• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Debt Ceiling Deal (OT) BOHICA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Xyrmellon said:
We had a budget surplus for a couple of years during the Clinton administration, but never no debt. I just saw on tv that we still owe $55,000 in debt from the revolutionary war.

Didnt we forgive all of that money we gave to Europe in WWII? Anyway we can claim that? lol
 
Everyone knows the logical course of action to prevent catastrophe. Yet these politicians are so engrained in their stubborn ideology, cowardly or bought off by corporations to do what is necessary.
 
Forever said:
We're fucked. I'm seriously planning to move within the next decade. If not Canada, maybe Britain. Unless they're fucked too. Damn there's nowhere to run.

The American political system no longer works. The constitution didn't anticipate 50 states and 100 goddamn senators all beholden to their own local, corporate, and personal interests. It's a giant clusterfuck.

Coward. We don't want you here anyway.
 
Xyrmellon said:
We had a budget surplus for a couple of years during the Clinton administration, but never no debt. I just saw on tv that we still owe $55,000 in debt from the revolutionary war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Interest_expense

The interest on the national debt by itself is one of the three biggest expenditures of the budget every year. Paying down the overall debt would snowball itself, cutting down the interest as well. I know it will never happen, but if the government had no debt, the dollar value would skyrocket and chances are unemployment would be extremely low. It's funny that state governments are required to not carry debt, but the federal government is in a ridiculous amount of it.
 
Topher said:
Everyone knows the logical course of action to prevent catastrophe. Yet these politicians are so engrained in their stubborn ideology, cowardly or bought off by corporations to do what is necessary.
There's only one party at fault here. Let's not place blame on everyone when it's not needed.
 
There will be a deal. Your republicans, aka economic terrorists, are stupid but at least not suicidal. They just want to make Obama look as bad as possible before the dead line.

Seriously why didn't your president bust some of those GOP members into jail? He should have taught them who's the boss.
 
deadbeef said:
Assuming there is no deal, what will it mean for the average citizen in the short-term? I am freely admitting my ignorance here.

In the next week? Nothing really. If you have investments they may go on a roller coaster ride.

If there is no deal by the deadline? The US will probably get downgraded from AAA to AA+. Yields on long term treasuries will go up as a result, which means the government will ultimately pay higher interest rates, and banks and credit card co's will increase their rates pretty much immediately.

The average american will pay more interest, in a best case outcome. In a worst case outcome, a credit crunch will result from the shock of the Full Faith and Credit of the USA becoming less credit worthy, which would make 2008 seem like a picnic.

The markets are still assuming this is all posturing and everything will be fine. If they thought this might not work out, you'd have seen treasury yields sky rocket last week.
 
SoulPlaya said:
Of course it's true. Anyone who doubts me can read this really quick article. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/01/an-empty-offer-from-the-super-rich.html

This is what I was going on about a page or two ago. Very few people know about this.

I think you should read that article again because that article states that the richest make the majority of their money through capital gains. Obama and Clinton's capital gains tax would put that at 20% for the most wealthy. Personally, I think it should be higher. A person making over a mil should pay 35% in capital gains.

It does not say that super rich people pay nothing in income taxes because their salary is so low and do not do short term gains. It simply says they pay less taxes on long term capital gains because that is what the rate is now for the wealthy and that wealthy people's income mostly comes from capital gains, so they pay a lower percentage of income than poor people.

Taxing the lower tax brackets for capital gains doesnt harm those rich people, it simply taxes the poor more
 
Fatghost said:
In the next week? Nothing really. If you have investments they may go on a roller coaster ride.

If there is no deal by the deadline? The US will probably get downgraded from AAA to AA+. Yields on long term treasuries will go up as a result, which means the government will ultimately pay higher interest rates, and banks and credit card co's will increase their rates pretty much immediately.

The average american will pay more interest, in a best case outcome. In a worst case outcome, a credit crunch will result from the shock of the Full Faith and Credit of the USA becoming less credit worthy, which would make 2008 seem like a picnic.

The markets are still assuming this is all posturing and everything will be fine. If they thought this might not work out, you'd have seen treasury yields sky rocket last week.
So if I have some relatively short-term assets in some bonds (for down payment on house), am I going to take a bath?
 
ethic said:
Coward. We don't want you here anyway.

This is such an American response. There's nothing wrong with wanting to move to another country to better yourself or because of greener pastures. It's not like one person is going to make the difference between meltdown or bearable either way.
 
TheNatural said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Interest_expense

The interest on the national debt by itself is one of the three biggest expenditures of the budget every year. Paying down the overall debt would snowball itself, cutting down the interest as well. I know it will never happen, but if the government had no debt, the dollar value would skyrocket and chances are unemployment would be extremely low. It's funny that state governments are required to not carry debt, but the federal government is in a ridiculous amount of it.

Where are you drawing up the causal chain behind this reasoning? Sure, a lack of debt would increase the value of the dollar, but that would be more likely to hurt employment than help it. One of the few areas of growth in our economy right now has been manufacturing recovering somewhat from its decline precisely because the low value of the dollar allows us to export more cheaply, thus boosting foreign demand for US made goods. Action to boost the value of the dollar would crush US manufacturing even worse than it is right now, and take the overall economy downward along with it.

Again, our current debt level is definitely unsustainable, but debt is not some absolute evil. It has its uses.
 
SHAZOOM said:
Here's what I got for the NY times budget.

The only cut I'm not happy with is State Spending, but eh.

Yea, I definitely would not do that. A ton of states already have their own debt problems. Less funding from the federal government would make it even worse. Its basically the same thing Pawlenty did in Minnesota to 'solve' our problem. He pushed off paying for bills for a couple of years and cut local funding. Well, local governments needed money so they raised property taxes.

Cutting state funding won't solve anything
 
Gonaria said:
Yea, I definitely would not do that. A ton of states already have their own debt problems. Less funding from the federal government would make it even worse. Its basically the same thing Pawlenty did in Minnesota to 'solve' our problem. He pushed off paying for bills for a couple of years and cut local funding. Well, local governments needed money so they raised property taxes.

Cutting state funding won't solve anything

I completely agree, but there's only so many choices on that poll/survey.
 
About the NYTimes budget thing could someone explain why the shortfall it is looking to close is only 400 billions, aren't the budget deficits in the US in the trillions already?
 
Gonaria said:
I think you should read that article again because that article states that the richest make the majority of their money through capital gains. Obama and Clinton's capital gains tax would put that at 20% for the most wealthy. Personally, I think it should be higher. A person making over a mil should pay 35% in capital gains.

It does not say that super rich people pay nothing in income taxes because their salary is so low and do not do short term gains. It simply says they pay less taxes on long term capital gains because that is what the rate is now for the wealthy and that wealthy people's income mostly comes from capital gains, so they pay a lower percentage of income than poor people.

Taxing the lower tax brackets for capital gains doesnt harm those rich people, it simply taxes the poor more
You know what, you're right. I just realized that I've been misreading something on wikipedia on how short term capital gains taxes are determined. I genuinely thank you for that. Either way, 15% is far too low, and I say it should be the same as ordinary income tax rates. Still, I hold firm to my previous statement about the Clinton era tax cuts. While I think those making little income shouldn't pay much (and 10% really isn't much), I don't think someone making 200K a year should only pay 15% on capital gains, which is how Obama's plan would be.

Thanks again.

EDIT: BTW, if you do change it to Obama's proposal in my plan, it still "solves the deficit". That's just how great my plan is, lol.
 
deadbeef said:
So if I have some relatively short-term assets in some bonds (for down payment on house), am I going to take a bath?


Depends how short term.

Really short term stuff might actually do better in a default because there are limited options for short term money. Otherwise short term bonds and CDs will be fine, just hold to maturity and you'll get your full amount back.

The US defaulting is really unthinkable. it's the financial equivalent of the sun not rising tomorrow really.

And the US won't really default, the US will make its interest payments no matter what.

The real issue here is that the US's AAA credit rating is at risk. Canada was downgraded from AAA to AA in the 1990s (Canada is AAA again now) and nothing bad really happened, but Canada is 3% of the world market and isn't the international settling currency.

The US being downgraded will cause massive shockwaves in liquidity markets and will lead to tightening and interest rate hikes that will choke off the global recovery.

The tea party constituents either don't understand this or don't care and much of what I've read on the net about this involves dealing with the straw man of the US defaulting. The real threat is the potential downgrade.

S&P and Moodys have said they will downgrade if they don't think the US is serious with their deal. This is why the White House wants a deal to go to 2013. It's not really about the elections. A deal to 2012 will likely mean a downgrade.
 
SoulPlaya said:
You know what, you're right. I just realized that I've been misreading something on wikipedia on how short term capital gains taxes are determined. I genuinely thank you for that. Either way, 15% is far too low, and I say it should be the same as ordinary income tax rates. Still, I hold firm to my previous statement about the Clinton era tax cuts. While I think those making little income shouldn't pay much (and 10% really isn't much), I don't think someone making 200K a year should only pay 15% on capital gains, which is how Obama's plan would be.

Thanks again, BTW.

See, I think a person making 200k paying 15% on capital gains is fine. 200k is middle class. Upper middle class, most definitely, but the majority of their income is still from their paycheck. Capital gains for them, most likely is retirement, college, house, discretionary income, etc.

How I would structure it would be less than 50K would pay zero on capital gains. 50-125k would pay 10%, 125-250k would pay 15%, 250-600k would pay 20%, and 600k plus would pay 35%
 
SoulPlaya said:
I believe 4 trillion, but I may be remembering it wrong.

EDIT: It's 4.6 trillion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14263644

I love how that's phrased as owing money to ourselves when the Federal Reserve is a private entity. Surely we could run our own finances in house without it costing 4.6 trillion dollars over the same period of time.

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford

"Every Congressman, every Senator knows precisely what causes inflation...but can't, [won't] support the drastic reforms to stop it [repeal of the Federal Reserve Act] because it could cost him his job." -- Robert A. Heinlein, Expanded Universe
 
Gonaria said:
See, I think a person making 200k paying 15% on capital gains is fine. 200k is middle class. Upper middle class, most definitely, but the majority of their income is still from their paycheck. Capital gains for them, most likely is retirement, college, house, discretionary income, etc.

How I would structure it would be less than 50K would pay zero on capital gains. 50-125k would pay 10%, 125-250k would pay 15%, 250-600k would pay 20%, and 600k plus would pay 35%
That increased rate at 600K would more than make up for anything lost at the lower level. I would definitely support this structure.
 
I'm so sick of Republicans. Toss those corrupt, bought-and-paid-for lying thieves out on their ears.

I say this as someone who has only ever voted Republican.

(Although I also say this as someone who hasn't voted since 2000.)
 
Guys you know that capitals gains are taxes low because one they involve risk and two come from long term investment, even if you are talking about dividens the company still has to pay corporate taxes before it can pay them, so in a way capital tax is money that was already taxed and we don't want to disensentive it either.


By the way, to those using the NY Times tool, why does it only tries to fix a 400B hole when the US is runing deficits of 1.5Trillion already?
 
SoulPlaya said:
That increased rate at 600K would more than make up for anything lost at the lower level. I would definitely support this structure.

Well, I doubt there is much to be lost at the lower level considering that all of their income is probably going towards expenditures, and the money that is invested is probably going towards long term retirement/college funds like 401ks or Roths
 
Randolph Freelander said:
I'm so sick of Republicans. Toss those corrupt, bought-and-paid-for lying thieves out on their ears.

I say this as someone who has only ever voted Republican.

(Although I also say this as someone who hasn't voted since 2000.)

Significant change in this country will not come about unless a third party candidate wins an election. The two part system is a failure. Republicans are being extremely damaging right now, but Democrats are only a slightly better party in my eyes.
 
QuickSilverD said:
Guys you know that capitals gains are taxes low because one they involve risk and two come from long term investment, even if you are talking about dividens the company still has to pay corporate taxes before it can pay them, so in a way capital tax is money that was already taxed and we don't want to disensentive it either.


By the way, to those using the NY Times tool, why does it only tries to fix a 400B hole when the US is runing deficits of 1.5Trillion already?

I am pretty sure Capital Losses can be written off partially or fully on tax returns too. Increasing Capital Gains taxes from 15% to 20-25% should be a no-brainer.
 
QuickSilverD said:
Guys you know that capitals gains are taxes low because one they involve risk and two come from long term investment, even if you are talking about dividens the company still has to pay corporate taxes before it can pay them, so in a way capital tax is money that was already taxed and we don't want to disensentive it either.

Who cares? Its simply inexcusable that a secretary pays a higher percentage of her total earnings than a billionaire because the billionare gets a majority of his earnings through capital gains.

That is the reason why I left the rate low on the middle class, but hiked it up for the rich
 
Korey said:
Can someone explain this whole debt ceiling thing and negotiations thing in laymans terms?

US: out of money
Democrats: we're willing to cut government programs important to our constituents, but we have to raise revenues, as well
Republicans: we're willing to let you cut goverment programs important to your constituents, so we're completely meeting you half-way.
 
Randolph Freelander said:
US: out of money
Democrats: we're willing to cut government programs important to our constituents, but we have to raise revenues, as well
Republicans: we're willing to let you cut goverment programs important to your constituents, so we're completely meeting you half-way.

Lol, republicans are such douches
 
Korey said:
Can someone explain this whole debt ceiling thing and negotiations thing in laymans terms?

The US goverment is running a deficit, they spend more money than what comes in so to cover the rest of the expenditure the US has to borrow money but there is a limit in how much money they can borrow (the Debt Ceiling) if not raised then the Gov cannot spend any more money than what it has.

The problem comes from the fact that like 40% of the spending of the fed Gov is pay with borrowed money so if they cannot borrow anymore they will be unable to keep the goverment running, or at least some programs would not be able to continue running.
 
Randolph Freelander said:
US: out of money
Democrats: we're willing to cut government programs important to our constituents, but we have to raise revenues, as well
Republicans: we're willing to let you cut goverment programs important to your constituents, so we're completely meeting you half-way.

Can you name one program that the Democrats have said they ARE willing to cut? Just one. They've already flatly said they will not accept cuts to Medicare and Social Security so I'm wondering what government programs they ARE willing to cut.
 
Seriously, get out of America, now.

Once oil hits the shit next year, flying will be a serious luxury, nevermind...eating food.

China's dumping all their US dollars for gold AFAIK, and them and Russia(/Germany?)are in talks with the Japanese about some sort of unified currency.

I expect the US to lose the reserve currency, or broker some deal to levy all the debt on the back of some sort of said unified system. What that'll do to your country, I have no idea. I do know that a "world" currency has been in the works for some time. This massive debt thing could be the very conduit for that to be finalized.

All I know is, your dollars are still worth stuff now. Bank em, move the fuck over to Australia or New Zealand and add a quarter+ of your money to itself.

We're actually little more self sufficient than other countries, being so far away from everyone, so economic asplosions don't seem to effect us as badly as it does everyone else.

tl;dr: GTFO
 
Korey said:
Can someone explain this whole debt ceiling thing and negotiations thing in laymans terms?

1. debt ceiling: arbitrary limit the government can borrow to pay for things for which the congress has already approved. think of it as a permanent, never-ending mortgage that allows us to pay for stuff.

2. why it's a big deal: we're the United States, and our bonds (that's that perma-mortgage thing I mentioned above) always pay. If they don't, all hell breaks loose. Seriously. US Bonds are the ONE zero-risk investment in the world. If that fails, if that zero-risk becomes a non-zero risk, everyone on the planet is a potential victim.

3. democrats want: the ceiling to be raised, business to continue as usual, and potentially to actually borrow MORE money so they can get a few jobs programs running. They also want to allow the bush tax cuts to expire, which cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the history of the world, and if cut, would actually resolve our debt issues (after Iraq and Aghanistan come to an end).

4. democrats are willing to give on: sick people, poor people, extremely poor people, and extremely poor sick elderly people. (medicare, medicaid, and social security).

5. republicans want: the US to default, global calamity, world war III. you might think I'm joking, but they figured out the one thing from WWII that was lost on everyone else -- the rich get a whole lot wealthier during global catastrophes, even if they take a little blame in the short run.

6. republicans are willing to give on: nothing. they want to end the United States and reform it in their own image: a Militaristic Corporate Superpower, bought and sold by the global corporate oligarchy that runs it already.
 
I'm really scared. I'm trying to move. I need to keep my job. The Republicans are holding the world's economy hostage.

This is really fucked up, guys. I don't know if Boehner is going to fold. I really don't. He's a highly principled man (and a gigantic douchebag) and he sticks to his word.
 
Gaborn said:
Can you name one program that the Democrats have said they ARE willing to cut? Just one. They've already flatly said they will not accept cuts to Medicare and Social Security so I'm wondering what government programs they ARE willing to cut.

Um, I'm pretty sure that cuts and restructuring to Social Security and Medicare have been in most of the proposals. Increased revenue is the sticking point, because Republicans are too far into big business' pockets to pull any money out of them.

Say what you will about the size of government, Republican hands are not clean. They've been jolly to spend just as much money as Democrats have over the years. It's time to pay the bill. Even if we erased the yearly deficit immediately, we're still over 14 trillion in the hole. We need to run signfificant surplusses. Frankly, I think it's time to close the loopholes and reinstate tax rates to Clinton levels.
 
PantherLotus said:
1. debt ceiling: arbitrary limit the government can borrow to pay for things for which the congress has already approved. think of it as a permanent, never-ending mortgage that allows us to pay for stuff.

2. why it's a big deal: we're the United States, and our bonds (that's that perma-mortgage thing I mentioned above) always pay. If they don't, all hell breaks loose. Seriously. US Bonds are the ONE zero-risk investment in the world. If that fails, if that zero-risk becomes a non-zero risk, everyone on the planet is a potential victim.

3. democrats want: the ceiling to be raised, business to continue as usual, and potentially to actually borrow MORE money so they can get a few jobs programs running. They also want to allow the bush tax cuts to expire, which cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the history of the world, and if cut, would actually resolve our debt issues (after Iraq and Aghanistan come to an end).

4. democrats are willing to give on: sick people, poor people, extremely poor people, and extremely poor sick elderly people. (medicare, medicaid, and social security).

5. republicans want: the US to default, global calamity, world war III. you might think I'm joking, but they figured out the one thing from WWII that was lost on everyone else -- the rich get a whole lot wealthier during global catastrophes, even if they take a little blame in the short run.

6. republicans are willing to give on: nothing. they want to end the United States and reform it in their own image: a Militaristic Corporate Superpower, bought and sold by the global corporate oligarchy that runs it already.

Source?

Randolph Freelander - I'd accept that if we cut spending to Clinton levels. Fair?
 
^ THE INTERNET, USE IT

Gaborn said:
Can you name one program that the Democrats have said they ARE willing to cut? Just one. They've already flatly said they will not accept cuts to Medicare and Social Security so I'm wondering what government programs they ARE willing to cut.

Stop lying. Unless "pelosi = democrats." Some other person could just as easily say, "obama = democrats," and he's willing to put everything on the table -- ss/medicare ages, medicaid cuts, everything.
 
Wow thanks all, I totally understand it now.

Is the general public aware of the Republicans and how they're acting? I just saw a poll somewhere that said most people don't approve of how Republicans are handling it, so does this mean they'll probably lose a lot next year?
 
PantherLotus said:
1. debt ceiling: arbitrary limit the government can borrow to pay for things for which the congress has already approved. think of it as a permanent, never-ending mortgage that allows us to pay for stuff.

2. why it's a big deal: we're the United States, and our bonds (that's that perma-mortgage thing I mentioned above) always pay. If they don't, all hell breaks loose. Seriously. US Bonds are the ONE zero-risk investment in the world. If that fails, if that zero-risk becomes a non-zero risk, everyone on the planet is a potential victim.

3. democrats want: the ceiling to be raised, business to continue as usual, and potentially to actually borrow MORE money so they can get a few jobs programs running. They also want to allow the bush tax cuts to expire, which cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the history of the world, and if cut, would actually resolve our debt issues (after Iraq and Aghanistan come to an end).

4. democrats are willing to give on: sick people, poor people, extremely poor people, and extremely poor sick elderly people. (medicare, medicaid, and social security).

5. republicans want: the US to default, global calamity, world war III. you might think I'm joking, but they figured out the one thing from WWII that was lost on everyone else -- the rich get a whole lot wealthier during global catastrophes, even if they take a little blame in the short run.

6. republicans are willing to give on: nothing. they want to end the United States and reform it in their own image: a Militaristic Corporate Superpower, bought and sold by the global corporate oligarchy that runs it already.

Holy shit what? The Republicans and Democrats are on the same damn team man, there will be no default, only more and more inflation because this debt will not and can not be paid down. The rich are in bed with all of our politicians except for a very small minority if that, and the shit is going to hit the fan regardless of what happens with this pointless debt ceiling drama that is happening right now.

They can put a band aid on this for now and raise the debt limit, but it's just kicking the can down the road and making it even worse.
 
unomas said:
Holy shit what? The Republicans and Democrats are on the same damn team man, there will be no default, only more and more inflation because this debt will not and can not be paid down. The rich are in bed with all of our politicians except for a very small minority if that, and the shit is going to hit the fan regardless of what happens with this pointless debt ceiling drama that is happening right now.

Hey, I'm not into conspiracy theories (hyperbolic #5 and #6 above notwithstanding), but even yours doesn't account for the wildcard that is a 85-member freshmen republican tea-bagging caucus that don't understand or believe what's happening.
 
PantherLotus said:
Hey, I'm not into conspiracy theories (hyperbolic #5 and #6 above notwithstanding), but even yours doesn't account for the wildcard that is a 85-member freshmen republican tea-bagging caucus that don't understand or believe what's happening.
Do you believe there is even the smallest possibility that the debt ceiling will not be raised?
 
Gonaria said:
Well, I doubt there is much to be lost at the lower level considering that all of their income is probably going towards expenditures, and the money that is invested is probably going towards long term retirement/college funds like 401ks or Roths
I understand, I meant lost in terms of government revenue. Like I said, though, you can do Obama's proposal on my plan, and it still solves the debt problem. My plan is perfect, man, lol.
 
PantherLotus said:
Stop lying. Unless "pelosi = democrats." Some other person could just as easily say, "obama = democrats," and he's willing to put everything on the table -- ss/medicare ages, medicaid cuts, everything.

Can you show me where Obama has said Social Security and Medicare are on the table?

Hoyer implied it a week ago when he said
"Democrats have said that everything needs to be on the table," Hoyer said last week, "and have put everything on the table."

and then he said

"We have made it very clear that we have no intention of supporting [a bill] that cuts beneficiaries' benefits," Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday.

Which to me suggests (between Hoyer and Pelosi) the Dems in the House won't accept such cuts, which we should know anyway since that would be a great issue to take to seniors (no matter how necessary reforming entitlements is).
 
PantherLotus said:
Hey, I'm not into conspiracy theories (hyperbolic #5 and #6 above notwithstanding), but even yours doesn't account for the wildcard that is a 85-member freshmen republican tea-bagging caucus that don't understand or believe what's happening.

Raising the debt ceiling is just delaying the inevitable, and that's an ever increasing load of debt, and if you think we're getting out of Afghanistan anytime soon..........I've got a bridge to sell ya.
 
Korey said:
Wow thanks all, I totally understand it now.

Is the general public aware of the Republicans and how they're acting? I just saw a poll somewhere that said most people don't approve of how Republicans are handling it, so does this mean they'll probably lose a lot next year?
Who knows. Voters are a fickle bunch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom