The Dark Knight Rises [Thread]

[Fez Hammersticks]

@APBREAKING: White House: Obama will veto any bill extending tax cuts for those making more than $250K.

Sha'blam!

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

no surprise here.

 

[maxiep]

Heading over the fiscal cliff. I call shotgun!

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Heading over the fiscal cliff. I call shotgun!

You don't think they'll have an extension, then another extension, etc...i mean its December, you can't expect congress to work. they'll shut down basically.

 

[maxiep]

You don't think they'll have an extension, then another extension, etc...i mean its December, you can't expect congress to work. they'll shut down basically.

I think we go over. I partially think the Republicans want to let the Democrats have their tax hike agenda to show everyone what they were against. We're not governing right now; we're having pissing matches.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think so too. The thing is, its not that bad of a strategy to let the Dems get what they want and let them take the blame for the blowback. What the republicans have been doing, fighting for what they feel is right has obviously not helped them much.

 

[julius]

first off, is it really a cliff? I read somewhere it's much more of a mild drop.

Also, didn't Presidents have line item veto power once? Whatever happened to that?

 

[maxiep]

first off, is it really a cliff? I read somewhere it's much more of a mild drop.

Also, didn't the President have line item veto power? Whatever happened to that?

The tax increase will result in an increase equivalent to 3.5% of GDP. We've been growing at 1.5%-2% annual GDP increases. Do the math. We hit this point, we go into recession. However, that's the government for which the people voted. I think we should allow President Obama to increase taxes as much as he wants to pay for the spending he desires. Like I said, I'm on board. Let the people experience the tax rates to pay for the government they wanted.

 

[PapaG]

I think we go over. I partially think the Republicans want to let the Democrats have their tax hike agenda to show everyone what they were against. We're not governing right now; we're having pissing matches.

I think the GOP should give Obama what he wants and raise taxes on everyone making over $200k. Let's get this economic collapse expedited.

On a related note, I heard from a customer today who ships literally thousands of UPS items a day that he was told UPS is going to be cutting routes and service nationwide, which isn't a good sign for commerce.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think the GOP should give Obama what he wants and raise taxes on everyone making over $200k. Let's get this economic collapse expedited.

On a related note, I heard from a customer today who ships literally thousands of UPS items a day that he was told UPS is going to be cutting routes and service nationwide, which isn't a good sign for commerce.

Live and let die.

{Poasted via palm pilot}

 

[julius]

I think the GOP should give Obama what he wants and raise taxes on everyone making over $200k. Let's get this economic collapse expedited.

On a related note, I heard from a customer today who ships literally thousands of UPS items a day that he was told UPS is going to be cutting routes and service nationwide, which isn't a good sign for commerce.

A serious question.

Why would the economy collapse, when it didn't in the 90's?

 

[PapaG]

A serious question.

Why would the economy collapse, when it didn't in the 90's?

Because of trillion dollar annual deficits, debt, three cycles in three years of QE, and the bond markets diminishing. None of that was a factor in the '90s, and there also isn't a paper wealth dot.com bubble to build up the credit market. Plus, raising taxes on the "rich" just means they will pass on money to consumers, and it's already known that at best, $900 billion over 10 years is all that raising the marginal rate will mean in tax revenue. That's less than one year of an Obama budget.

These things do matter. At some point, China will stop buying up our debt.

My question to you is this. When it is obvious, even by Obama's admission, that raising taxes on the 'rich' isn't going to do more than make a small dent in the debt, why do those taxes need to be raised?

 

[julius]

same reason why just cutting taxes won't do it. Because you should do BOTH not just one.

 

[PapaG]

same reason why just cutting taxes won't do it. Because you should do BOTH not just one.

I'm more concerned about cutting spending, but that's not on the table anymore, other than sequestration, which is going to cost a lot of people their jobs in the military and in the defense contractor market.

Boeing just announced a 30% workforce reduction today for their defense workers.

 

[julius]

I'm more concerned about cutting spending, but that's not on the table anymore, other than sequestration, which is going to cost a lot of people their jobs in the military and in the defense contractor market.

Boeing just announced a 30% workforce reduction today for their defense workers.

well, it still is on the table. saying it's not, doesn't make it so.

Also I love how you're implying that Boeing announcing that cut wasn't going to happen had Romney been elected.

 

[PapaG]

well, it still is on the table. saying it's not, doesn't make it so.

Also I love how you're implying that Boeing announcing that cut wasn't going to happen had Romney been elected.

The President implies a lot of things, and outright lies about others. Some schmoe on a message board should get more leeway than Obama, IMO.

 

[PapaG]

What really amazes me is how people on this board, who I assume are at least somewhat intelligent and successful, really do buy into the line that "conservatives" (I am probably more socially liberal than most posters here) and the GOP really do hate women and minorities.

Inclusive politics are out.

Balkanization is in.

The next step are obvious for students of history.

 

[maxiep]

A serious question.

Why would the economy collapse, when it didn't in the 90's?

The tax side of the question is that only the income tax rates would be the same under Clinton. The capital gains rate would change massively and there would be a whole bunch of new taxes from Obamacare.

On the economy side, the economy of the 90s had been growing at a 4%-5%, so it could withstand an extra tax burden. We've been growing at 1.5%-2% and have had the quantitative easing and stimulus contributing most of that figure. Those extra taxes will drive the economy into recession because it's fundamentally weaker.

 

[Sinobas]

China actually only owns about 1 trillion of our debt. The biggest holder is the Federal Reserve itself.

This topic boggles my mind, because the debt has grown to such a large number, I don't see how we could ever possibly pay the principal? It will be a big enough challenge just to balance our budget, and the interest on the debt is already a huge chunk of our budget.

I don't understand why we even need forgien investors when the Fed itself is able to own the debt. Why put real investors at risk? Congress may as well just skip all this banking crap and conjure up the money it needs to pay for things.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

A serious question.

Why would the economy collapse, when it didn't in the 90's?

here is a nifty little chart, not that it does not cover the last year

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government

scroll down third chart

 

[DaLincolnJones]

this asnwers your question somewhat

Report: Dependence on government up 23 percent under President Obama
posted at 3:45 pm on February 8, 2012 by Tina Korbe
President Barack Obama has proved his adeptness at exploiting the vote pump: Dependence on government has increased by 23 percent under his administration, according to the Heritage Foundation 2012 Index of Dependence on Government.

More people than ever before — 67.3 million Americans — depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. Consider: The nation committed more than 15 times the resources in 2010 than in 1962 to pay for people who depend on the government. More than 70 percent of the nation’s spending goes to dependence programs, up from 28.3 percent in 1962 and 48.5 percent in 1990. The Index grew 8.1 percent in 2010 alone.

So, lest you think the increase in dependence stems primarily from temporary, recession-related rises in flexible spending programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, note well that increased dependence has been a steady trend for the entire decade the Heritage Foundation has released its index.

At the same time, the percentage of the population that pays no federal income taxes whatsoever has also increased. In 1984, just 14.8 percent of Americans — or 34.8 million tax filers — paid no federal income taxes; in 2009, 49.5 percent — or 151.7 million tax filers — paid nothing.

Also coincidentally, individuals and local entities now provide less assistance to needy members of society today than they have historically. Before World War II, mutual-aid, religious and education organizations once provided the majority of housing assistance and financial aid; after World War II, the federal and state governments began to provide the bulk of low-cost housing and financial help. Same story with health care.

Heritage experts Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrell explain why government assistance is less conducive of human flourishing than the help civil society historically provided:

This shift from local, community-based, mutual-aid assistance to anonymous government payments has clearly altered the relationship between the receiver and the provider of the assistance. In the past, a person in need depended on help from people and organizations in his or her local community. The community representatives were generally aware of the person’s needs and tailored the assistance to meet those needs within the community’s budgetary constraints. Today, housing and other needs are addressed by government employees to whom the person in need is a complete stranger, and who have few or no ties to the community in which the needy person lives.

Both cases of aid involve a dependent relationship. However, support provided by families, churches, and other civil society groups aims to restore a person to full flourishing and personal responsibility, and, ultimately, to be able to aid another person in turn. This kind of reciprocal expectation does not characterize the dependent relationship with the political system. The former relationship is essential to the existence of civil society itself. The latter is usually based on one-sided aid without accountability for a person’s regained responsibility for self and toward his community. Indeed, the “success” of such government programs is frequently measured by the program’s growth rather than by whether it helps recipients to escape dependence. While the dependent relationship with civil society leads to a balance between the interests of the needy person and the community, the dependent relationship with the government runs the risk of generating political pressure from interest groups—such as health care organizations, nonprofit organizations, and the aid recipients themselves—to expand and cement federal support.
The Index points to two crucial steps the nation needs to take: We need to (a) reweave the fabric of civil society, strengthening and appreciating the ties that bind, rather than finding them restrictive and (b) REFORM ENTITLEMENTS!

At this point, it’s useless to debate whether the weakening of civil society led to increased government involvement or the other way around; it’s just time to rebuild a sense of community from the ground up. Here’s an idea: If you don’t already have this kind of relationship with your neighbors, offer to loan ‘em an egg if they ever need one! I’m not joking. If we’re serious about not wanting the government to interfere in our lives, then we can’t afford to live in a bubble, oblivious to the needs of those around us. I know it gets old to contribute endlessly and you’re probably tired of it; you probably already do more than your part — plus pay taxes. But a little more can’t hurt! Mobility and technology make it all too easy to zone out; please don’t. As this Index makes clear, we’re already paying the price for our own negligence.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Gold I found on another forum:

The GOP women/minority outreach program: