Jump to content

White House, Republicans Strike Tenative Deal To Raise Debt Ceiling

R68 Subway Car

By R68 Subway Car,
in Off Topic Lounge

Recommended Posts


Urbanfortitude

Urbanfortitude

Posted
Posted

To be honest I think a lot of us were thinking it was going to be a last minute thing where the deal gets struck before the deadline by hours/days. Still I'm getting a little tired of the fact that we have to fall within eye-shot of certain doom before any sort of compromise takes place in the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

Agreed. This was nothing other than another show. Rasing the debt ceiling does nothing to address the main issue of the government not being able to curb spending. I have no problems with taxing the rich, but the 'tax and spend' mantra is going to bankrupt [if not already] the US out of existence.

So both parties can play like fools, but neither of them are doing anything for us the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Messino

Messino

Posted
Posted

Rasiaing the debt ceiling isnt going to do anything any way because moodys is still going to drop out credit from a AAA rating

 

damned if you do, damned if you dont... ITs a double edged sword. Like others have said, its a bandaid on something that will need major surgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
Posted
I would like to thank the puppet performers from the RNC and the DNC for putting on a spectacle that the world honestly enjoyed. I can't wait until your next performance.

 

Bravo ********, bravo!

:tup:

 

 

Coming up next. :cool:

Sen. Harry Reid takes on Speaker John Bohener in a special drop until you drop edition of "Celebrity Death Match" Wrestling lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
engineerboy6561

engineerboy6561

Posted
Posted
Agreed. This was nothing other than another show. Rasing the debt ceiling does nothing to address the main issue of the government not being able to curb spending. I have no problems with taxing the rich, but the 'tax and spend' mantra is going to bankrupt [if not already] the US out of existence.

So both parties can play like fools, but neither of them are doing anything for us the people.

 

At this point the tax codes do need reforming, but "reforming the tax code" and "cutting taxes" are not the same thing. What we have right now is essentially a maze of Swiss cheese comprised of differing federal, state and local taxes. I choose that analogy because the ordinary guy who plays by the rules and pays his taxes when they come due no matter how onerous gets lost in the maze and finds his bank account half empty by the time it's over with because of burgeoning property taxes, obscure little rules, etc. while the millionaire or large corporation hires a lawyer (or posse thereof), finds every single hole in the tax code, and proceeds to drive an Abrams M-1 through it. This cannot continue.

 

If you want to reform the tax code, consider adding three additional brackets, starting at $250,000 annual income, $500,000 annual income, and $1,000,000 annual income, taxed at 45%, 55%, and 65% respectively. Considering that there are around 13 million individuals making $100,000 or higher and a fair number of them would fall into at least one of the new brackets, that alone could easily bring in a couple billion or more. Also, close as many loopholes as possible that corporations and the wealthy can use to shelter or avoid reporting income (including taxing stock options, capital gains, and other nonmonetary forms of compensation as income) and restore the estate tax. Finally, instead of giving tax breaks to corporations who manufacture in America, start subjecting offshore goods to tariffs and set up a second corporate tax code with much higher rates and fewer opportunities for deductions for any company headquartered in America that manufactures goods elsewhere.

 

Also, while we're on the topic of tax reform, how about this: cut the FICA rates to 5% and 1.2% (roughly 20 percent) but have it apply to all personal income over and above the first $25,000 instead of only the first $106,800 earned, and then allow 25-30% of the available surplus to be applied toward debt reduction each year. That should guarantee a continued surplus for Medicare and Social Security, but because the government is only allowed to apply a percentage of each year's surplus to anything else and then only to reducing the national debt we can count on Social Security and Medicare being fully self-supporting.

 

Finally, if you want to really reduce spending to government programs such as welfare, Food Stamps/TANF, WIC, etc. you need to restructure how those programs are administered rather than simply cut funding. During and after the Reagan administration, federal programs such as these were removed from the hands of the federal government and given to states and localities, with the Feds providing the funding. I'm not going to argue about whether or not it worked then because it's beside the point, but the fact is that it's hardly working out now, largely because a lot of state governments are incredibly corrupt and either disconnected from their constituents or connected in all the wrong ways (a la Boss Tweed). This means that everything costs way more than it should and takes way longer than it should. Cutting funding to the states will only cause higher state and local taxes (including the hated property taxes), and cutting funding while capping taxes will lead to California because the state politicians' piece of the pie comes before services to the residents of that state.

 

If you allow the Feds to actually administer the programs themselves you'll probably cut costs by a very sizable amount without having to cut services at all, first because you'll have dropped an entire layer of beaurocracy in one fell swoop, and second because you won't have men like Efrain Gonzales and Vic Kohring lining up in front of Congress demanding blank-check grants anymore.

 

Finally, if you really want to cut spending the Defense Department and Homeland Security should no longer be immune to budget overviews and restrictions, especially given the fact that a number of their development projects (including the Lockheed Martin F-35 project in particular) have a nasty habit of coming in way late and way over budget. Also, the TSA should be divested from DHS and disbanded; the responisbility to protect our nation's airports should be traded off to state troopers where possible; given the number of odd and quite frankly baseless grants given to random locales in the name of terrorism prevention after 9/11 it might be a good idea to demand that that money be put to use in a way we can all see amd measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

Iraq, should be done and over. Afghanistan, they killed OBL, so why are they still there? Libya, a total mistake that the EU dragged us into. So I do agree the military spending needs to be reduced. But that should NOT be the ONLY area to trim costs on. there's probably some domestic spending that should be cut and redirected. Medicare and SS needs to be restructured so they don't cost so much.

 

Also what happened to the promised infrastructure repairs Obama promised? that's where those bailout packages should've been sent to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubwayGuy

SubwayGuy

Posted
Posted
It's a lousy deal and confirms the theory that Dems have no balls and Republicans have no brains...

 

The only potentially good thing is the massive military funding cut, which if considered part of the whole cut, could mean we have to cut very little at all.

 

The Democrats have balls...to take your rights away in the name of public safety and what's "good" for "us." (note quotes)

 

The Republicans have brains...they use them every day when they plot and scheme how to keep what they have, and make the public pay for it all.

 

Stop giving your money to these people. They want to run for office let them...with their own funds. They're not going to do what you want anyway, only the rich and the corporations...unless the system changes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept