Almost as ridiculous as a government having an arbitrary debt limit that can't even be enforced Couldn't help but notice that there was no problem increasing the debt limit over a half dozen times under GW who was the first leader in history to wage war while lowering taxes And last time I checked Obama said he wouldn't use the trillion dollar coin
I'm saying the fault for the spending under Bush falls on both the Republicans and Democrats, but the Democrats are solely to blame for the spending under Obama. In other words, the Republicans are occasionally responsible, but the Democrats have no shame or sense.
Fine. Cut it in half, and you save $300 billion per year. Yet, to actually balance the budget in the long term, you still need to cut at least another $700 billion per year from somewhere. Where are you going to get it?
How much does freezing pay growth for elected officials, cutting all foreign aid, making all elected officials buy their own health insurance, limiting the number of tax deductions a corporation can take, creating tariffs on foreign electronics and imported cars, and not lending 7 trillion dollars on .001% interest to banks that turn around and buy government bonds for 2.75% interest save?
It's as ridiculous a notion as the one the Republicans have of 'letting the U.S. default on it's payments because everybody hates their ideas', which is why the coin was brought up in the first place. Obama said there would be no cuts attached to the next self-imposed debt ceiling fiasco because Republicans don't want to pay the bills they've incurred, and he meant it. When he told them bitches he wasn't playing games, however, he was lying...who needs a coin when you have the 14th amendment!
Any spending Obama sees fit is justified in the eyes of those who elected him. Perhaps if Republicans hadn't been so eager to let Bush double the debt, people would take them seriously when they talk about spending. It's taxes that need an overhaul, first.
Addendum: In fact, that's the real reason the debt crisis exists: Because expecting workers to work that aren't paid enough to afford to do so is unsustainable without running up enough debt to cover the difference.
No kidding. It is cheaper to not work these days...I'm pissed that the payroll tax was increased, too. Let every corporation with overseas operations not related to national security eat the tax -- it's too early to hit working stiffs with this shit, for Christ's sake! It does nothing for growth. Gas was also a biggie for me, as well. I used to drive an hour one way to work. I'm all for nationalizing, for sure -- we pay for it all already.
I'm actually not upset the payroll tax is extended. It's like how if you contribute less to your IRA, then you eventually get less money from it, so you don't necessarily want to drop that contribution.
On the whole though, yeah, that's something the conservative retards don't understand. There is a definite gap where you start working and make too much to stay on benefits, yet you don't make enough to make up for the benefits you lost, especially when you factor in the other costs of working (more need for transportation, more need for grooming, daycare if you have kids, etc.). You can end up in this perverse system where moving from welfare (or other assistance) to working can actually leave you worse off.
And of course, instead of doing the intelligent thing and raising wages & benefits so working is always beneficial, the conservatives either retardedly reduce benefits (so you get to be just as fucked while on benefits as you are working, so absolutely nothing you do leaves you better off, yay), or retardedly insult people for not being dumb and being willing to leave themselves worse off anyway just to get a job.
Actually Schemer doesn't like that the liberals understand how reality works and that a job can't be worked unless a worker can afford to work it, so every job that exists deserves at least a living wage by pure logic divorced from retarded ideology.
And that's the central problem with Liberalism: The Liberal philosophy of what constitutes a "right" is too far-reaching and indiscriminate. Society will never be able to support all of it, because in the Liberal mind, everyone has a "right" to have every comfort the average person has.
But some people are worse than average at supporting themselves, so giving them average reward for sub-standard work negates the point of trying to improve. Instead of having everyone help pull the wagon, more and more people jump into the wagon while fewer and fewer people keep on pulling it. Eventually, there just aren't enough people supporting themselves to keep the wagon moving, and it stops. The system breaks down. The debt crises we're seeing throughout the democratic socialist nations are the real-world manifestations of this collapse.
We would not be discussing this if the lunatic fringe of American politics were not attempting to hold the country's economy hostage.
As much fun as it would be to mint trillion-dollar coins (perhaps bearing the faces of the Koch brothers?) it is unlikely to happen, because it would be too easy for Republicans to capitalize on politically.
(perhaps bearing the faces of the Koch brothers?) I'd much prefer the likeness of them engaged in a degenerate sex-act, maybe a Rusty Venture. Wouldn't it be hilarious for the USA to be the only country in the world with coinage that pretty much says "fuck you"?
The currency is, unless it is inherently valuable (Like a gold coin) is a reserve note. A way of saying 'This is just a placeholder for the thing of actual value.'
The problem with this *stupid* trillion dollar coin idea is this:
What is it representing? It sure as hell isn't worth a trillion dollars in and of itself. It's not like it's a sliver of some rare element wrapped in platinum.
What is it a placeholder *for*?
So when you casually toss a TRILLION dollars into the pond, ALL money would be less valuable.
AKA gumball machines that accept five dollar bills.
The coin is nothing more than a political move. An idiotic thing that the administration, because they believe deep down that we're a nation of idiots and we won't call him out on it. That we'll believe it's the magical silver bullet solution we've been conditioned to expect.
Hope that explains things. No, it doesn't. Firstly, the US dollar isn't a placeholder for things of actual value other than the credit of the United States. It's a fiat currency. Secondly, the trillion dollar coin has no effect on inflation because it isn't injected into the economy. It's a debt being paid back to the Federal Reserve. It's not a trillion dollars just going out.
Why are we in this situation where we have to decide between making imaginary money and defaulting?
We aren't. We have another option. Raise the debt limit. Pay your bills. The party of so-called fiscal responsibility is playing economic terrorism. We're in this situation because House Republicans are bat-shit-fuck-crazy, and they're a threat to the United States economy, and the world economy as a whole.
Your teenage offspring steals your credit card and goes on a spending binge. Do you either let them keep the card and just tell the credit card company to raise the debt limit, hoping your child will stop the spending spree even though you know them to spend like a drunken sailor, or do you stop the child from spending all of your money?
How exactly would this lead to hyper-inflation? If this were done, then the system would essentially run in the same way it has since the gold standard was revoked. The debt ceiling was raised as a matter of course for nearly all those years, for some of them it was automatically raised without a vote whenever a new budget was passed. The debt ceiling doesn't even do what most of the idiots crying about think it does. It does NOT allow higher spending. It allows the treasury to borrow money in order to pay for debts the congress has already incurred.
Let's see... you don't want to pay the debts by printing money, you don't want to pay the debts by raising revenue, you don't even want to pay the debts with a combination of raising revenue and cutting spending. There are only 2 options left and both are catastrophic.
You could not pay the debts and let our credit rating plummet costing the nation billions if not trillions over time. Or you could cut60% of the spending which would plummet the economy into a decades long depression.
Cutting spending is not catastrophic. Don't be stupid. This country existed and survived before Obama shoved a new $1 trillion/year entitlement down our throats. This country existed and survived before Lyndon Johnson did something similar.
In fact, economic growth was far better before each of those incidents than after.
All right! We can make massive spending cuts. But we'll have to include a flat 40% cut on the military budget (structured, of course, to take effect gradually over the next decade) and elimination of Homeland Security.
That's a savings of some three trillion in the coming decade? How is that for a start? :3
I see what you're trying there. With the catface and the snark and all of that.
I'm actually pretty fucking sick of that coming from your side.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of cuts across the board. But one of the reasons nobody attacks us (As a nation, not as terrorists) is because of our military might. Sleeping giant and all that jazz.
While we could do without the TSA and the DHS to an extent, the reason having a military budget as high as ours is part of why we have as much safety as we do. And yeah, let's cut that military spending! That way, when a nation like Haiti suffers a catastrophe, the military will be able to go over and provide aid and reli-oooohhh wait... no it won't.
Really fucking sickens me, the level of ignorance you people exhibit. Most of the costs in the military don't come from developing new weapons, fighters and so on. It comes from feeding that military and paying for our overseas relief efforts.
The cuts you want will see incidents like Benghazi become much more common.
So trade your snark for some common bloody sense, o' exemplar of the failures of our school system.
Ignorance? No, I'm quite aware of what is going on with the U.S. military.
It is bloated, demoralised and largely ineffective. Even after thousands lost and trillions spent, it has failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (That these 'wars' were patently unwinnable is another issue.)Its reckless spending on no-bid contracts and general over-reliance on corporate services have made our military what must be one of the least efficient on the face of the planet.
The United States could easily protect all its multifarious assets and interests with a military budget one third the current size - especially if the government ceases to involve the military in wasteful, pointless wars.
Cutting spending is not catastrophic. Don't be stupid.
I didn't say cutting spending would be catastrophic. But using ONLY cuts to balance the budget would mean cutting all spending by about 60% Cuts that large would ABSOLUTELY be catastrophic to the economy, to long term growth, and to our national competitiveness in nearly every arena.
This country existed and survived before Obama shoved a new $1 trillion/year entitlement down our throats. This country existed and survived before Lyndon Johnson did something similar.
Get over it, we've been through this a dozen times, Obamacare is spending neutral in the medium term, and actually SAVES money after 10 years. Secondly it wasn't shoved down our throats, a majority of Americans voted for him, and for his party in the last election, and they firmly ran on this as a major topic. Just because YOU don't like or want it doesn't mean your voice is the only one.
In fact, economic growth was far better before each of those incidents than after.
In Fact the largest and longest term of economic growth in U.s. history was during the Clinton administration. So run by me how there was a period of growth that was better than the best of all time back before Lyndon Johnson was President?
Get over it, we've been through this a dozen times, Obamacare is spending neutral in the medium term, and actually SAVES money after 10 years.
The Act is spending-neutral through supposed $1.2 trillion cuts over 10 years to Medicare and Medicaid. The actual insurance provisions are quite costly, of the same magnitude in the other direction. If we kept the Medicare and Medicaid cuts in the Act, but repealed the insurance mandates and exchange provisions, the deficit would be solved. And simply preventing the government takeover of the health insurance market certainly would not be catastrophic.
If we kept the Medicare and Medicaid cuts in the Act, but repealed the insurance mandates and exchange provisions, the deficit would be solved. And simply preventing the government takeover of the health insurance market certainly would not be catastrophic.
LMFAO, that would essentially end the programs, which would again, be a catastrophe, both for the nation's economy, and for the health and well-being of it's citizens.
Secondly get off the government take over nonsense. You constantly claim out of one side of your mouth that the government is so completely inept that it could never provide reasonable medical care for a reasonable rate, and then scream out of the other side that if the do offer a service in this market place there will be an end to private insurance. Somehow they are so horrible that no one can compete and everyone flocks to their service?
Then tell me which would be more catastrophic: Ending Medicare and Medicaid voluntarily to balance the budget; OR Ending Medicare and Medicaid through national default because the budget was never balanced?