take advantage of it, at the very least it can help to keep American families able to take advantage of educational opportunities as well as participate in the American market.

Ummm... it is socialist. Look up the definition of Socialist. Stealing is a crime and does not help your fellow man in any way, whatsoever. Robin Hood is a cute story, but the morals behind it are wrong, period. Again, if people want to be charitable, that's one thing, but you cannot force them to be.

so·cial·ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If we want to be literal here, we can. Maybe I should have emphasized the negativity of "Socialism" which can be one of a dozen different theories. Socialism has such a negative connotation placed on it in American culture that it, itself has become just as bad as referring to your neighbor as "A Red" during the Cold War.

Socialism, more importantly. Not as a theory, but as a form of life is the idea of "People helping people". We look at countries that work on Socialistic values, like France, the U.K and Canada and they do rather well for themselves in providing with their citizens. Yes, everyone gets taxed and yes they sometimes do get hefty. But in knowing that I am helping EVERYONE, EVERY CITIZEN get what they need in order to survive I have no issue with it.

What Obama proposed with the shifting of taxes is only of Socialistic value, not Socialist itself. If some people took their heads out of their asses they would see that "Socialism" is not a horrible system.

Helping out someone in need is not Socialist, I agree with you there. What is socialist is taking someone else's possessions forcefully, and giving it to someone else. Really, it astonishes me that anyone thinks that is moral, but apparently there are those out there that would have you believe that. And you wanna talk about governors taking vacations on the taxpayer dime? Why don't you look up how much the taxpayers are paying for Obama's many vacations or Nancy Pelosi's military-grade jet and all the booze she drinks on it and then come back and tell me who is sucking up our money.

Yes Obama has paid vacation, but how many other Governors do as well? This issue is an issue in and of itself, not just a Republican issue, but also an issue with all branches of Government. Does it astonish me, that as a Canadian I help to pay for everyones Health Care? No, in fact I am proud of it. I am proud to be able to help people who can't help themselves. To pay taxes into services I might not use doesn't annoy me. What is money?

Money is a material object, a monetary value that we are taught from a young age to respect and hold dear. When it fact it is fleeting, it comes and goes and we earn it and spend it as we see fit. If you live your life as a materialistic person you will see taxes and services, as well as deduction of funds as "Having something forcefully taken from you." I live my life according to how much I make, and what I can do with it. I save money and live comfortably even while paying taxes to help other people. So the fact you are astonished that someone finds it moral to have money "Taken" to help others in and of itself speaks wonders about Materialism in general.

Their not taking my livelihood away, not taking my car away from me. Their not telling me I can't paintball or snowboard when I want to. Their not telling me to NOT enjoy life, so what am I losing? A couple of bucks, thats it. Something I will earn back, something I will spend again.

We can also talk about America's biggest taxpayer drain as well, the funding of the Military. But that isn't an issue with just America. Thats an issue with the majority of the world. Putting weapons before books and research.

My outlook is fundamentally different from that of a "Typical Democrat" I don't really give two shits south of the Mexican border whether or not a Government is right or left. I care most about whether or not a Government is correctly doing their job of providing for their citizens. Its important to remember that the Government works for the people, but there is also a symbiotic relationship of sorts. The people have to work for each-other, and the Government has to be there to make sure this happens. A nation without unification is indeed not a nation, but rather a cesspool of peoples with indifference's based on their personal, individual values.

 

[Sovereign]

I agree with you about the markets though. That is something to be worried about, for sure, I just don't particularly like the fact that he's [Obama] hopping around screaming "default" when a lack of an agreement wouldn't result in a default; at least not right away.

The default would happen eventually, maybe not august 2 but not much soon after. Its completely appropriate for obama to mention default, when the head of the fed, US treasury bond holders and rating agency have done so.

Even if you cut spending enough to pay back creditors, GDP will drop massively due to the fact that your country would only be capable of paying back its lenders. Social security and medicare would stop, as well as payments to veterans and the disabled. Moreover, you would lose your triple A rating, meaning that your debt would increase further since it would cost more to borrow in the future. The whole global economy would be shaken up and the US dollar would collapse. I mean, if the u.s isn't stable anymore, then what is? There would be massive skepticism in the makets, especially in the eurozone. Only a few countries; canada, norway and a few others would be seen as a viable investment. Everthing else would be FUBAR. Its essentially a nightmare scenario.

You need to reach a deal and right now the republicans aren't willing to make any compromises, so how can you blame both parties? Obama agreed to cut social spending, something thats important to him, so why can't republicans agree to allow tax hikes? You can't cut your way out of your debt, unless you want to gut the US alive.

<---- economics major

 

[Juice]

My apologies for the out-dated post. I was doing laundry and didn't reply in time.

I am sure what has to be said, has been said. No harm done!