American Debt-Default...<sigh>

Oh yes and as for your quote let me shead a bit of light on it for you...

"It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. ... the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier..."

Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (1850)

Followers of this Ideology are The Peoples Republic of China, and Cuba... now really can you honestly tell me that you would rather live in China or cuba than here?
Hope you don't like Facebook or Yourtube... because both are disallowed.
IMHo these two are not any different than say, a government lead by the Taliban...

 

Do you have any source material that shows that there is enough revenue to continue with everything through the end of the year?[/QUOTE]

steerpike...
you keep saying that there's enough money available, but won't say how you know it to be true... i've asked you the same question and haven't gotten an answer, either... c'mon, you're a lawyer, so either come up with some evidence, or withdraw the claim!

 

All you have to do is look at the numbers. People get their news from talking heads and media that sells papers and air times on alarmism. If you look at revenues, you'll see there is enough that comes in for 2011 to pay social security and a bunch of other things for 2011. It's not like without the debt ceiling the country just stops taking in money. Social security by itself generally takes in more money than it pays out (though I believe 2010 was an exception to that).

The government is estimated to take in around $2.3 trillion this year. Far more than enough to cover social security checks whether the ceiling is raised or not, and that includes taking to account operating costs and other things they have to pay (including even interest on current debt).

If the ceiling isn't raised and they were to stop sending SS checks (which won't happen, but if it did), it would be because someone thought they had some political hay to make by not doing so.

 

Steerpike: you're very right about social security revenue constantly exceeding the amount its owed (however this will soon be a non-existent phenomenon). Actually, socially security has plenty of government treasuries on hand to use in case of emergency financials for social security payments. The fact that we say social security actually couldn't pay its dues means that the extra money (which should be used to buy bonds) is being diverted for non-SS uses. I see this as nothing more than government robbery.

Public opinion in extremely important in Washington. Doing the right thing for the people on the other hand is a completely separate thing, and hard to argue that they actually care for.

This is kind of a ambiguous statement. How are you sure they will "do it the right way"? Why would taxes be nominal?

Exactly: Control of the market prices of goods is a terrible thing. You're contradicting yourself. What exactly is a subsidy? Its control of the market prices of goods by keeping certain product prices down by subsidizing their production. You say the small family farms need the help, but how do you think these subsidies got started in the first place? Do you think someone said "lets subsidize the production of evil agri-corporations"? Heck no. They said poor farmers need the governments help to survive. This started during the depression when farmers didn't make enough to get by, so the government offered assistance. However governments, the merely well-meaning monsters they are, merely caused harmful unintended consequences. Government during the depression was forcing farmers to destroy crops in order to keep prices up, even when americans were starving. Just like you said.

Now these programs horribly corrupt the agricultural market. Originally meant to help small farmers these subsidies are now nothing more than a government tit getting suckled for many agri-business's survival. Want to get rid of these subsidies? Won't happen, farmers will protest and Agri-business will lobby. American democracy at its best.

That's an underestimation of SS costs. Its 7.65% of your gross income that eventually goes to social security, not to mention your employer must provide 7.65% for the employee as well. Those numbers combined, if freed in for private investment, would make a vastly better return in a 401k or something similar. Also, we do force companies to pay a living wage: its called minimum wage. It is one of the most harmful laws ever in existence. It has left millions in american youth (particularly minorities) with no ways to enter the private markets. For arguments against min-wage, merely youtube Milton Friedman's lectures.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of the Chinese government. I think that system is ultimately unfeasible as well, and that you cannot have a truly free market without individual liberties. What I'm trying to say is that the American system of politicians appealing to special interests (labor, business, demography), and not for the good of society in general likely isn't very appealing to the Chinese gov. China is rarely amazing in fact that a centralized, non-elected entity actually has created free-market policies and lessened gov-control. Most institutions with the same makeup in history have done the exact opposite with disastrous consequences.

I'm pro death-penalty in general, but this policy is both obtuse and would likely save little if any signifigant amount of money. Ending the war on drugs however, that would help save this nation......

Young, immigrant labor is what keeps this country running. Always has, always will. The one reason america may not go the way of Europe is our acceptance of immigration. Free immigration is the truely american way to go. I'm not sure why you dislike these people who wish nothing more than to come to the United States and offer their labor.

NO! everyone would not be employed. In fact, everyone would likely be unemployed. What do you think the Corporation would do if it was told that it had to produce everything in the United States, where labor costs are generally high? They would move...... and any jobs they originally provided would be gone with them. If they stayed everything would cost more to make up for the extra cost in american labor. Higher costs means less liquid money in the economy to be used for consumer purchases, investment, and business creation.

You quote all these founding fathers, and then come across as pro-tariff, anti-immigration, pro-subsidies, pro-welfare............. I'm not sure you accurately understand what those men stood for.

 

Americans are not going to do anything. Had this been in the 70s late 60s, we'd see a revolution. Or at least a vast majority that would stand up and say, "Hey. Something's wrong."

It won't happen now. People are too fat and happy. There are way too many people on welfare and SS that don't deserve it. I know I'm gonna get hit for that, but it's true. I live in a small town where half the folks are drug heads, and on SS. Due to manipulation of the system.

I agree with let the banks fail. So what. Us blue collared workers who live paycheck to paycheck know what hard work is. It's not sitting on ur rear making promises you don't intend to keep just so you get votes at the next election.

Politicians make way too much money as it is. As long as they don't lose any money they don't care what happens to you. The whole idea the country was founded on got thrown out the door years ago. Guess what folks, it's not gonna get any better. Maybe when the Chinses decide it's time to cash in on what they are owed from us.

 

Just as an FYI, no matter the governments disposition, they still are collecting tax revenue and enough to cover what are considered to be essential services such as Social Security and Medicare. This is because these programs are enabled but their own revenue streams (ie - specified payroll deductions). These streams and those that administer them remain open for business, as it were. If things got meager, there could possibly be personnel losses that could affect the timelines but would not stop the same payment from being administered.

The only way there would not be enough money is if the government stop taking taxes or specifically payroll deductions for these programs...and you know no matter the party, politicians do not want to stop taking taxes.

 

Looks like there is a deal now. But yes, the only way social security checks would stop if there wasn't a deal is if the purposefully decided to stop them so they could try to blame the other side for it and scare seniors into casting a certain vote next time around.

 

Here here!

Chocotaco, sorry buddy we are going to have to agree to disagree on 99% of what you say on this topic. Imigrants are not the problem ILLEGAL ones are.
And nothing is made here anymore, and unless you make min wage you can not sit there and say it it a living wage... sorry been there done tht it does not work. after taxes ect, you don't have enough to pay the rent, buy food, buy your own healthcare, car insurance etc. And on top of tht all you still have to buy gas to get there and back assuming there is not public trans like where I lived @ tht time.

as for the farm subs, again I have to disagree...

But hey if you want to live in a communist society by all means, have at but it will be over my dead body before I let it happen here.

I have too long a history with this country to sit back silently and watch it go down the tubes.
I vote, and I rally... In short I do my part to try and make the changes that need to be made rather than sit around gripping like so many other people. ( not you dear. Just ppl in gen.)

 

agreeing to disagree is fine by me. The only thing is I'm seriously quite confused with is what exactly it is you stand for. You claim I would prefer a communist society but in general everything you support is much closer to a centrally planned economy than anything I would ever support in my life. (so far you support forms of price controls, immigration controls, wage welfare, social welfare, the death penalty. Any communist would support these things and tell you they don't go far enough.)

Nope your about right most I do is just gripe. Good for you for participating. I'm curious though, could you classify what political thought you think your closest to? Libertarian, Social-Conservative Economic liberal, plain liberal, conservative?........

 

I love American politics! Sooner or later it always dissolves into calling someone a communist.

 

No I would never call anyone a communist( unless of course they living in a communist tyranny and defend it blindly but that is a dif story for another time.), so choco if you took it that way forgive me. I simply said if you prefer that to America and our wacky ways...

AS for what I stand for it is complex, I belive on what the country was founded on. The original Ideas, and concepts. Not this crap we live in today. However I am liberal in some aspects, I don't care if two chickies want to get married, or two guys... it does not effect my life in the slightest, same with them adopting kids... They have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us lol. I belive in protecting a womens right to chose. (touchy subject I know) but only under very specific instances IE Rape incest, etc..., It is not another form of Birth control as so many morans like to think it is. And other things of that nature.

Freedom to think, act(within reason of course)and freedom of religion, freedom from all the stupid things that are present in todays society.

I am pretty sure our founding fathers are spinning in their graves at this point.
So far as communisium goes, here is how I see it It workes really well on paper in theroy. In fact at its most basic its not a bad idea at all. However like so many other things it is/has proven useless in practice. (IMHO)
Power corupts, and absoult power corupts absolutley. Governemt Idealy should neither be too big for the people to control nor too small to lead the people.
It is all about ballance.

And no I don't think price fixing is a good thing, I hate it( because usualy the prices are fixed up not down. however that would be a refreshing change...) perhaps subsidies means something dif between us. TO me I think of the tax breaks, and extra $ that we were given to improve crop yeileds ect (we were organic farmers before it was popular). Not being paid to destroy crops.
No I do not stand for immigration controles, this whole country is nothing BUT ancestors of Immigrants. I married an Immigrant (from India) I dislike people who skirt the system period. My husband and I filed paperwork and fought for his greencard for over two years, spending ten grand easy on legal fees.
Wages Imho should be liveable, 7.50$/hr is not liveable most people have to work 2 or more jobs to make ends meet when they have a job such as this making it nearly impossiable for them to improve their lot.
Social wellfare is a given: if we all stoped going MINE MINE MINE, we would be better off, greed is the root of most problems. and as A human I can not sit by and watch a single mother struggle by with out health insurance for her kids, or food to eat, or a decent place to live. However Crackheads who spit kids out just to get a pay jump tick me off to no end!
I would like to see an end to lobbiest, to corporations who are too big to fail while the rest of us are too small to give a flying Fk about.
Rapiest, childmolesters, murders and the overall general waste of skin and O2 yes I think we should shoot them. Don't house them in maxie prisions and let them get free hots and a cot for the rest of their lives... IF they are not useful to society becuase they can not be reinrotduced to society just get rid of them please.we would all be better off with out them walking the streets anyway.

"I'm curious though, could you classify what political thought you think your closest to? Libertarian, Social-Conservative Economic liberal, plain liberal, conservative?........" I don't like labels I find them silly and useless in most cases, I prefer to think of myself as a normal human who wants nothing more that for people to get along and my government to remember who they work for and that I elected them to protect my children, grandparents, parents, and grandchildren. I fully feel that I did not inhearit the earth from my parents I am simply borrowing it from my children. I'd like to leave it a little better than I found it.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

 

don't overlook the fact that when some of those founding fathers signed that document proclaiming that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights... etc.' they believed in slavery and 'owned' men, women and children to whom they were denying those rights!

so, throughout history, there have always been politicians who failed to practice what they preached and been disgustingly duplicitous whenever it suited their agenda...

 

Too true, However there were some such as G.Washington who wanted nothing more than to see the end of slayery... He made sure all of his slaves were educated in a skilled trade, and upon his death they were freeded. His 'people' as he sometimes refered to them as were treated well, he had a doctor on his estate that would treat them with the best mdeical care of the time, they were allowed to work off the estate in their free time to earn more $ if they chose to, they were allowed to attend church, and were given clothing shoes and food enough to live on. Not all our founding fathers were slave drivers who viwed their work force as nothing more than cattle.
Even Lincoln if he could have found a way to keep it would have not ended slavery but there were too many who thought it was wrong to fight. Sometimes that is all it takes. A large portion of the population who will fight for what they feel is right, fair and just.
Times change and the laws we started with were susposed to change with us.

 

This is so funny, yet so true. I still remember the first time I was called a socialist--I was a teenager, and arguing that a certain street should be turned into a bike blvd. I didn't even know what socialism was!

I don't consider being called a "communist" much of an insult anymore. Dictators and crappy human rights violations can be churned out of many parties and political systems. Though, when we were kids we knew the term "Dirty Commie" as a humorous insult, even though we didn't know what it meant.

 

Ah, my American government... :/

I will hold onto that quote Churchill said long ago, "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing...after they've exhausted all other possibilities."

He just about summed us up there. Let's make sure he was not mistaken.

But yeah, it's infuriating. The government is making America a frickin' joke to the rest of the world, politicians are playing around and not focusing on the issue at hand. They treat compromise like it's a highly toxic acid.

From what I can see, the vast majority of people like me don't feel like they can change the government. They don't see a way how to as every politician seems to be the same thing.

 

Could someone explain to me why the U.S. government doesn't tax all people the same. I mean, what would happen if all people and companies no matter how much they made or how little, paid a same percentage for taxes. (10-15%) or whatever.

 

It would probably work at about 15%, maybe a bit more from what I've seen, if you did it as a consumption tax. You'd have to exempt people on the very low end who weren't able to get buy paying that percentage.

Companies just pass income taxes along to their customers if they don't get out of them all together. But they still buy goods, so a consumption tax would work there as well.

 

Now now don't you know that would make sense..... that is just not allowed! how dare you even suggest such a thing!

 

Link, ChurchHill was English right? Perhaps he was still sore that we left them? lol
jk

As for making a change one could perhaps find and support someone more inline with your own feelings on these issues.

but real change won't happen untill we fire all the laywers, talking heads, and other trash that clogs up my Beltway every morning...

 

A. That wouldn't generate the revenue needed for outlandish and unneccessary spending.

and B, that wouldn't be "income redistribution". The rich should pay their fair share I say! We can't possible let them have that money to invest or spend on consumer goods or worst of all, keep within a bank where it will be loaned out for financial growth. That would be terrible!

 

I kinda disagree. I don't think the U.S. has a lock on foolishness. We just do it with style...

 

Agreed, take a look at the UK government. 0.2% economic growth is good, and cutting tax for millionaires is the way to close the social gap. Not to mention what they're doing to education/the health service/defence/libraries/the welfare system, and so on forever until I run out of space...

 

with things the way they are, i've had to rethink my vow to never do anything for money again and take on some fee-paying editing/writing jobs, just to be able to keep going, so i can get a donation center started here...

i hate to do it, having done all for free these many years, but if i have to, in order to help those who're in greater need, then i don't see i have a choice... sad, huh?

 

With respect the the USA, there is something that has been proposed called "The Fair Tax." It's a consumption (national sales tax) tax that would be about 23% on all new goods and services. It would eliminate the payroll tax, medicare, social security, capital gains, tax, etc...It's set up to be revenue neutral.

It would remove all of the imbedded taxes--taxes that are figured into the price of a product or service as things currently stand. There would be a 'prebate' that every citizen would get (rich or poor) every month, a check that would equal taxes on the very basics--food/shelter, etc. So that technically the very poor would not be subject to the tax.

In theory, you'd only pay as much in taxes as you wanted to, depending on how much you spent.

The problems:
Since when have politicians given up power...and manipulating the tax code is power.
The 16th Ammendment which allows for an income tax should also be repealed, as I see it, the goverment would soon implement a national sales tax and keep/rebuild the current tax structure.

The best thing: Eliminate the IRS, eliminate all the mess individuals and businesses (time and money) to understand and meet the requirments of the ever-changing tax code.

If you're interested, you can find more on the Fair Tax by simply typing Fair Tax into Google or go to http://www.fairtax.org/

Why do I suggest this? It would eliminate so much of the power politics and pitting one group of Americans against another. It would encourage growth and businesses to invest and prosper. It would help those on the low end of the economic spectrum and allow everyone to get ahead.

As far as the Debt Issue itsefl: Get rid of baseline budgeting. I've said that for years. What Baseline Budgeting does is enable automatic increases in federal spending every year. Every year, whether Congress passes another bill that spends an additinal dime or not, the Federal Government's spending will increase bwtween 7 and 8%.

Sure that might bring up some nasty fights, but it would give citizens an honest look at what is being funded and increased within the government, and a better handle on spending that is just gone wild and is unsustainable.

 

"Fair Tax" is a good idea, but I agree that you'd have to ensure the income tax was eliminated first, or else you'd just end up heaping yet another tax on top of it.