ptown_trojans_1;826597 wrote:Honestly too, the increases are not that bad. I mean which is worse, a temp tax increase or no tax increase but a default that has longer impact?

ANY tax increase goes into effect as soon as they can get the ink to dry. ANY spending cuts go into effect...ummm...uhhh...well....when Harry gets off his damn dead ass and passes a budget. Since he's not done that in 2 and a half years, it's not going to happen anytime soon. So, to sum up...you are for the tax increases, no real spending "cuts" and the continuing downward debt spiral we are on until we default. We are going to default eventually. Either sooner or later. If this isn't dealt with, then the debt service will absolutely kill our dreams for America.

It will be OK though, because it will all be the fault of George Walker Bush.

LOL at you being so sure it's a "temporary" tax increase. Take a look at history and you should know better.

Writerbuckeye;826641 wrote:LOL at you being so sure it's a "temporary" tax increase. Take a look at history and you should know better.

Ding, ding, ding!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner!

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

And to me, it gets really old. "The sky will fall!!! Unless you give us a temporary slice of your income/freedom." They (WASHINGTON!!!!!!!) have nickeled and dimed me/us long enough. Cut the spending NOW!

BGFalcons82;826638 wrote:ANY tax increase goes into effect as soon as they can get the ink to dry. ANY spending cuts go into effect...ummm...uhhh...well....when Harry gets off his damn dead ass and passes a budget. Since he's not done that in 2 and a half years, it's not going to happen anytime soon. So, to sum up...you are for the tax increases, no real spending "cuts" and the continuing downward debt spiral we are on until we default. We are going to default eventually. Either sooner or later. If this isn't dealt with, then the debt service will absolutely kill our dreams for America.

It will be OK though, because it will all be the fault of George Walker Bush.

I disagree we will default eventually.
Why would you accept an America that defaults? We are pretty than that.
Yes, a budget needs passed, I'll give you that, but that does not mean we should default. Come on.

Writerbuckeye;826641 wrote:LOL at you being so sure it's a "temporary" tax increase. Take a look at history and you should know better.

Tax rates have been up and down the last 30 years, what are you talking about?
They were high the 70s, lower then higher in the 80s, raised in the early 90s, lowered in the 2000s.

cruiser_96;826648 wrote:Ding, ding, ding!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner!

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

And to me, it gets really old. "The sky will fall!!! Unless you give us a temporary slice of your income/freedom." They (WASHINGTON!!!!!!!) have nickeled and dimed me/us long enough. Cut the spending NOW!

Sure, I'm for cutting spending. But, one cannot do that alone. There has to be tax reform along with it to make it pass Congress. 100+ D's are suddenly going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Hey let's cut the budget by 20%" Just like 200+ R's will not wake up tomorrow and say, "Hey let's hike up the tax rate to pay off the debt."

Realistically, it is cuts and tax increases/ loophole closures.

Eff politics.

Can YOU run YOUR household by spending MORE than you bring in?????????

If so, how long?

If not, WHY DO WE THINK IT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT AT A NATIONAL LEVEL!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

ptown_trojans_1;826654 wrote:Realistically, it is cuts and tax increases/ loophole closures.

You just won't quit with the insane notion that Congress will "cut" anything. They never have and N E V E R will. Remember when there was the big furor about 3 months ago when supposedely $31 billion was "cut"? Well, the CBO came out and said there were no cuts, matter of fact, there was an additional cost of $0.5 billion. See...there are N E V E R any cuts. Never have been. Never will be.

Insanity is when you think doing the same thing over and over and over and over will result in a different outcome. There are no "cuts", ptown. Never were...never will be.

To answer your other Q...Yes, we will default when we owe more than we are worth. When the debt goes over $20 trillion in a few short years and we only create $18 trillion in our GDP, we will be in default. It's OK, though. Just ask Barney Frank about walking away from debt, declaring bankruptcy, and absolving the lenders. He's culprit A1 in the housing crisis, so he should know about how to skirt the rules.

cruiser_96;826657 wrote:Eff politics.

Can YOU run YOUR household by spending MORE than you bring in?????????

If so, how long?

If not, WHY DO WE THINK IT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT AT A NATIONAL LEVEL!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I hate that analogy. It makes no sense. A family budget does not equal a federal budget.
A family does not raise an army, take on entitlements, provide services and infrastructure projects, etc.

We do need to cut the budget and eliminate the debt, but realistically, it has to include tax increases. It is just the way the current system is set up. And don't say screw the system, because it is the only one we have for the foreseeable future.
Also, don't give me oh let's fundamentally change the way things work, because that is not going to happen.

BGFalcons82;826659 wrote:You just won't quit with the insane notion that Congress will "cut" anything. They never have and N E V E R will. Remember when there was the big furor about 3 months ago when supposedely $31 billion was "cut"? Well, the CBO came out and said there were no cuts, matter of fact, there was an additional cost of $0.5 billion. See...there are N E V E R any cuts. Never have been. Never will be.

Insanity is when you think doing the same thing over and over and over and over will result in a different outcome. There are no "cuts", ptown. Never were...never will be.

To answer your other Q...Yes, we will default when we owe more than we are worth. When the debt goes over $20 trillion in a few short years and we only create $18 trillion in our GDP, we will be in default. It's OK, though. Just ask Barney Frank about walking away from debt, declaring bankruptcy, and absolving the lenders. He's culprit A1 in the housing crisis, so he should know about how to skirt the rules.

Iunno, I've seen plenty of things cut over time. Budget can decrease, just look at the 90s deals and even the 80s non military budgets.

And I fundamentally disagree with you that we will default.

ptown_trojans_1;826663 wrote:I hate that analogy. It makes no sense. A family budget does not equal a federal budget.
A family does not raise an army, take on entitlements, provide services and infrastructure projects, etc.

We do need to cut the budget and eliminate the debt, but realistically, it has to include tax increases. It is just the way the current system is set up. And don't say screw the system, because it is the only one we have for the foreseeable future.
Also, don't give me oh let's fundamentally change the way things work, because that is not going to happen.

So let me get this straight...because the analogy doesn't walk on all fours, we can't see the value in NOT spending MORE than we bring in via taxes!?!?!?!

And this is my point... what wise steward/leader decides, "Hey, I know all of the money is allotted, but what if raise more and do things that intrude on others liberties!?"

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!! ...jackwagons.

ptown_trojans_1;826654 wrote:aSure, I'm for cutting spending. But, one cannot do that alone. There has to be tax reform along with it to make it pass Congress. 100+ D's are suddenly going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Hey let's cut the budget by 20%" Just like 200+ R's will not wake up tomorrow and say, "Hey let's hike up the tax rate to pay off the debt."

This is more like what needs to be done. Starting with the cutting part. But I agree it will not.

ptown_trojans_1;826654 wrote:Realistically, it is cuts and tax increases/ loophole closures.

This is like if water is building up behind the levy grabbing a five gallon bucket, scooping out some water, and throwing a few more sand bags on top of the levy. Rest easy that should do us for now.

Look at how difficult it is to get miniscule movement in congress. It will not be any easier next year or the next. The kind of congressional action necessary is impossible. Default is a very real possibility. The political will is not out there to make the major cuts to services or raise tax rates to confiscatory levels. Unless something major changes default is imminent.

coyotes22;826542 wrote:So what is the ND at now? In just 2.5 years of Obama?

The national debt is around 14.5 trillion. Was that a trick question? LOL.

Like I said , no real problem with some tax increases. But I've seen this movie before...raise taxes and cut FUTURE spending, and then when those cuts don't materialize, raise taxes some more. All the while Washington is spending more and more because, well, revenues are going up making realistic spending/budgets all the more unfeasible.

Think about the lunacy of this for a minute...under Obama, the debt has grown by more than $4 trillion with the deficit this year a whopping $1.7trillion and the Dems offer cuts TOTALING $4trillion over 10 YEARS and the Repubs are being unreasonable?

gut;825622 wrote:Probably time for term limits in the House and Senate. Re-election is having too much negative influence over good policy and some reps have too much power and influence. Since the other 48 states can't get rid of Pelosi or Reid we should do it wit term limits.

Originally the Senate was a body created to be insulated from re-election. Each senator was elected by their state legislature. The 17th amendment changed that. How different would the senate be had this amendment not passed?

gut;826235 wrote:true, but that rep wouldn't have the clout or influence that a Pelosi does. Those types get on the key committees and use that position to strong-arm junior reps. As a junior rep if you want to accomplish anything you have to play ball and usually toe the party line. Term limits would wipe out much of such cronyism.

I see your point. Pitfalls either way, IMO. The bottom line is the American public bears responsibility for the idiocy carried on by their elected officials. The best way to limit someone's term is to vote him or her out of office.

majorspark;826765 wrote:Originally the Senate was a body created to be insulated from re-election. Each senator was elected by their state legislature. The 17th amendment changed that. How different would our country look if Woodrow Wilson hadn't had his slimy hands at the controls for eight years?

The 17th Amendment was bad. Woodrow Wilson was worse.

Here's a difference I see. Republicans are needlessly, hopelessly cynical about damned near everything. Including budgets, they already assume we will default. Which I would disagree with greatly as there is no need for us to.

I just got around to watching Geithner on Meet the Press, holy crap is that guy wanting to quit or not? He's mailing it in right now. There is cynicism because the state of the union is awful (Friday's job report was absolutely disastrous - nothing even remotely positive about it) and all we get is excuses, excuses, excuses.....we staved off another great depression with our trillions of deficit spending - ok under what metric and how much more in debt do we need to go to keep putting our finger in the dam? This administration has no direction whatsoever. I don't think it is cynicism, it is waking up and finding that the proverbial emperors have no clothes. You can't feed your family or pay your mortgage on this type of "hope". We collectively lost our minds a few years ago and we'll suffer for it for a long time. Is isn't needless thinking to not be able to afford groceries and it isn't hopeless thinking knowing that the odds of (i) getting a well paying job or (ii) getting a bank to refi your underwater mortgage are incredibly low. It isn't cynicism, it is reality.

I disagree there. It's cynicism.

Things are not where we need or want them to be but things are not terrible quite yet. We haven't gone over any cliffs.

I Wear Pants;826858 wrote:We haven't gone over any cliffs.

the people sitting on a few trillion in underwater mortgages might disagree with you. The 15 million unemployed, too.

You're right, let's all run around and cry. The worlds ending, there's nothing we can do. Everything's screwed. That's a much better way to go about things.

I Wear Pants;826923 wrote:You're right, let's all run around and cry. The worlds ending, there's nothing we can do. Everything's screwed. That's a much better way to go about things.

Nobody is saying that. They want an end to business as usual politics with the Dems refusing real spending cuts and especially 2012 can't come soon enough

Sure, they were wrong then and the R's are wrong now to play the waiting game. Come on, both sides are playing politics.

What waiting game are the R's playing? They are clear on what needs to be done. Cut spending, make a budget. WITHOUT raising any taxes!

An interesting take on what could happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised -- and it isn't default.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58678.html

Writerbuckeye;827017 wrote:An interesting take on what could happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised -- and it isn't default.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58678.html

So, you mean Obama is lying, just so that he is sure to have more money to spend?!?!? NO!

So if we dont raise the limit, it would FORCE cuts in spending?!?!?! OH MY, we dont want that!!!!

gut;826962 wrote:Nobody is saying that. They want an end to business as usual politics with the Reps refusing real spending cuts / closing tax loopholes and especially 2012 can't come soon enough

FIFY