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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Can we just default on congress instead?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 235, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/12/2011 07:12:08 PM · #1
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...

Message edited by author 2011-07-12 19:13:14.
07/12/2011 07:24:44 PM · #2
It looks like representative democracy has devolved into a game of chicken, where posturing for the next election is vastly more important than taking care of the country. When a majority of presidential candidates favor not raising the debt ceiling, despite the dire results such an action would cause our country, politics has diverged too far from reality.
07/12/2011 07:29:33 PM · #3
Ah, that's the key. Make it a reality TV show...
07/12/2011 07:34:17 PM · #4
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.
07/12/2011 07:55:14 PM · #5
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm trying to decide whether to pull all my money out of the market in anticipation of Armageddon.


Just figure out which corporations are buying the most representation in congress and just slide your money over to them. No need to worry about the armageddon. - Goldman Sachs tip.

Message edited by author 2011-07-12 19:59:34.
07/12/2011 07:55:25 PM · #6
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!


Of course as Stalin said "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." As we have seen in the computer voting we have today, where the software is proprietary and fairly easy to shift the count, those in power will use any tools they can to keep that power.
07/12/2011 08:06:15 PM · #7
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.


You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We don't love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

07/12/2011 08:07:03 PM · #8
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

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!


Of course as Stalin said "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." As we have seen in the computer voting we have today, where the software is proprietary and fairly easy to shift the count, those in power will use any tools they can to keep that power.


Sigh. Open source.
07/12/2011 09:56:26 PM · #9
If I max'd out all my credit cards - to the tune of "I could not possibly pay this back in 5 lifetimes" - and I went to a debt counselor, I am thinking "ask them all to raise your limits and then take advances equivalent to that limit" would NOT be on his list of suggestions. But if I did get them to raise my limits to "10 lifetimes", I would just find ways to spend the "extra" money and make another request to raise it in another year. If this was even realistic, how long will they keep allowing me to dig the hole?

At some point, the word "LIMIT" should mean something. Any consequences that result from not raising the debt limit should not be blamed on the ones who did not raise it, but those who exceeded it and kept exceeding it and will continue to exceed it - that applies to both parties.

I'm not opposed to raising some taxes - other than I do believe it will hurt the economy and ultimately result in LESS revenue, but that's always arguable. However, my understanding is that if you taxed millionaires and billionaires 100% (yeah, take it ALL), it would still not cover the deficit. And any corporate tax increases would simply be passed on to us lowly citizens. The only answer in my mind is to CUT SPENDING MASSIVELY. I'm fine with cutting defense as well and getting the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP. Oh, and Libya. And Yemen. And wherever else we have covert military ops going on that we can't afford.

I'm also ok with cutting medicare drastically for those who can afford to live without it. I watched a news show that highlighted rich, Florida seniors who admit to using medicare because they are entitled to. Some even said they felt kinda guilty about it, but still collected benefits from it. Social Security is a little different, IMO - that is supposed to be an INSURANCE policy that WE PAY INTO. But it is clearly not viable in the long term, so something needs to be done. Then there is the myriad of STUPID CRAP the gov't spends money on that I might not have any problem with IF WE DIDN'T OWE A ZILLION DOLLARS.

Doing nothing or even not enough about the debt issue just to avoid being thrown out of office by the electorate is not going to serve anybody but themselves. Unfortunately THAT is the nature of our political system.

Full disclosure: I am a former Dem, former Repub and currently a fierce Independent and soon to be Chairman of the Village Burners Party.

The politicians are best served by keeping us, the people - the ones that were intended to be in charge - divided. I wish we could all coalesce around the critical things that we probably all agree on.

Thanks for stirring me up, Doc. :/

;-)
07/12/2011 11:18:43 PM · #10
What really pisses me off is that the Obama now is using the senior citizens as leverage to try and get an increased debt limit right away by stating the social security checks might not get mailed out. WTF...why not dock the paychecks of the over paid politicians first instead of always going after the elderly.
Maybe defaulting would be best....reset the economy and force the USA to rely upon itself and it's own resources, since no one would be willing to loan them funds. Would it not force us to produce our own products in our own country with our own citizens?
07/12/2011 11:29:30 PM · #11
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

The only answer in my mind is to CUT SPENDING MASSIVELY.


+1 why don't any...ANY politicians see this?

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

...soon to be Chairman of the Village Burners Party.


i'm in. anyone but career politicians. where do i sign up?
07/12/2011 11:34:48 PM · #12
I'm just puzzled why this debate is so much more important to the Republican members of the house than it was when they raised the limit each and every year for eight years when their man was in the Oval Office, and they had the house for for six years and the senate for four and we saw no decrease in spending while the ceiling went up.

We absolutely need to get our fiscal house in order, we need to cut spending and we need to bring up taxes. Only looking at one side of the balance sheet will not turn the tide.

Message edited by author 2011-07-13 02:50:42.
07/13/2011 04:17:53 AM · #13
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

I'm just puzzled why this debate is so much more important to the Republican members of the house than it was when they raised the limit each and every year for eight years when their man was in the Oval Office, and they had the house for for six years and the house for four and we saw no decrease in spending while the ceiling went up.

Are you as puzzled about that as you are about then Senator Obama voting no to raising the debt ceiling back then, citing failed leadership? Arguments like "they did it, so we can do it" or "you never complained when..." are why this mess will simply continue. Bottom line is they are ALL doing it. And we are letting

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

We absolutely need to get our fiscal house in order, we need to cut spending and we need to bring up taxes. Only looking at one side of the balance sheet will not turn the tide.

Bring up REVENUE, not necessarily taxes. One does not always equate to the other. Raising taxes can have the effect of lowering tax revenues. Taxing the rich or corporations sounds good, but they just find ways of avoiding the taxes - i.e. moving their business to a more tax-friendly country or, as I mentioned earlier, passing it on to the consumers.

SPENDING is the problem. No matter how much they tax the people, they will SPEND 1.5 - 2x that much. More revenue just means more entitlements, NOT lower deficit. You can argue about which party is worse, but BOTH parties are to blame - but the PEOPLE are just as culpable as the politicians. NOBODY wants to give up their grants, entitlements, etc. Understandable since they were conditioned to live off of, and promised these things - promises that can not possibly be delivered on.

All that raising the debt ceiling does is put off the inevitable and make it worse when it gets here. I am BLOWN AWAY that we don't already have constitutional REQUIREMENT to balance the budget. Sure, things come up (wars, etc), but the money cannot come out of thin air. Congress hasn't even passed ANY budget for 2011 and they probably won't get one done for 2012 - I call that DERELICTION OF DUTY. It's no wonder so few career politicians come from the business world - they would never be able to hold a job where they are responsible for accomplishing things and accountable for the state of their company/division, etc.

I'm stepping away to go dowse some woodies in gasoline and burn some (generic) politicians in effigy.
07/13/2011 06:33:25 PM · #14
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Bring up REVENUE, not necessarily taxes. One does not always equate to the other. Raising taxes can have the effect of lowering tax revenues. Taxing the rich or corporations sounds good, but they just find ways of avoiding the taxes - i.e. moving their business to a more tax-friendly country or, as I mentioned earlier, passing it on to the consumers.


Just because there's the potential for that doesn't mean that we should give up the idea of taxing them, which I'm sure is exactly what the republican lobbies want. What we need to be doing is increasing taxes that affect money which isn't doing anything to stimulate the economy other than earning interest upon interest for the account holder. In other words, increase taxes on personal wealth, not income or revenue. Of course loopholes wold have to be closed, such as the money laundering that goes on with unregulated or secret foreign banks. While we can't control what they do overseas we should be able to regulate things here. If we can pass the Patriot Act to increase the government's ability to spy on people to fight terrorism then surely we can put the same effort into tracking down wealthy deadbeats who try to game the system. Or if that's too much work then maybe a modified version of Neal Boortz' fair tax directed solely on the wealthy in addition to the current tax policies.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


SPENDING is the problem. No matter how much they tax the people, they will SPEND 1.5 - 2x that much. More revenue just means more entitlements, NOT lower deficit. You can argue about which party is worse, but BOTH parties are to blame - but the PEOPLE are just as culpable as the politicians. NOBODY wants to give up their grants, entitlements, etc. Understandable since they were conditioned to live off of, and promised these things - promises that can not possibly be delivered on.


I agree spending is out of control. If this was a sane individual or family, the first thing they would do is cut the high price and the non-essential first. Unfortunately, when it comes to the government everything is backwards. They want to keep the sports cars (i.e. oil subsidies, Bush tax cuts for the upper class, the largest military in the world, etc) while cutting back on food and healthcare for the poor and the revenue streams associated with it so that those things aren't repurchased at a latter time. To put it another way, it's a big middle finger to the poor. After all they created their own problems and the rich had nothing to do with so screw them. Besides, Daddy needs a new Hummer/M1 Abrams monstrosity to unveil at the next CEO make it rain party. Last year the government checks barely paid for the strippers, air fare and the Piper Heidsieck champagne. Poor Wilfred only managed to get his hands on one bottle and he never did get that table dance...

Message edited by author 2011-07-13 18:35:56.
07/13/2011 10:00:41 PM · #15
When is someone going to point out that the government taking away part of someone's Social Security or MediCare benefits is every bit as much of a "tax" as eliminating a tax cut or loophole or other special condition benefiting the rich? In 2010 (or maybe '09, I only heard the radio report once), with a profit of $10 billion, News Corp. had a tax liability of [b]negative five billion dollars[b] -- we (those of us who pay taxes) gave Mr. Murdoch back an extra five billion ... now I'm not sure how much welfare fraud there is in the country, but I don't know of any food-stamp families wrangling an extra five billion out of the bureaucracy.

Why is it OK for the poor, and those luck folks with jobs to pay off the debt, but the billionaires and mega-corporations which benefit most* from the Federal Government can't chip in even a little bit?

As far as I can tell, the Republicans are angling for a return to feudalism, and I suspect that the vast majority of us will be serfs and not barons.

*The US military is largely engaged in protecting profits for the oil industry and the rest of the military-industrial complex, not my neighborhood.
07/13/2011 10:10:51 PM · #16
Originally posted by GeneralE:

When is someone going to point out that the government taking away part of someone's Social Security or MediCare benefits is every bit as much of a "tax" as eliminating a tax cut or loophole or other special condition benefiting the rich?


Bravo!

R.
07/13/2011 10:35:36 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

When is someone going to point out that the government taking away part of someone's Social Security or MediCare benefits is every bit as much of a "tax" as eliminating a tax cut or loophole or other special condition benefiting the rich?


Bravo!

R.


+1

And let me point out that as someone on Social Security & medicare, there has been no cost of living increases for the past two years and from what I understand there won't be for the foreseeable future. This of course does not stop my rent from increasing, nor any of my other expenses which I cannot control, such as the cost of gas, food, etc. My deductible to go to the doctor is $180 per year plus 20% copay of all the bills and $1500 per hospital visit and again 20% of the bill. This is on top of the $116 per month premium. How much more should I pay with my measly $15,120/year. I had to turn down a heart surgery AMA because plain & simple, I can't afford it.
07/13/2011 11:07:14 PM · #18
The top 3% of the earners pay FORTY PERCENT of taxes! Taxing the rich is not the way to go.

What if those three percent said I'm tired of paying for the education, healthcare, and safety of the entire population of America. I quit.

Then what?

What's the backup plan if those 3% refuse to support 40% of the people!?

Cut everything that doesn't need to be.

Start with the little stuff like first-class travel for gov't employees and college education for illegal immigrants... to name a couple.

Message edited by author 2011-07-13 23:37:56.
07/13/2011 11:20:12 PM · #19
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

The top 3% of the earners pay FORTY PERCENT of taxes! Taxing the rich is not the way to go.


This is a meaningless statistic unless we also know what percentage of the income that 3% is earning.

R.
07/13/2011 11:20:57 PM · #20
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

The top 3% of the earners pay FORTY PERCENT of taxes! Taxing the rich is not the way to go.

What if those three percent said I'm tired of paying for the education, healthcare, and safety of the entire population of America. I quit.

Then what?

What's the backup plan if those 3% refuse to suppose 40% of the people!?

Cut everything that doesn't need to be.

Start with the little stuff like first-class travel for gov't employees and college education for illegal immigrants... to name a couple.


Makes sense to me that they should pay. Lots of facts & figures here... link to article

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

If you consider who has all the money in the first place, it would seem to reason that having them pay the most taxes would be more than reasonable. As to your question about them refusing to pay, I believe that's called tax evasion and there are some severe penalties for that.
07/13/2011 11:34:09 PM · #21
Originally posted by Kelli:



If you consider who has all the money in the first place, it would seem to reason that having them pay the most taxes would be more than reasonable. As to your question about them refusing to pay, I believe that's called tax evasion and there are some severe penalties for that.


I meant... what if they quit their jobs and go on welfare instead of working to earn their keep and 40% of the rest of America's keep.

The people who earn the most WILL pay the most taxes even if the tax percentage is the SAME for everyone. And, I agree that THAT would be reasonable.

But, why should they pay a higher percentage than the other people just because they work more/smarter?

(BTW, I earn no income)

I think that if a dollar is earned, then a portion of that should go for school, police, fire, gov't, etc. But why is it that if someone earns more of those dollars should he pay more for each dollar earned? Why should he be punished for working hard to work his way up in the ranks, learning new skills, etc with having to pay more of each dollar earned?

What's to motivate people to learn more and work their way up then? Just to earn the same pay? I don't get it.

Let's break it down to a more imaginable scheme. Let's say that Johnny and Susie each have a lemonade stand.

Johnny works when he wants... he doesn't like to work when it's hot outside, so only opens his stand when it's cooler and ... unfortunately not as many people want lemonade then.

Susie works set hours... hot or cold... rain or shine, she's out there by the road at her lemonade stand.

Susie, of course, makes more money. It's fitting since she works harder and longer and has sacrificed to make more money.

Would you say that Susie should pay more per dollar earned than Johnny?

If so, why? Pretend they're your kids.

How would you convince Susie that she should continue to work hard if she's making less at the end of the day than Johnny is... and he went fishing?

07/13/2011 11:35:28 PM · #22
Originally posted by ShutterPug:

What really pisses me off is that the Obama now is using the senior citizens as leverage to try and get an increased debt limit right away by stating the social security checks might not get mailed out. WTF...why not dock the paychecks of the over paid politicians first instead of always going after the elderly.
Maybe defaulting would be best....reset the economy and force the USA to rely upon itself and it's own resources, since no one would be willing to loan them funds. Would it not force us to produce our own products in our own country with our own citizens?


Sounds good to me.. but you better have a gun for protection from theives, and a stock of food and water. =)

It's coming.. and the government knows it's coming.. they are kicking the can down the road for now, and when they are ready.. they will let it fall, the entire world will feel it.. and when we hit rock bottom, they will announce their new world monatary system, a new currency that will be used world wide, and the majority will accept it with open arms, because it will look good, and be a fresh start. Good luck everyone! Just be prepared. =)

Current systems failing.. Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, United States, and others I'm sure..

Not to mention the entire middle east is wrecked! Updated today.. Pakistan has passed France, taking over the #5 spot for the most nuclear weapons, and they are on the brink of declaring war.

Japan has been wrecked by an earthquake and tsunami.

Sudan just split into 2 countries.. because they discovered oil in south sudan, but the people in the north part of sudan were trying to take control of the land, and the south wouldn't have it. Sudan is now North and South Sudan.

Solar storms are expected to pick up in the next year, possibly creating a worldwide powerfailure. www.spaceweather.com Neat website for solar news and other cool space stuff.

There's a Comet called Elenin expected to fly near earth in a couple months, people think it's actually a brown dwarf star which are sleeping stars that don't put out as much light as our sun, and it's going to cause a polar shift and create massive earthquakes and volcanoes.

If you want to see what's really going on, that you won't see on CNN, ABC, Fox because they are too busy covering important stuff like Casey Anthony.. just search the internet a little. Search- Economic Collapse - on youtube.. or google.. or check out the RT America Channel on Youtube
07/13/2011 11:48:12 PM · #23
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Originally posted by Kelli:



If you consider who has all the money in the first place, it would seem to reason that having them pay the most taxes would be more than reasonable. As to your question about them refusing to pay, I believe that's called tax evasion and there are some severe penalties for that.


I meant... what if they quit their jobs and go on welfare instead of working to earn their keep and 40% of the rest of America's keep.


Except that, broadly speaking, those people aren't "working" in the sense that "ordinary" citizens work. Their wealth is working for them. You don't get into that category any other way than by having boatloads and boatloads of money hard at work earning more money.

Why don't YOU tell ME by what rationale you'd tax subsistence incomes at the same percentage as incomes generated by accumulated wealth? The amount of money you'd be able to milk out of the poor, all added up, wouldn't be enough to make more than a single percentage point of difference in the tax rate of the truly wealthy, if even that.

These people have a vastly disproportionate share of the nation's wealth. Of the WORLD's wealth, for that matter; it's not just an American phenomenon. And with vast wealth comes vast responsibility. How else would you have it be? If the strong won't protect the weak, what does it mean to be human?

R.
07/14/2011 12:04:45 AM · #24
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Originally posted by Kelli:



If you consider who has all the money in the first place, it would seem to reason that having them pay the most taxes would be more than reasonable. As to your question about them refusing to pay, I believe that's called tax evasion and there are some severe penalties for that.


I meant... what if they quit their jobs and go on welfare instead of working to earn their keep and 40% of the rest of America's keep.


Except that, broadly speaking, those people aren't "working" in the sense that "ordinary" citizens work. Their wealth is working for them. You don't get into that category any other way than by having boatloads and boatloads of money hard at work earning more money.

Why don't YOU tell ME by what rationale you'd tax subsistence incomes at the same percentage as incomes generated by accumulated wealth? The amount of money you'd be able to milk out of the poor, all added up, wouldn't be enough to make more than a single percentage point of difference in the tax rate of the truly wealthy, if even that.

These people have a vastly disproportionate share of the nation's wealth. Of the WORLD's wealth, for that matter; it's not just an American phenomenon. And with vast wealth comes vast responsibility. How else would you have it be? If the strong won't protect the weak, what does it mean to be human?

R.


SOMEBODY worked for every dollar that exists in the dollar world.

That's a fact. Whether those people are smartly investing what their parents worked hard to earn or earning them themselves ... or digging a ditch. A dollar earned is a dollar earned... and it shouldn't matter how many dollars one has compared to another... unless you want to be totally ruled by a dictatorship...
07/14/2011 12:10:52 AM · #25
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Their wealth is working for them.


Even if this were true (and I think that you're not realizing how low the "high income" bracket is), that wealth as ALREADY been taxed. America has already gotten the benefit of those dollars earned originally. AND when those dollars earn more dollars, they're taxed again (as they should be). Please tell me WHY you think that Susie should be taxed at a higher rate than Johnny (in my example) when she's doing more work... even IF their dad had started two businesses and left them tons of money to start their lemonade stands?

Johnny simply does not work as hard as Susie... and should not get a tax break because of it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/19/2018 11:25:20 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 © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/19/2018 11:25:20 AM EDT.