DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Can we just default on congress instead?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 235, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/19/2011 02:39:32 AM · #1
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I think the logic, if there is one, is the Bush tax cuts have already been pocketed used up and so more tax cuts are needed.

To do what exactly? No successful businessman, even with vast piles of excess cash, invents in more business unless there's demand. And when there IS demand, that same person will gladly invest his own money (we are talking about people making millions, after all) or get a loan to take advantage of that opportunity regardless of the marginal tax rate. Warren Buffet said as much on national TV earlier this week. Cutting taxes on the rich while cutting social spending has the direct effect of reducing revenue and increasing the need for social support. It creates mass uncertainty at the consumer level, thus slashing demand and discouraging investment. The last thing in the world the people with the most money need is a tax cut. What they need is a reason to invest it in something other than the stock paying the highest dividend.

The top tax rate was slashed from 73% in 1921 down to 25% in the mid-to-late 1920's, and that didn't work out so well for job creation. Now we've gone from 70% in 1980 (already the lowest rate since 1936) down to 35% and expect different results? Spineless morons indeed... although some are probably more evil than stupid.


You're preaching to the choir. You're right, tax cuts don't create jobs. Well, unless it's a job in congress.
 11/18/2011 08:27:35 PM · #2
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I think the logic, if there is one, is the Bush tax cuts have already been pocketed used up and so more tax cuts are needed.

To do what exactly? No successful businessman, even with vast piles of excess cash, invents in more business unless there's demand. And when there IS demand, that same person will gladly invest his own money (we are talking about people making millions, after all) or get a loan to take advantage of that opportunity regardless of the marginal tax rate. Warren Buffet said as much on national TV earlier this week. Cutting taxes on the rich while cutting social spending has the direct effect of reducing revenue and increasing the need for social support. It creates mass uncertainty at the consumer level, thus slashing demand and discouraging investment. The last thing in the world the people with the most money need is a tax cut. What they need is a reason to invest it in something other than the stock paying the highest dividend.

The top tax rate was slashed from 73% in 1921 down to 25% in the mid-to-late 1920's, and that didn't work out so well for job creation. Now we've gone from 70% in 1980 (already the lowest rate since 1936) down to 35% and expect different results? Spineless morons indeed... although some are probably more evil than stupid.


ROFL! I literally just finished watching HP & the Deathly Hallows part II.
 11/18/2011 08:18:25 PM · #3
Originally posted by yanko:
I think the logic, if there is one, is the Bush tax cuts have already been pocketed used up and so more tax cuts are needed.

To do what exactly? No successful businessman, even with vast piles of excess cash, invents in more business unless there's demand. And when there IS demand, that same person will gladly invest his own money (we are talking about people making millions, after all) or get a loan to take advantage of that opportunity regardless of the marginal tax rate. Warren Buffet said as much on national TV earlier this week. Cutting taxes on the rich while cutting social spending has the direct effect of reducing revenue and increasing the need for social support. It creates mass uncertainty at the consumer level, thus slashing demand and discouraging investment. The last thing in the world the people with the most money need is a tax cut. What they need is a reason to invest it in something other than the stock paying the highest dividend.

The top tax rate was slashed from 73% in 1921 down to 25% in the mid-to-late 1920's, and that didn't work out so well for job creation. Now we've gone from 70% in 1980 (already the lowest rate since 1936) down to 35% and expect different results? Spineless morons indeed... although some are probably more evil than stupid.
 11/18/2011 05:01:39 PM · #4
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wonder if anybody on the supercommittee will take note that Big Banks (the "job creators" currently making billions) announced 75,000 job CUTS today despite the Bush tax cuts. I'm gonna bet no.


I think the logic, if there is one, is the Bush tax cuts have already been pocketed used up and so more tax cuts are needed.
 11/18/2011 04:59:05 PM · #5
Wonder if anybody on the supercommittee will take note that Big Banks (the "job creators" currently making billions) announced 75,000 job CUTS today despite the Bush tax cuts. I'm gonna bet no.
 11/18/2011 04:40:02 PM · #6
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We should start a pool on whether or not we are going to get this thing done. Frankly it's a bit scary because all I hear are games and posturing and covering your tail by both sides. Where are the consensus builders? Where are the people who care about our country?

The Republicans make me so frustrated when they seem to think negotiation involves deciding whether we are going to do it their way now or later. The Dems aren't much better and Pelosi can go jump out a window for all I care. I honestly think Obama is trying to build some consensus, but he's a bit too much mild-mannered parent trying to calm the third-grade classroom after punch and cupcakes. "Please behave children. Johnny, you shouldn't do that to Ashley. Ok, who took the juice?"

Whew. Sorry, I just had to vent. I'm trying to decide whether to pull all my money out of the market in anticipation of Armageddon. Somehow I still suspect there's going to be a last minute deal of no substance...


omg i'm gonna agree with you.....exactly what are we paying them for at this point, and yes i think obama is trying but he's the parent who never had to beat his kid's ass. well sometimes life calls for an ass whoopin. there should be a way to fire all the politicians when things like this happen

Message edited by author 2011-11-18 16:42:27.
 11/18/2011 04:34:58 PM · #7
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I got this sent to me on Facebook. It is friggin awesome!

Dylan Ratigan loses it on air over the deficit


Perhaps more people should "lose it".
 11/18/2011 04:26:52 PM · #8
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who wants to bet the automatic cuts take effect because no agreement can be reached?

I bet if those automatic cuts included salary and benefits for congress and staff we'd get some action ...


Probably should have been that way Paul...

News flash: Congress is populated by spineless morons.

Realize the required 1.2 trillion cut is really only about a 10% cut in the budget over 10 years and about 10x that would be required to balance the budget. And they can't even agree on THAT! It's hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.

I saw a blog on the "do nothing" plan which is basically to send congress packing and allow things to expire. It would actually almost balance the budget in 7 years but would, of course, be very painful including in my own profession with 30% cuts in Medicare payments.

Message edited by author 2011-11-18 16:27:38.
 08/10/2011 03:50:44 PM · #9
I got this sent to me on Facebook. It is friggin awesome!

Dylan Ratigan loses it on air over the deficit
 08/10/2011 01:54:32 PM · #10
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who wants to bet the automatic cuts take effect because no agreement can be reached?

I bet if those automatic cuts included salary and benefits for congress and staff we'd get some action ...
 08/10/2011 01:23:42 PM · #11
Well, the naming of members of the supercommittee for budget cuts and tax hikes is interesting. The National Journal has an interesting interactive that ranks members of congress on their voting records from liberal to conservative. On a scale of 0 (most liberal) to 100 (most conservative) here's where the named members fall so far on economic voting record:

Republicans:
Hensaling (co-chair) 97
Kyl 84
Camp 76
Upton 72
Toomey (I couldn't find him)
Portman (I couldn't find him)

Dems:
Murray (co-chair) 20
Kerry 33
Baucus 44

The last three dems haven't been named yet. But looking at the Republicans appointments, it strikes me that the party is sending people to protect their interests rather than reach a consensus. Who wants to bet the automatic cuts take effect because no agreement can be reached?
 08/03/2011 07:48:04 AM · #12
Originally posted by Cory:
Really, get rid of all the f-ing politicians and replace them with programs - THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANYONE TO REPRESENT ME, I CAN REPRESENT MYSELF JUST FINE THANKS!

Seriously, we need to take back our democracy - and the only way we're going to do that is to kick the children out of their playhouse.


we all want change but as a whole we are not willing to make the sacrifices that are required for change.

08/02/2011 11:29:39 PM · #13
Originally posted by TheDruid:
You are the Rome of the 2000's. Like all other military nations, you will be swept into time.


You seem to draw a distinction between military and non-military nations in their permanence. All nations will be swept into time, as will all people, creations and concepts. All great empires have had a military base, and they have hit a high water mark and receded. I'm not a huge fan of the military, but without one, you tend to get swept into time a bit sooner.

Message edited by author 2011-08-02 23:30:26.
 08/02/2011 10:11:24 PM · #14
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We should start a pool on whether or not we are going to get this thing done. Frankly it's a bit scary because all I hear are games and posturing and covering your tail by both sides. Where are the consensus builders? Where are the people who care about our country?

The Republicans make me so frustrated when they seem to think negotiation involves deciding whether we are going to do it their way now or later. The Dems aren't much better and Pelosi can go jump out a window for all I care. I honestly think Obama is trying to build some consensus, but he's a bit too much mild-mannered parent trying to calm the third-grade classroom after punch and cupcakes. "Please behave children. Johnny, you shouldn't do that to Ashley. Ok, who took the juice?"

Whew. Sorry, I just had to vent. I'm trying to decide whether to pull all my money out of the market in anticipation of Armageddon. Somehow I still suspect there's going to be a last minute deal of no substance...


Frankly, your population base makes up very little of the world population. Your ideals are greater then your abilities. You are the Rome of the 2000's. Like all other military nations, you will be swept into time.
 08/02/2011 08:23:26 PM · #15
LOL. CNN poll...approval of congress: 14% An all-time low since the poll has been done in the 1970s.

Way to go guys! You really knocked this one out of the park!

Message edited by author 2011-08-02 20:23:43.
 08/01/2011 07:26:51 PM · #16
You know, nothing that comes out of the Capitol is perfect, but I have to say the result is actually better than I anticipated. Two key things down the road: 1) Obama can veto any continuation of the Bush tax cuts in 2013 (I guess assuming he makes it that far). 2). Cuts come automatically and include defense but spare the most important safety nets if people can't agree on cuts. Plus the cutting recommendations come from a committee of only 12 people then get a simple up or down vote.

It's possible a grand compromise is in the works. The more bellyaching we hear from the far right and left, probably the better off we are.
 08/01/2011 01:09:23 PM · #17
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by yanko:
It would be one thing if these assets actually went to pay for some charity's cause but the reality is the only requirement is that 10% of it goes to charity at some point.


How sure are you that this is true? My family has a charitable trust and 100% of that money is locked down to go to charity, and there are strict rules about what constitutes a legitimate charity and that no funds can go to satisfy existing pledges or the like.

There are charitable annuities that are donated to a cause and pay a fixed annual amount for the life of the donor with the principal going to the charity on the death of the sole survivor, but I have never heard of a trust that got full tax exemption and allowed 90% of the funds to revert to the trustees.


Obviously I'm no expert, but from what I recall from past conversations I've had with people who do setup these kinds of trusts for estate and retirement planning, it can hold great tax advantages especially for avoiding capital gains tax. I don't recall which kind they were exactly but doing an online search I found that charitable remainder trusts only requires 10% be given to charity.

These trusts aren't just for charity but also for avoiding taxes and for keeping more of the wealth in the family from generation to generation. If I said lets play monopoly but I start off with a million dollars and you start with zero you probably wouldn't want to play yet this is how we run society. Worse off some people actually think this is fair.

Message edited by author 2011-08-01 13:15:38.
 08/01/2011 01:11:50 AM · #18
Bernie Sanders for President 2012

Unfortunately, he probably will not run.
 07/31/2011 10:51:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by cynthiann:
Originally posted by Kelli:
BTW - I think this whole mess would put an Independent in good advantage come 2012.


I was thinking the same thing. Considering the current Republican line-up, I'm still favoring Obama as the lesser of the two evils, but there are a couple of Independents that are certainly of interest to me. Namely, Bernie Sanders.


I agree with you about the favoring the lesser of two evils thing. But, Obama seems to just be letting them walk all over him. From what I'm reading he pretty much gave in to all Boner's demands. I'll need to put some time into looking into the independents though.
 07/31/2011 10:49:00 PM · #20
Originally posted by Kelli:
BTW - I think this whole mess would put an Independent in good advantage come 2012.


I was thinking the same thing. Considering the current Republican line-up, I'm still favoring Obama as the lesser of the two evils, but there are a couple of Independents that are certainly of interest to me. Namely, Bernie Sanders.
 07/31/2011 09:56:48 PM · #21
Originally posted by Kelli:
BTW - I think this whole mess would put an Independent in good advantage come 2012.


Sadly, if s/he managed to win that'd just make things worse, 'cuz NEITHER party would support anything s/he tried to accomplish.

R.
 07/31/2011 09:33:04 PM · #22
BTW - I think this whole mess would put an Independent in good advantage come 2012.
 07/31/2011 09:11:45 PM · #23
No details really yet, but it appears the Dems have caved again.

link

Message edited by author 2011-07-31 21:28:30.
 07/31/2011 09:22:42 AM · #24
Most likely scenario at this point IMO:

A deal is announced, but with no guarantee of passage. It will be rejected by Tea Party members for not requiring the balanced budget amendment to pass and by some Democrats as a sellout since it only offers a "clean" raise to the debt ceiling that was previously routine in exchange for targeting social programs without restoring taxes on the wealthy. The bill might narrowly pass the Senate, but could fail in the House because they've managed to split the Overton Window there in two (policies now fall outside the range of acceptability for each group). In response, the stock market will plummet and we'll hear ominous talk from credit rating agencies. A temporary reprieve will be announced in the form of either a very short, unconditional raise to the debt ceiling and/or a Treasury announcement that they can hang on for a few more days before actual default. At that point (assuming Dems grow a spine), maybe the Constitutional option is revisited for consideration— not actually used, but put back on the table to suggest Republicans could end up with nothing— and we start to hear loud reminders that the Republicans' own deficit reduction study in March recommended 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. Then the real negotiations begin under pressure of a developing stock market and ratings drop that cost the country more than the eventual agreement.
 07/31/2011 08:33:18 AM · #25
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by SDW:

Thanks to all congress democrats and republicans that are really trying to solve this huge problem. For the ones that are playing politics; we will remember in 2012!


It is hard to remember that there are still folks from both parties in the middle, partly because they get very little air time in the news. Who wants to hear about reasonable compromise when there are battles for the soul of our country being promulgated on the extremes?


I read the unfortunate news that an independent group (can't recall the name) which ranks congressmen based on their voting record said for the very first time there is zero overlap between the two parties. In other words, the most conservative democrat is more liberal than the most liberal conservative (and vice versa). That can't be good.

Here' my prediction. You heard it here first.

1) Trial balloons have been floated about Obama unilaterally raising the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th amendment.
2) Republicans catch wind of this and play the brinksmanship game to the very end.
3) Obama raises the debt ceiling via the 14th amendment.
4) Republicans are "outraged" (but privately joyful for being able to wash their hands of the mess).
5) They crucify him for it in 2012 (or attempt to).


...Or, he refuses to use the 14th amendment, the repug's lose in their game of chicken, along with the rest of us. Everyone is outraged. Civil war begins.

Nah, Americans just don't really seem to care all that much any more.

Most likely you're right, because there really doesn't seem to be any other options besides default.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 03:33:41 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 03:33:41 AM EDT.