# American Debt



## Blutide (Jul 17, 2011)

I got to talking to an older gentlemen at work today, and it was eye opening as well as depressing. WTF man, we are gone man, politics have gotten to an all time low, 15 TRILLION debt, and really what way out do we have? 

Meh, I haven't been around a lot, excuse if this has been posted a lot. But what is your take on it, American, Other countries, please post your thoughts on the matter. I like hearing and talking about this with some views on the table.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2011)

*enlightening

Personally, I think politicians should have cuts in their pay in order to pay for it rather than just use our money but that's just me :V


----------



## Blutide (Jul 17, 2011)

Aleu said:


> *enlightening
> 
> Personally, I think politicians should have cuts in their pay in order to pay for it rather than just use our money but that's just me :V


 
They do get paid godly amounts of money, jeez... And fixed, I am tired this time of night.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 17, 2011)

Politicians are mostly paid by donors and not the government. You could eliminate their pay and even their benefits and it would be irrelevant with regards to the national budget.

Our current debt is actually quite manageable. Why do I say this? Because people will loan us money at ridiculously low interest rates. When people are throwing low or no interest loans at you, you WANT to be in debt because you can profit from it. 

Really, what matters is whether the debt is increasing without bound or decreasing. Assuming we stop spending so much on our wars (hah!), our long term spending is in fact quite manageable with one exception. That exception is that if we do not bring our rising healthcare costs under control, Medicare and Medicaid will eventually consume the entire budget. Were we to effectively control costs as in other first world countries, we would have no trouble slowly paying off our debt going into the future.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 17, 2011)

American debt is the sad result of individual Americans not saving any of their money but spending like it was the last day of their lives every day. The American savings rate was less than 1% while the Japanese savings rate was 15% as late as 2001. So as we continued to waste money the Japanese held on to more and more of theirs, meaning that by the time the Great Recession hit in 2008, they were well-stocked and well-prepared to survive a protracted global bear market. Japan will survive this global economic catastrophe. Our entire nation, on the other hand, will probably fall into greater debt until the nations no longer loan us money. Then, America will become dichotomized between the dirt-poor who not only have no money but no future without an expensive education or government help, and the ultra-wealthy who will feast on the misfortunes of the former and use the government to create large personal empires of wealth. Social services will cease to exist and all people of society will then have to fend for themselves because the government is too poor to pay for those services, including the police. Many Americans will flee to other nations, because the American Dream of upward mobility will only exist for the CEOs, government officials, and private business owners. But the worst hasn't even begun- with no more police units, the only form of justice will be vigilante groups who take justice into their own hands and will turn the US into a place much like feudal Japan or the Wild West or even modern-day Mexico.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Jul 17, 2011)

It's depressing, but after a certain point of reading the papers and piling the bad news up, you just stop caring.

At the least, raise politician taxes. My dad has the same wages, but gets much less due to taxes. What i'm wondering is why are the people a government represents paying for political inefficiency? i don't understand


----------



## RedSavage (Jul 17, 2011)

oh yay this will soon be a right ol' leftist, rightist, and 'lol im glad im not american' split thread soon


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 17, 2011)

But I am an American and it truly makes me feel sad that this is the future of America. But we made our bad choices and we'll justly die as a result.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 17, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> But I am an American and it truly makes me feel sad that this is the future of America. But we made our bad choices and we'll justly die as a result.


 
That there's defeatist talk, partner.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Jul 17, 2011)

^well more like chinese but who am i to judge


----------



## Unsilenced (Jul 17, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Politicians are mostly paid by donors and not the government. You could eliminate their pay and even their benefits and it would be irrelevant with regards to the national budget.
> 
> Our current debt is actually quite manageable. Why do I say this? Because people will loan us money at ridiculously low interest rates. When people are throwing low or no interest loans at you, you WANT to be in debt because you can profit from it.
> 
> Really, what matters is whether the debt is increasing without bound or decreasing. Assuming we stop *spending so much on our wars (hah!)*, our long term spending is in fact quite manageable with one exception. That exception is that if we do not bring our rising healthcare costs under control, Medicare and Medicaid will eventually consume the entire budget. Were we to effectively control costs as in other first world countries, we would have no trouble slowly paying off our debt going into the future.


 
I recommend you go take a look at what it's really being spent on. IIRC, we could go Costa Rican and ditch our military and we'd STILL be sinking deeper into debt. Medicare and medicade aren't just sidenotes in this issue.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 18, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I recommend you go take a look at what it's really being spent on. IIRC, we could go Costa Rican and ditch our military and we'd STILL be sinking deeper into debt. Medicare and medicade aren't just sidenotes in this issue.


 
While Medicare and Medicaid may be highly inefficient, they do not yet represent an anomalously large portion of our budget when compared to other advanced countries. What makes the US budget truly unique is the batshit crazy percentage devoted to various forms of military and defense spending.

On average, the gap between tax revenues and expenditures during the Bush administration was 2% of GDP. You could cover much of this by cutting our ability to send tens of thousands of troops to a random middle-eastern country on a moment's notice. The rest you could cover by messing with taxes to try and bring revenue as a percentage of GDP closer to 20%, which really isn't much to ask.


----------



## Aden (Jul 18, 2011)

People are going to continue loaning money to the US and the US is never going to pay down the debt by any significant amount. Every country knows this. It's just the way stuff works nowadays.


----------



## Aetius (Jul 18, 2011)

If we let china buy capital, they will give us more cash.

Works for me! :v



Aden said:


> People are going to continue loaning money to the US  and the US is never going to pay down the debt by any significant  amount. Every country knows this. It's just the way stuff works  nowadays.



And if we decided to "pay them back", we would just give them zeppelinlods of currency.

This massive addition of currency will only work to create inflation that would only devastate the foreign country's economy!

Its best if we don't pay back so soon. Think of it as a secret weapon against the Chinese!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> While Medicare and Medicaid may be highly inefficient, they do not yet represent an anomalously large portion of our budget when compared to other advanced countries. What makes the US budget truly unique is the batshit crazy percentage devoted to various forms of military and defense spending.
> 
> On average, the gap between tax revenues and expenditures during the Bush administration was 2% of GDP. You could cover much of this by cutting our ability to send tens of thousands of troops to a random middle-eastern country on a moment's notice. The rest you could cover by messing with taxes to try and bring revenue as a percentage of GDP closer to 20%, which really isn't much to ask.



Ending the wars will hardly make a dent into America's dept. As of right now, last time I checked, the wars have cost America about 1.29 trillion dollars. (and thats over a span of around 10 years) When we are 15 trillion in debt, that is hardly a drop in the bucket.

Now, Medicare and Medicaid cost 703 billion dollars *annually*. Social Security costs 701 billion dollars *annually*.Thats 1.4 trillion dollars spent annually. Where as the defense budget is 689 billion dollars annually.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security consist of 43% of the United States annual budget. Where as the defense budget is only 20%. 

The money the country has spent in the past 10 years on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security covers nearly all of the U.S National Debt... So, if the country wants to make a big dent into the debt problem, why would you suggest going after the defense budget and the war budget when we have spent almost 15 trillion dollars in 10 years on entitlement programs...


----------



## Lobar (Jul 18, 2011)

There's too much focus on the debt.  Spending cuts can slow it from getting worse, but can't actually pay it off.  We need to do whatever it takes kick the economy in the ass until we have sustainable growth, even if it means digging a little deeper in the short run.  Then we could raise taxes and start paying it off.

Of course, America will do exactly the opposite and try to starve the economy into activity again.  Stupid conservatives.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The money the country has spent in the past 10 years on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security covers nearly all of the U.S National Debt... So, if the country wants to make a big dent into the debt problem, why would you suggest going after the defense budget and the war budget when we have spent almost 15 trillion dollars in 10 years on entitlement programs...


 
So old and poor people don't deserve to get medical treatment? Or a little help to not become homeless? That's just cold-hearted and dispicable.
War is not essential. Looking after your own people is.

I am so overwhelmingly glad that we have the NHS in the UK, because I couldn't afford healthcare under the American system. Does that mean I wouldn't deserve to be treated when I was/am ill? Entitlement programmes? More like actually caring a little about real people. Attitudes like yours really piss me off.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

Who cares about this while Greece and Portugal are going bankrupt which  might lead to a new recession? China will never get your money anyway...  :V



CoyoteCaliente said:


> 'lol im glad im not american'


That's not fair. America is like our big retarded baby we love nonetheless. 3:


----------



## ANGRY OFFENSIVE PERSON (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm not american. I've been following american politics a lot more closely now that I'm dating an american, and possibly planning to live in the United States.

What really baffles me is that the House increased the debt by forcing to extend tax cuts to the top 1% which have been proven to have no effect on economy, so that when we reach the debt floor, we instead cut services to the needy like food stamps, medicare, and education.

Some Americans, and a significant percentage of them, are electing into office people who will do everything possible to personally fuck _them_ over in order to serve the rich and powerful of this country. The GOP, Fox News, and the republican indoctrination machine have become so terribly bad at carrying any of the (imo dead) conservative ideologies, and you would have to be mentally deficient to vote for most of the republican candidates to anything. (Seriously, Fox even addressed the News Corp phone hacking issue by claiming that the perpetrators were the victim.)

I simply do not understand how anyone can be stupid enough to keep voting republican, yet people do. So as in any other situation where I would be confronted to an illogical nonsensicality, I am completely and utterly baffled. (No, but really.)

Edit:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ending the wars will hardly make a dent into America's dept. As of right now, last time I checked, the wars have cost America about 1.29 trillion dollars. (and thats over a span of around 10 years) When we are 15 trillion in debt, that is hardly a drop in the bucket.
> 
> Now, Medicare and Medicaid cost 703 billion dollars *annually*. Social Security costs 701 billion dollars *annually*.Thats 1.4 trillion dollars spent annually. Where as the defense budget is 689 billion dollars annually.
> 
> ...


 It'd be really awesome if you could join any sources to back your claims. I've seen pretty different numbers, and I think it'd be nice to have an absolute idea on what is going on here.

You're bringing up an interesting point, though. I like how no politicians ever brought up the defense budget in the recent discussions on spending :V


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

"Ending the wars and cutting defense spending won't make a dent in the debt/deficit.  Increased historically low taxes won't make a dent in the debt/deficit.  Even killing/confiscating all the money of the top 5% richest Americans won't make a dent in the debt/deficit!  So don't do any of that, and let's focus on cutting a few million dollars here and there from social programs we have a personal vendetta against, such as public broadcasting, the department of education, the EPA, the FDA, and passing bills of attainder against non-abortion funding to planned parenthood and somehow get 4 trillion dollars of cuts solely from that stuff- all those things that don't directly and tangibly benefit the rich."

This reasoning is retarded, and the ones pulling it over on people like Rukh would make sure the United States is economically ruined rather than do anything that might help a black "liberal" man get reelected.  Even though he's center-right and only seems like a liberal to these GOP howler monkeys/economic terrorists because everything to the left of their collective hallucination of what they think Reagan was like might as well be Lenin.

If these "tea party patriots" love America so much, why would they do this for a few cheap votes?  A few cheap votes that bank on the majority of the voting public to be so _dumb_?


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

I might agree with you on a lot of issues but I can see why people vote like they do. A different way to the same goal (though there _are_ too the bigots).



ANGRY OFFENSIVE PERSON said:


> (Seriously, Fox even addressed the News Corp phone hacking issue by claiming that the perpetrators were the victim.)


Fox News... makes me feel suicidal. The outright idiocy, lies and manipulation. Ugh! >;C




Bobskunk said:


> This reasoning is retarded, and the ones pulling  it over on people like Rukh would make sure the United States is  economically ruined rather than do anything that might help a black  "liberal" man get reelected.  Even though he's center-right and only  seems like a liberal to these GOP howler monkeys/economic terrorists  because everything to the left of their collective hallucination of what  they think Reagan was like might as well be Lenin.


To Americans centre-right is far left. 

For example, our 'Christian Right' is one of the most pro-welfare parties. Even the right-wing party is for welfare because that is historically / politically the _norm_.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 18, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> So old and poor people don't deserve to get medical treatment? Or a little help to not become homeless? That's just cold-hearted and dispicable.
> War is not essential. Looking after your own people is.
> 
> I am so overwhelmingly glad that we have the NHS in the UK, because I couldn't afford healthcare under the American system. Does that mean I wouldn't deserve to be treated when I was/am ill? Entitlement programmes? More like actually caring a little about real people. Attitudes like yours really piss me off.


 
Not what I meant by a long shot. To say that these programs don't have problems would be an understatement. To say that there isn't wasteful spending and unneeded red tape in these programs would be a lie. These programs need to be revised. And they needed that a long time ago. I am not saying to get rid of the programs. But when 40% of the budget is spent on these programs,  then one looks at the state of our medicare and medicaid system and social security program. It doesn't add up. Just throwing money at the programs doesn't fix anything.




ANGRY OFFENSIVE PERSON said:


> It'd be really awesome if  you could join any sources to back your claims. I've seen pretty  different numbers, and I think it'd be nice to have an absolute idea on  what is going on here.
> 
> You're bringing up an interesting point,  though. I like how no politicians ever brought up the defense budget in  the recent discussions on spending :V



I was using Wikipedia.


----------



## ANGRY OFFENSIVE PERSON (Jul 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Fox News... makes me feel suicidal. The outright idiocy, lies and manipulation. Ugh! >;C


 Fox News is lulzy. As the old adage goes, "I get my comedy from the news channel, and my news from the comedy channel." I'd probably enjoy it more if less people took it seriously, though.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not what I meant by a long shot. To say that these programs don't have problems would be an understatement. To say that there isn't wasteful spending and unneeded red tape in these programs would be a lie. These programs need to be revised. And they needed that a long time ago. I am not saying to get rid of the programs. But when 40% of the budget is spent on these programs,  then one looks at the state of our medicare and medicaid system and social security program. It doesn't add up. Just throwing money at the programs doesn't fix anything.


Once again here, the problem is that conservatives don't want to move forward. Since they try to hamper any further work on medicare and social security programs, there's no way to really better or optimize these things, and then they use their inefficiency as an excuse to justify cutting them


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> To Americans centre-right is far left.
> 
> For example, our 'Christian Right' is one of the most pro-welfare parties. Even the right-wing party is for welfare because that is historically / politically the _norm_.


 
Yes, I know that.  This country is not so much for context or understanding outside its own borders other than "Do we give military aid?" or "Do we drop bombs?"

America has generally been to the right for a long time- in the past 30 years, it's shifted almost to the point of sociopathy, and it's dragged what's been masquerading as the 60 year old broken remains of the left with it in a blubbering, spineless attempt to not seem so extreme relative to the conservatives, and people like Rukh are what this appeals to.  Ugh.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, if the country wants to make a big dent into the debt problem, why would you suggest going after the defense budget and the war budget when we have spent almost 15 trillion dollars in 10 years on entitlement programs...



Because one may cut the defense budget without leaving people to die in the streets.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Because one may cut the defense budget without leaving people to die in the streets.


 
If you're trying to appeal to a Christ-like compassion, you won't find that in Rukh.  They worship Supply Side Jesus.

But yeah, perhaps because while SS is large, it is also self-funded (to the point of being entirely separate from the general fund.)  Defense is the next highest, making up nearly a fifth of all spending, as well as more cash spent than the next twenty countries in the list.  That's why demanding that programs like the Department of Education (~1%) or Department of Labor (~.4%) take huge cuts that hurt loads of people is ridiculous, when that funding could just as easily come from deciding not to commission a new aircraft carrier, or scrap production of a redundant, not-needed-or-wanted second engine line for an irrelevant fighter jet.

The better question is why is it better to make these cuts, without raising any additional revenue, on the backs of the poor and middle class while leaving programs that give conservatives boners (such as building bombs to drop on arabs) untouched and/or increased?


----------



## Aden (Jul 18, 2011)

ANGRY OFFENSIVE PERSON said:


> Some Americans, and a significant percentage of them, are electing into office people who will do everything possible to personally fuck _them_ over in order to serve the rich and powerful of this country.


 
The people elect who the people deserve


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 18, 2011)

Okay people. I am not saying that we don't need to cut military spending. I read somewhere we spend 20 billion dollars a year on Air Conditioning in Iraq. By all means we can cut military spending. The military budget is 689 billion dollars a year. But before I go any further lets break down the U.S national budget. Which can all be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Medicare and Medicaid is 793 billion or 23% of the national budget. Social Security is 701 billion or 20% of the national budget. The Defense Department is 689 billion or 20% of the national budget. Non-defense discretionary is 660 billion or 19% of the national budget. Other spending is 416 billion or 12% of the budget. And lastly we have interest payments which are 197 billion or 6% of the budget.

When you look at the budget and realize that 43% of the budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, thats a lot of money. *The total national budget is around 3.5 trillion dollars a year*. *Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is around 1.4 trillion dollars of the budget.* That number is *only* going to grow larger because the baby boomer generation is just starting to tap into those programs. These programs are barely functioning as is right now. When the baby boomers start using these programs they have paid into their entire lives, how well is the system going to function then? Its already under strain. If we don't do something about it now, I cringe at the thought of what these programs will look like in 10 to 15 years.

When you look at the numbers, one can see that just cutting military spending isn't going to be enough. Sure, we can cut some of it. We may be able to find 200 billion dollars in savings. But when you see the big picture a 200 billion dollar cut is not enough, even a 300 billion dollar cut in military spending won't be enough. Just doing small cuts here and there, its not enough. Thats just a quick band-aid fix and won't solve the real issue. An entire system overhaul is needed. And its needed now. Before the baby boomer generation starts really tapping into Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and really puts a strain on the programs.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if we don't cut the bureaucracy and the ear marks and all the red tape, if we don't streamline the *entire* budget, then we are going to have to raise taxes significantly to pay for these entitlement programs. Its time to face the facts, we can't have our cake and eat it anymore.

And I realize that taxes will have to be raised at some point. But, before the government goes to the people as says we need more money, they had better have already streamlined the budget and done everything they can *before* asking for more money.

As of right now, they need to show how serious they are about getting their spending habits under control. Taking more money from the American people, that ain't gonna fly when they need to streamline the budget.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> When you look at the budget and realize that 43% of the budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, thats a lot of money. *The total national budget is around 3.5 trillion dollars a year*. *Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is around 1.4 trillion dollars of the budget.*
> 
> An entire system overhaul is needed. And its needed now. Before the baby boomer generation starts really tapping into Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and really puts a strain on the programs.


US&A, u so funy!


----------



## Onnes (Jul 18, 2011)

Medicare and Medicaid are already more cost-efficient than private sector healthcare. You cannot "streamline" them further without reforming the entire healthcare industry in the US, or simply telling some people that they don't get healthcare. Likewise, the only way you can streamline social security is to cut benefits, which will in fact lead to some portion of the elderly population living in poverty. 

There is a nasty myth that these programs are highly inefficient and throwing billions of dollars into some sort of bottomless put, but that is simply not the case. Providing healthcare and an income to tens of millions of Americans is not cheap. You either have to accept the costs and tax accordingly, or live with a return to the poverty conditions that precipitated the creation of Social Security and Medicare in the first place.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 18, 2011)

Increase tax rates across the board.

/says the person who currently doesn't pay taxes


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

Social Security is only having problems (and no, it's not insolvent) because it keeps getting borrowed against.

Remember Al Gore's lockbox idea that he was ridiculed for?  Yeah, motherfuckers chortling about that voted for Bush, who pushed Medicare Part D (serious mistake removing such a huge spending bloc from negotiating drug costs with companies- pharmaceutical companies could charge whatever they wanted) and ATTEMPTED to privatize Social Security but was thankfully stopped.  If that had gone through, the poor performance of the Bush decade with the crash at the end would have made the current SS situation look like it has _too much_ money. :V

The boomers that are now tapping into the system are also the ones that have been dismantling and passing off every cost to the next generations- and attempting to deny them from getting the benefits they've sucked dry like the rascal-driving hypocrite bastard vampires they are.



Xenke said:


> Increase tax rates across the board.
> 
> /says the person who currently doesn't pay taxes


 
Yes because you don't make enough to even pay taxes.

Wait until people start complaining that the rich pay most of the taxes while glossing over the fact that they have most of the wealth.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Because one may cut the defense budget without leaving people to die in the streets.


 
The Defense budget still includes payments to military families, Veterans Affairs, Tricare, and every other military social program.

If you want to cut the defense budget, you will leave families and war veterans on the streets, and that would be a damned shame, now, wouldn't it be?


I believe that we should declare our debt to nations like China null and void, bring back the draft, and pursue some good ol' fashioned New Deal Left-wing Nationalist Militarism. And invade China to retrieve all of the capital we used to be in possession of. :V

Everyone will serve in the military. Everyone will have a job. Everyone will have healthcare and social welfare programs available to them. They're just to be gained at the expense of the rest of the world. :V


----------



## Xenke (Jul 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Yes because you don't make enough to even pay taxes.
> 
> Wait until people start complaining that the rich pay most of the taxes while glossing over the fact that they have most of the wealth.


 
Well they do pay a higher percent as is.

If we were truly concerned as a nation that they were making to much money, we'd cap their paychecks at x-amount and write the excess off as tax.

But why would we do that? Then no one would pursue the jobs they have. More work* for the same pay.

*Someone's going to argue with that, oh well.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 18, 2011)

> Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid  expenditures are funded by permanent appropriations and so are  considered mandatory spending. Social Security and Medicare are  sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant  eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits, although most  pay taxes into these programs throughout their working lives. Some  programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. Some  mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any  entitlement program. Mandatory spending accounted for 53% of total  federal outlays in FY2008, with net interest payments accounting for an  additional 8.5%.  Mandatory spending is expected to increase as a share of GDP. This is  due in part to demographic trends, as the number of workers continues  declining relative to those receiving benefits. For example, the number  of workers per retiree was 5.1 in 1960; this declined to 3.0 in 2010 and  is projected to decline to 2.2 by 2030.  These programs are also affected by per-person costs, which are also  expected to increase at a rate significantly higher than the economy.  This unfavorable combination of demographics and per-capita rate  increases is expected to drive both Social Security and Medicare into  large deficits during the 21st century.
> *Unless these long-term fiscal  imbalances are addressed by reforms to these programs, raising taxes or  drastic cuts in discretionary programs, the federal government will at  some point be unable to pay its obligations without significant risk to  the value of the dollar (inflation).*
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, don't tell me these programs don't need overhaul...


----------



## Aetius (Jul 18, 2011)

There is one simple solutions, Members of Congress must work "Corners".


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> The Defense budget still includes payments to military families, Veterans Affairs, Tricare, and every other military social program.
> 
> If you want to cut the defense budget, you will leave families and war veterans on the streets, and that would be a damned shame, now, wouldn't it be?


 
I know you're joking but it's possible to fund VA and Tricare and not fund an equal or greater replacement of our nuclear submarine fleet in a given budget.  Just like the choice isn't "build more nuclear warheads" or "leave existing nuclear warheads to rot, malfunction WHEN WE NEED THEM, or get stolen by a Bond villain."



Xenke said:


> Well they do pay a higher percent as is.
> 
> If we were truly concerned as a nation that they were making to much money, we'd cap their paychecks at x-amount and write the excess off as tax.
> 
> ...


 
They do because progressive taxation makes sense.  Not only are the first several tens of thousands of dollars more crucial to one's survival and life than the first several millions, but the wealthiest benefit most from a stable society in which they can conduct their business.  Also marginal utility comes into play, or even how cutting corporate taxes are actually less likely to inspire growth and hiring.

Tell me with a straight face that getting paid fuck-you money as an executive whether you indirectly create success or crash the business into insolvency requires "the best of the best" and paying them "the best of the best" because otherwise nobody would want that job for anything less than several million dollars in salary, bonuses, benefits and various other perks- and then tell me why anyone would do more work than executives for less pay and greater hazard in, say, a coal mine.  Or deployed to a warzone as a member of the regular military, not an overpaid mercenary scumbag.

EDIT: oh yeah in general another reason medic* programs are rising in cost is not only a growing number of dependents but also rising costs of healthcare, partially caused by private insurance.  a universal public health insurance, while costing more overall, would also introduce savings and benefits throughout the entire economy, lower the cost of care, and improve health outcomes across the board.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 18, 2011)

I think its time to realize, that no matter what we do, its gonna suck. Somehow, somewhere its gonna hurt. Thing is, do we suck it up now and start fixing the problem, or do we wait until things are spiraling out of control. Again, the article I linked doesn't paint a good picture for either scenario.



> The CBO reported during June 2011 two scenarios for how debt held by the  public will change during the 2010-2035 time period. The "extended  baseline scenario" assumes that the Bush tax cuts  (extended by Obama) will expire per current law in 2012. It also  assumes the alternative minimum tax (AMT) will be allowed to affect more  middle-class families, reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates to  doctors will occur, and that revenues reach 23% GDP by 2035, much higher  than the historical average 18%. Under this scenario, activities such  as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs (excluding  Social Security, Medicare, and interest) would decline to the lowest  percentage of GDP since before World War II. *Under this scenario, public  debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 84% by 2035, with interest payments  absorbing 4% of GDP vs. 1% in 2011.*


Crappy future.
Basically, this is gonna hurt, really hurt, and its still not going to curtail the national debt problem. Its a start, but as you can see we will still be massing more debt. Just not as fast if we leave things the way they are now. Even cutting military spending and other areas won't be enough to fix the problem. 



> The "alternative fiscal scenario" more closely assumes the continuation  of present trends, such as permanently extending the Bush tax cuts,  restricting the reach of the AMT, and keeping Medicare reimbursement  rates at the current level (the so-called "Doc Fix", versus declining by  one-third as mandated under current law.) Revenues are assumed to  remain around the historical average 18% GDP. *Under this scenario,  public debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 100% by 2021 and approaches  190% by 2035.*


Even crappier scenario.


So in other words. It all sucks, and no matter what we do, things are still gonna hurt. And its going to hurt for a long, long time. Its not about "lets get ourselves out of this hole".
Its about, "how deep of a hole do we want to dig". 
The choice we have, is how bad we want things to get. Crappy, or really crappy.

Its not about pointing fingers or claiming one political party or another. Its not about being a conservative or a liberal. Its not about being a republican or democrat. Its all about fixing a problem that has been decades in the making. I don't care who's fault it is. (political party wise). Its the entire governments fault in my opinion. Its time the government puts aside party politics and deals with the problem.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Tell me with a straight face that getting paid fuck-you money as an executive whether you indirectly create success or crash the business into insolvency requires "the best of the best" and paying them "the best of the best" because otherwise nobody would want that job for anything less than several million dollars in salary, bonuses, benefits and various other perks- and then tell me why anyone would do more work than executives for less pay and greater hazard in, say, a coal mine.  Or deployed to a warzone as a member of the regular military, not an overpaid mercenary scumbag.


 
I don't have to, because I can tell you right now that by most people's standards of how much constitutes "fuck-you money" is so low that it involves a great number of people in specialized professions. There are executives, and everyone hates them, but then again that's kind of their job. They become fall-men for an entire company. Corruption? It's their fault. Greed? Also their fault. Their fuck-you money is being paid to them so that everyone can yell "fuck you" at them. Well, that an make a business decision every once and a while.

Regardless, mining requires little to no skill, while high level management requires extensive networking, general and specific business knowledge, and fairly strong leadership, and addition to the fact that it's highly volatile, everyone hates you, and your pay is somewhat dependent on how well the company does.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I don't have to, because I can tell you right now that by most people's standards of how much constitutes "fuck-you money" is so low that it involves a great number of people in specialized professions. There are executives, and everyone hates them, but then again that's kind of their job. They become fall-men for an entire company. Corruption? It's their fault. Greed? Also their fault. Their fuck-you money is being paid to them so that everyone can yell "fuck you" at them. Well, that an make a business decision every once and a while.
> 
> Regardless, mining requires little to no skill, while high level management requires extensive networking, general and specific business knowledge, and fairly strong leadership, and addition to the fact that it's highly volatile, everyone hates you, and your pay is somewhat dependent on how well the company does.


 
That's funny.

EDIT: "It'll be crappy no matter what we do" but tax increases after a constant pattern of tax cuts over decades which certainly helped put is into this mess are out of the question. :v


----------



## Onnes (Jul 18, 2011)

This whole problem would largely go away in the short term if we could increase our tax revenue as a % of GDP to something more on par with the rest of the first world. Services cost money, and if you want first world amenities like healthcare and social security you have to pay for them. If you don't want those services then you better be happy living in a third world shithole.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> That's funny.



Alright, wasn't expecting to get anywhere anyway.



> EDIT: "It'll be crappy no matter what we do" but tax increases after a constant pattern of tax cuts over decades which certainly helped put is into this mess are out of the question. :v


 
I did say "increase across the board", but I didn't say in what manner. 1952 income tax rates should suffice.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I did say "increase across the board", but I didn't say in what manner. 1952 income tax rates should suffice.


 
That was more directed at Rukh.  I'm just... hesitant to quote their posts.  Ugh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> That was more directed at Rukh.  I'm just... hesitant to quote their posts.  Ugh.


 
I said we can help the situation, but we are not going to be able to avoid tough times. Its more than a spending problem, its more than a revenue problem, its more than a trade deficit problem, its more than a crappy economy problem. Its a combination of all the above. And we simply can't just spend our way out, we can't increase our taxes to get out, we can't just erase the trade deficit to get out. 
*Its to late.* The perfect storm has already been made. And now the only choice we have left is what part of the storm do we want to hit.


----------



## WingDog (Jul 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> US&A, u so funy!


 
You can't go off "life expectancy" as each country has its own definition of what constitutes life. Those charts include abortions, so they are inaccurate.

The problem with medicare and medicaid is that it is being to used to pay for health-care to people who are dead. People are scamming the system and the government does nothing to stop it.

As of right now the government will not do anything to keep our dollar from defaulting. Obama refuses to cut funding and the Republicans don't want to increase interest rates as that will only cause the debt to be harder to pay off. Obama also refuses to go for a temporary solution, which at this point is better than waiting for our dollar to tank, because if it does, than we are SCREWED! Any progress that has been made (little if any) will be gone and it will it us hard.

No matter the way you look at it, neither party is willing to make compromises the Dems will blame the Reps and the R's will blame the D's. They don't care about the economy, from where they sit, they don't have to worry about any of it, they just want re-election.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> You can't go off "life expectancy" as each country has its own definition of what constitutes life. Those charts include abortions, so they are inaccurate.


WTF are you talking about? D:

Hard data, not some 'anti-American' conspiracy. Other countries seemingly can do better with less money. How's that working for you?


----------



## ANGRY OFFENSIVE PERSON (Jul 18, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its not about pointing fingers or claiming one political party or another. Its not about being a conservative or a liberal. Its not about being a republican or democrat. Its all about fixing a problem that has been decades in the making. I don't care who's fault it is. (political party wise). Its the entire governments fault in my opinion. Its time the government puts aside party politics and deals with the problem.


 
Welcome to america. A place where a dual-party political system would rather pass laws to call each other doodoo heads than work towards actual change


----------



## Lobar (Jul 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> You can't go off "life expectancy" as each country has its own definition of what constitutes life. Those charts include abortions, so they are inaccurate.
> 
> The problem with medicare and medicaid is that it is being to used to pay for health-care to people who are dead. People are scamming the system and the government does nothing to stop it.
> 
> ...


 
Obama is finally starting to play hardball with the right (which he really needed to do a _long fucking time ago_) because the "solutions" proposed by the right will actually _make things worse_ for the vast majority of Americans that are not part of their upper crust elite constituency.

Also, where the fuck did you hear something ridiculous like abortions being counted against life expectancy, no sane organization would use such methodology.  Not to mention it does nothing to invalidate the fact that American private health care ends up being 2-3x more expensive as a percentage of GDP as the literally dozens of perfectly functional public health care systems throughout the developed world.


----------



## WingDog (Jul 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Not some anti-American conspiracy[/URL]



I'm not talking about conspiracies, But when countries bring forth their data of life expectancy, it takes the range of birth-death and gives the average number, When abortions are added in, keeping in mind that what the US constitutes as a life and what Cuba constitutes as a life are entirely different things, and you try to graph that data, it is bound to be flawed.

Also most statistics are from the U.N. they even admit their data is flawed, Mostly they just accept what other countries tell them. Don't believe me? do a google search, plain and simple of the UN admitting that their data is "flawed"

I could keep going into the debate of health-care, but that would take all day and would get me no where with someone like you. I could point out the fact that though we pay so much more here, we have the most access to MRI and CT scanners. 

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

But like I pointed out, maybe would could afford to change our health-care if the government would get off their asses and do something about people scamming the system.



Lobar said:


> Obama is finally starting to play hardball with the  right (which he really needed to do a _long fucking time ago_)  because the "solutions" proposed by the right will actually _make  things worse_ for the vast majority of Americans that are not part of  their upper crust elite constituency.
> 
> Also, where the fuck did  you hear something ridiculous like abortions being counted against life  expectancy, no sane organization would use such methodology.  Not to  mention it does nothing to invalidate the fact that American private  health care ends up being 2-3x more expensive as a percentage of GDP as  the literally dozens of perfectly functional public health care systems  throughout the developed world.



Obama is sucking at playing ball, nothing is getting done, because he refuses to make a compromise. Make some cuts, give in a little to the Reps and keep us from defaulting, If we had more time, I would say sure go for it, but we are on the edge, right now a temp solution is looking pretty damn good.

Because of the infant mortality rate is included in that data...You would think they wouldn't, but sadly in the world we live in, they do. Since places like Cuba can end a pregnancy at a different time than what the U.S. would it keeps the mortality rate low, Why? so they have a better life expectancy.

Hardly anyone uses a public system of health-care anymore. Most of the world, the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zeland, France, Germany. Some still have a public option, so that is why it is so low. The U.S. can not afford universal health-care. Obama wants to only tax the rich/upperclass, But how do you tax those who don't fucking pay in the first place?


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> I'm not talking about conspiracies, But when countries bring forth their  data of life expectancy, it takes the range of birth-death and gives  the average number, When abortions are added in, keeping in mind that  what the US constitutes as a life and what Cuba constitutes as a life  are entirely different things, and you try to graph that data, it is  bound to be flawed.


*Forget about Cuba*. On that graph are *Western Nations + Japan*. 'Nuff said.



> I could keep going into the debate of health-care, but that would take  all day and *would get me no where with someone like you*. I could point  out the fact that though we pay so much more here, *we have the most  access to MRI and CT scanners*.


Yes, because I don't buy your made up bullshit. Also, _WTF? _Do you honestly think in Europe they deny us MRI and CT scans? I'm booked right now to ECG. Actually, since now I am entitled to health care in any EU country because of this sweetheart.



> Obama is sucking at playing ball, nothing is getting done, because he  refuses to make a compromise. Make some cuts, give in a little to the  Reps and keep us from defaulting, If we had more time, I would say sure  go for it, but we are on the edge, right now a temp solution is looking  pretty damn good.


Obama has done _too much_ compromising. Time to say GTFO if you can't play nice and boss around when you have no right to.



> Hardly anyone uses a public system of health-care anymore. Most of the world, the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zeland, France, Germany. Some still have a public option, so that is why it is so low. The U.S. can not afford universal health-care. Obama wants to only tax the rich/upperclass, But how do you tax those who don't fucking pay in the first place?


Words _cannot_ describe of Bill O'Rly in this. I guess your knowledge of this mysterious 'outside world' is from Fox News. _Did you even look at that data I provided_? :V


----------



## WingDog (Jul 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> *Forget about Cuba*. On that graph are *Western Nations + Japan*. 'Nuff said.
> 
> Obama has done _too much_ compromising. Time to say GTFO if you can't play nice and boss around when you have no right to.
> 
> Words _cannot_ describe of Bill O'Rly in this. I guess your knowledge of this mysterious 'outside world' is from Fox News. _Did you even look at that data I provided_? :V


 
Forget about Cuba? So you want to leave out the country that lies about all it's stats? You think no other country lies? Your data is hampered and incorrect. I would give you more citations, but I am in the middle of a move and my books are packed away. Do you get your info from Michale Moore? Who is 10x worse than Fox News.

I don't get my information off the T.V. like most idiots, I pick up a book, read a newspaper, Find articles in magazines. The only T.V. program I have ever gotten info from is "The Colbert Report" or "The Daily Show"

I looked over your graphs, but how about some solid proof, like an actual website, not something off google images that looks like it might be something that it's not. That is all you have provided, I gave you an actual web address that holds more than enough information.

I'm done arguing this though. Not worth my time. Our economy is shit, our debt is to the point of never being able to be paid off. Dems think the only way out of a recession is to spend spend spend and then hike taxes on those who cannot afford it to pay off a deficit. Republicans destroyed our education system and with the help of the Dems put our economy into the state that it is in. Neither will do shit to compromise.

If I had to associate with a political party, I would say the "Tea Party" But not the tea party that we all know today, I'm talking the tea party the day it was first founded. Where the ideals were those of when this country was first founded. Now they are a bunch of nutjobs, Sarah Palin cough cough.....At least she is not as bad as Joe "Big mouth" Biden, still bad though.

Yeah, Obama has finally grown a spine. Little late though don't cha think? But at this point in our economy if something is not done OUR DOLLAR WILL DEFAULT! IT WILL LOSE ITS VALUE. Not that you care, you are from Finland, Our loss would be your gain.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> Obama is sucking at playing ball, nothing is getting done, because *he refuses to make a compromise*. Make some cuts, give in a little to the Reps and keep us from defaulting, If we had more time, I would say sure go for it, but we are on the edge, right now a temp solution is looking pretty damn good.


 
AHAHAHAHAHA

You could define this man's presidency as "giving into GOP demands and getting absolutely nothing in return"

Why do you think the HCR bill sucked so much, or the stimulus that was watered down in size and half of it was hacked out and replaced with tax cuts?

He is already chomping at the bit to make cuts.  The Republicans are getting what they want- a massive slashing of non-military government spending.  The difference is basically a tiny amount of the deficit gap elimination under Obama's plan is made up of tax increases rather than spending cuts, while most of it _is still made up of spending cuts._  That's what the Republicans want, and now that they have it..  They're not going to say "Okay, fine, you delivered, we'll allow the debt ceiling to be raised" because it could possibly make them look bad, and Obama look good.

The rest of your post*ING*, hahaha oh wow

EDIT: okay, i'll bite: on what grounds do you claim it's false?  "because it is"?  then provide correct data and back up your words


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 18, 2011)

seriously i can't comprehend this.  "your chart includes england and spain and australia and canada and finland and that's all well and good but putting CUBA in the list means it's all contaminated by a pack of lies!"???


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> Forget about Cuba? So you want to leave out the country that lies about all it's stats? *You think no other country lies? Your data is hampered and incorrect. I would give you more citations, but* I am in the middle of a move and my books are packed away. Do you get your info from Michale Moore? Who is 10x worse than Fox News.


Cuba doesn't matter because this is about comparing WESTERN FIRST WORLD NATIONS health care systems not COMMUNIST CUBA. If that data is 'hampered' and 'incorrect' please, do give proof. Do you assume US has lied to that too? Do you hold information given by European Union members less valid, hmm? _Who do you think would have more of an interest to lie_? 

And I don't even know who 'Michale' Moore is (but am going to Google). D:



> I looked over your graphs, but how about some solid proof, like an actual website, not something off google images that looks like it might be something that it's not.


Do these [1, 2] look like Google images to you? Even the url in the 'Google image' pointed where the information was from.



> Yeah, Obama has finally grown a spine. Little late though don't cha  think? But at this point in our economy if something is not done OUR  DOLLAR WILL DEFAULT! IT WILL LOSE ITS VALUE. Not that you care, you are  from Finland, Our loss would be your gain.


... You have no idea about the sovereign debt crisis Southern Europe (Greece, Portugal, Italy) is going through? THAT'S THE BIG THING NOW. THAT CAN PUT THE WORLD INTO A NEW RECESSION. European Union is the biggest economic area in the world. Yeah, bigger than USA. Oh, but guess what? This Finland did it's part and is paying their loans to save the eurozone. So, yeah, we *do* care.


----------



## BearlyBen (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm just waiting for states to start "snapping" at against the government and the "every"man goes into his local courthouse and starts throwing judges, countymen, clerics, senators, representatives out on the street and then lock the door behind them and yell "you're out on your ass now, "we" are in charge now".

That shit is just gonna cascade across the country and soon the "United" states of America will be the "Everyman for Himself America"

What state had the fiasco where the Republican's LEFT THE STATE so they didn't have to vote? Wisconsin? Michigan? I forget...But that kind of shit is only going to get worse...

I got a gun, some bullets, and a family farm I'm gonna help maintain when this shit hits the fan. Back to the ole' days where everyone fends and tends to himself and his.

People who don't believe in 2012 doomsday look at the state of our country and see that 2012 is an election year and it's a good amount of time for all of this shit to crumble and stink so bad that everyone is going  to stop shoveling this horseshit and rise up. This world needs to change.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 18, 2011)

BearlyBen said:


> I got a gun, some bullets, and a family farm I'm gonna help maintain when this shit hits the fan. Back to the ole' days where everyone fends and tends to himself and his.


Cool story, bro. Romanticizing degradation is a common phenomenom. <:F


----------



## WingDog (Jul 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> seriously i can't comprehend this.  "your chart includes england and spain and australia and canada and finland and that's all well and good but putting CUBA in the list means it's all contaminated by a pack of lies!"???


 
I'm just trying to say, they lie about their data, why would anyone else not? I'm betting the US's isn't as accurate either, never claimed it was. But then again did I not also point out that the UN does their own surveys, but their data is also inaccurate, and they even admit to it.

Get it through your head that you will never have accurate data with as many people as there are in the world. Do you believe those surveys on AOL that ask for the president approval rating? I don't because people put what they want. Fuck I do it all the time, half the time just to see what the damn results are. THEY ARE INACCURATE!

Here is some more reading material since you seem incapable of doing your own research. 

http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster

"One oftenâ€“heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and  others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health  outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet,  lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say  this, but health care is just one factor in health."

"Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the  French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save  Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life  can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors  aren't academicâ€”homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other  countries" 

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ibd-canadian_doctor_describes_how.htm

This is one reason why I bring up Cuba. Why you only want to talk about certain "areas" is obvious, The facts around anything else would destroy your argument. It's like Mr. Moores "documentaries" he shoots hundreds of hours of footage and then picks and chooses 2 hours of it to show, to convey what ever the fuck message he wants you to believe. It's sad people fall for it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/06/23/148897/cuban-healthcare-is-painted-rosy.html


----------



## greg-the-fox (Jul 19, 2011)

Trickle down economics TOTALLY worked guys! :V


----------



## Bliss (Jul 19, 2011)

WingDog said:


> I'm just trying to say, they lie about their data, why would anyone else not? I'm betting the US's isn't as accurate either, never claimed it was. But then again did I not also point out that the UN does their own surveys, but their data is also inaccurate, and they even admit to it.
> 
> Get it through your head that you will never have accurate data with as many people as there are in the world. Do you believe those surveys on AOL that ask for the president approval rating? I don't because people put what they want. Fuck I do it all the time, half the time just to see what the damn results are. THEY ARE INACCURATE!


You say this because the data is against your argument. It wouldn't be 'inaccurate' otherwise. Nonetheless, this isn't a 'hey watcha think' survey but statistics.



> "One oftenâ€“heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and  others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health  outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet,  lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say  this, but health care is just one factor in health."
> 
> "Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the  French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save  Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life  can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors  aren't academicâ€”homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other  countries"


Arrests my case. 



> This is one reason why I bring up Cuba. *Why you only want to talk about certain "areas" is obvious, The facts around anything else would destroy your argument.*


*facepalm* The facts around everything points how your system compared to other 'equals' doesn't work like it should. My argument has nothing to do with Cuba, just like it has nothing to do with North Korea.



> to convey what ever the fuck message he wants you to believe. It's sad people fall for it.


Someone feels bad for watching Fox News. :V

I should look up this Moore's films. If they provide anything other than raegraeg it's 'kay.


----------



## WingDog (Jul 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You say this because the data is against your argument. It wouldn't be 'inaccurate' otherwise. Nonetheless, this isn't a 'hey watcha think' survey but statistics.
> 
> Arrests my case.
> 
> ...



You are missing the big picture, We spend so much more on health-care, but we have the most access out of any other country to technology such as MRI and CT scanners.

US leads in Medical breakthroughs

You want to know another reason I call your graphs inaccurate? They do not take into effect POPULATION DIFFERENCES. They are based on a Per Capita, considering the population of the US outweighs most of the rest of the world, We spend more on a per-person basis than other countries such as Canada.

I thought you already googled Moore? Again, I don't watch news off a television, I can't even remember the last time I saw the news on TV.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 19, 2011)

WingDog said:


> You are missing the big picture, We spend so much more on health-care, but we have the most access out of any other country to technology such as MRI and CT scanners.


Maybe I am, maybe I am not. I most certainly fail to see when this 'lack of access' has shown itself in my medical history.

Again, not Africa. 



> Consider the following: We have access to diagnostics that allow us to  detect health issues early. We have medical devices that open blocked  blood vessels, replace joints and even limbs. We have medicines that  have turned HIV into a treatable, chronic condition and significantly  lowered death and disability rates from heart disease, many cancers, and  stroke, among other diseases.


As if others don't. And, yes, this means a great deal if you can't afford it. :V



> You want to know another reason I call your graphs inaccurate? They do not take into effect POPULATION DIFFERENCES. They are based on a Per Capita, considering the population of the US outweighs most of the rest of the world, *We spend more on a per-person basis* than other countries such as Canada.


That was the very point (and the issue) from the start.


----------



## VoidBat (Jul 19, 2011)

Amurrica, the land of the deceived and depraved. :V

Either way the US of A is fucked, it's all about HOW violent they will get fucked, and if their economic anus will be torn to pieces by the enormous, throbbing and swelling debt-penis. All Europe and it's export-countries can do is to raise the blast shields and prepare for impact as it hits home.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 19, 2011)

WingDog said:


> You want to know another reason I call your graphs inaccurate? They do not take into effect POPULATION DIFFERENCES. They are based on a Per Capita, considering the population of the US outweighs most of the rest of the world, We spend more on a per-person basis than other countries such as Canada.


 
Your argument is flawed in that it makes the assertion that since we pay more for our "wonderful" medical care it must therefore be better.

Hey, I'm selling these candy bars, they're 5 bucks apiece.  But they're better than the ones you get for a tenth of the price.  Probably.  I mean, they have to be better, they cost more.  Can I interest you in one?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 19, 2011)

WingDog said:


> keeping in mind that what the US constitutes as a life and what Cuba constitutes as a life are entirely different things...



WTF?!?



WingDog said:


> Hardly anyone uses a public system of health-care anymore. Most of the world, the U.K., Canada, Australia, *New Zealand*, France, Germany. Some still have a public option, so that is why it is so low.



Oh bullshit. I *live* in New Zealand, and I can assure you that our public health system is well and truly used by the public.

Stop pulling "facts" out of your arse.



WingDog said:


> The U.S. can not afford universal health-care.



If it can afford the "pay more than anyone else for crappy healthcare" model, it can certainly afford a CHEAPER public health care system along the lines of ANY PUBLIC HEALTH system in the western world.

But hey, if the US wants to sacrifice its citizens on the altar of capitalist ideology rather than looking at what works... that's your problem. Just don't export your broken-arse system to the rest of us.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 19, 2011)

Also, LOL @ "the US can't afford UHC"

IT WOULD SAVE US MONEY IN THE LONG RUN YOU STUPID SHITS


----------



## Lobar (Jul 19, 2011)

Not to mention that the UK founded the NHS in the _immediate aftermath of World War II_.  Tell me again why we can't afford to change to a public system, which actually cost _less_ in the long run.


----------



## Azure (Jul 19, 2011)

I love how this thread was probably generated in OP's mind by some old fundie 'freeper who is afraid of his MEDICARE being broke up or some shit. Old people, please die already, you cost too much to keep alive.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Not to mention that the UK founded the NHS in the _immediate aftermath of World War II_.  Tell me again why we can't afford to change to a public system, which actually cost _less_ in the long run.


 
Except England's government wasn't able to sustain itself. Just like the American government can't at its present course. That's why not to long ago England put forth those massive budget cuts. To keep itself afloat. I think its foolish to say a NHS will solve problems (which includes the debt crisis). It will iliminate some sure (Not the debt crisis), but it can and most likely will cause new problems to arise. There is no magic fix to the problems the country now faces.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 19, 2011)

Smugmeister said:


> Either way the US of A is fucked, it's all about HOW violent they will  get fucked, and if their economic anus will be torn to pieces by the  enormous, throbbing and swelling debt-penis. All Europe and it's  export-countries can do is to raise the blast shields and prepare for  impact as it hits home.


We're still doing _relatively_ good, neighbour! :3c



Mayfurr said:


> Oh bullshit. I *live* in New Zealand, and I can assure you that our public health system is well and truly used by the public.
> 
> Stop pulling "facts" out of your arse.
> 
> But hey, if the US wants to sacrifice its citizens on the altar of  capitalist ideology rather than looking at what works... that's your  problem. Just don't export your broken-arse system to the rest of  us.





Tycho said:


> Also, LOL @ "the US can't afford UHC"
> 
> IT WOULD SAVE US MONEY IN THE LONG RUN YOU STUPID SHITS





Azure said:


> I love how this thread was probably generated in OP's mind by some old fundie 'freeper who is afraid of his MEDICARE being broke up or some shit. Old people, please die already, you cost too much to keep alive.


*Where on Earth were you old people hiding all this time!?* Let me do almost all the work... 3;<


----------



## Attaman (Jul 19, 2011)

Last I recall from the major "budget balance" proposals by a certain party, the Healthcare plan was to be gutted something like 66%+ of its pre-implementation funding. Question: If such gutting was accomplished, and the HC plan bust... how many people would pause to think "Hm, I wonder if gutting 66%+ of the funding from it had any part", and how many people would just go "SEE IT FAIL WE SAID IT WOULD HE TRY TO GUT AMURRICA!"? I'll give you a hint: More of the latter than the former.

Also, do note people that - right now - if you're going to say shit about Obama's economic policy, most of his economic top advisors who have come out about their political orientation either have admitted to be Republican, or share heavily in Republican-preferred economic policy. 



			
				MJ12 Commando said:
			
		

> His current chairman is a Republican. He replaced Volcker, who was a Democrat but worked under Reagan and was responsible for many of Reagan's successes. So in a very real way, Obama's economic policy is/was probably much closer to Reagan's than most peope think.
> 
> Furman is center-right. He is pro free-market like _whoa_.
> 
> ...



As such, do keep insulting his job, because if you're arguing Obama and his staff don't know the first thing about economics, and most of his top advisors are either Republican or Republican economics-policy leaning, well... 

And in regard to Republicans just needing a little compromise, there's a reason they're called the "Party of No". I'll give you a hint, it's not because they're going "No D:" as the evil liberals try to destroy the nation. It's that whenever asked on compromise, unless the ball is placed _very fucking firmly_ in their court, the Republicans refuse to budge because it's dirt-all easy for them to spin it against the Democrats if things go south. Which, from the fact that people think Democracts are the current Party of No, seems to show about how well that's going.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 19, 2011)

Attaman said:


> And in regard to Republicans just needing a little compromise, there's a reason they're called the "Party of No". I'll give you a hint, it's not because they're going "No D:" as the evil liberals try to destroy the nation. It's that whenever asked on compromise, unless the ball is placed _very fucking firmly_ in their court, the Republicans refuse to budge because it's dirt-all easy for them to spin it against the Democrats if things go south. Which, from the fact that people think Democracts are the current Party of No, seems to show about how well that's going.


 
Funny, you talk about compromise, and yet the house democrats have repeatedly said they are unwilling to cut Medicare spending... Thats not compromise.

And a new poll came out today showing that 62% of Republicans polled (General Populace) said the Republicans in office should compromise. Whereas democrats polled, 52% of them said that Democrats should not compromise, should stand their ground, and should not cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

What, do they think that just raising taxes and cutting discretionary spending will be enough? Not when 43% of the budget is those 3 entitlement programs.

Lets just be honest here. Neither party is doing a good job. Don't blame one party for this. That plays right into party politics. Its everyone fault. The fact that you are pointing fingers at one party, is pathetic.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Funny, you talk about compromise, and yet the house democrats have repeatedly said they are unwilling to cut Medicare spending... Thats not compromise.


 Democrats try to cut about $200 billion from medicare over 10 years, called assholes. Then the recent (June this year) Republican plan to cut medicare is turned down by Democrats, they're unwilling to cut Medicare spending. Note, in the article, they were intending $500 billion out, but $300 billion would go into new programs.

Or, in other words, they are perfectly willing to cut Medicare when alternatives are provided, and guess what's not being provided (oh, other than "Trust in the good will of the market")?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And a new poll came out today showing that 62% of Republicans polled (General Populace) said the Republicans in office should compromise. Whereas democrats polled, 52% of them said that Democrats should not compromise, should stand their ground, and should not cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.


 Which? The one I found from Gallup dated yesterday say that over 10% more Democrats are for compromise than Republicans. Sources are your friend, so which counter-source do you have to provide?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What, do they think that just raising taxes and cutting discretionary spending will be enough? Not when 43% of the budget is those 3 entitlement programs.


 Again, Medicare / Medicaid compromise has been shown by the Democratic Party, so long as an alternative (and not an "Oh we'll get it eventually" alternative) is in the works. 

And overall, more than raising Taxes (because really, right now, that would mean shit-all from the upper bracket), business and top-income brackets need to have loopholes closed off, as while in theory they're paying more than the average joe pretty some actually wind up having to pay nada (I think the actual tax rate is something like 30% lower than what it's stated to be on paper) due to said loopholes.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 19, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Increase tax rates across the board.
> 
> /says the person who currently doesn't pay taxes



Funny, neither does General Electric. :V


----------



## Lobar (Jul 19, 2011)

When ultra-rich execs and hedge fund managers take their ill-gotten gains in the form of stock options (or other financial "perks"), that actually is _not considered income_.  It gets taxed as capital gains, at a mere 15% rate.  For "actual" income, that's the rate for income between just $8,350 and $33,950 a year.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 19, 2011)

Isn't that why executives get salaries of exactly ONE dollar, and yet get bonuses each year in the hundreds of thousands or even millions? To avoid paying taxes?

It seems to me a lot easier for the rich and corporations to hire attorneys and  tax experts to find loopholes in the tax law to allow them to pay almost  nill in taxes than for the middle class and the poor.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> When  the baby boomers start using these programs* they have paid into their  entire lives,* how well is the system going to function then? Its already  under strain. If we don't do something about it now, I cringe at the  thought of what these programs will look like in 10 to 15 years.



That's the thing. Technically, the money for Medicaid/Medicare and SS  comes out of your paycheck, which means you should get that money back  when you need it. But where did all that money go, eh? Did it stay  separate from all other government money? Or was it just thrown in a  giant pile somewhere for politicians to use whenever. "Oh hey, we need  500 billion to go start a war and blow up brown skinned children." "Just  go borrow it from the Medicare pile, no one will notice."

I also love it how conservative Christians blab on about entitlement  spending and the poor getting free money. And completely ignore the fact  that Jesus took a vow of poverty, said specifically that it was very  hard for the rich to get into heaven, called out the Pharisees  (basically the first century version of rich conservatives) as being  hypocrites, and even passed out FREE bread and fish to hundreds of  people. Jesus is more of a commie liberal hippie than most neocons want  to admit.

After hearing about a Vietnam vet who uses Medicare and SS to survive  now that he's missing a leg and suffers from Agent Orange poisoning due  to being forced into a stupid proxy war, I am a lot more reluctant to  mess too much with those programs less people like him are kicked to the  curb. But conservatives would expect that vet to pull himself up by the bootstraps and wouldn't do a thing to help him, despite Jesus' commands to help the poor and suffering, and would run around loudly proclaiming what REAL Christians they are.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 19, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I also love it how conservative Christians blab on about entitlement  spending and the poor getting free money. And completely ignore the fact  that Jesus took a vow of poverty, said specifically that it was very  hard for the rich to get into heaven, called out the Pharisees  (basically the first century version of rich conservatives) as being  hypocrites, and even passed out FREE bread and fish to hundreds of  people. Jesus is more of a commie liberal hippie than most neocons want  to admit.


Inb4 'liberals don't charity as much as us!!!'


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 19, 2011)

Another thing is that this isn't actually meant to solve anything.  "Oh no, the debt is too big to solve by any means of cutting spending or raising taxes"

However, this deficit reduction is being demanded by the Republicans as ransom for (possibly, but not likely) voting to raise the debt ceiling.

Cutting spending, raising taxes may not help, and raising the debt ceiling (an arbitrary limit to borrowing which was actually surpassed months ago) may not give a positive/immediate/whatever result...  But not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting and having our credit downgraded?  Yeah, that has negative and immediate effects.  So as bad as Rukh is painting things...  defaulting is much, much worse.  That's the real important topic- along with the Republicans' fiscal terrorism and desire to see this country fail, whether they outright admit it or not.


----------



## Slyck (Jul 19, 2011)

As a percentage of GDP, how bad off we are isn't *so *incredible. 
That said, we're still pretty much screwed.
If they wanted, right now, Russia could make us (pun intended on the us) their little bitch.
Will they? No, that would be a stupid thing for Russia to do.

Even THAT said, we're still pretty much fucked.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 19, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Democrats try to cut about $200 billion from medicare over 10 years, called assholes. Then the recent (June this year) Republican plan to cut medicare is turned down by Democrats, they're unwilling to cut Medicare spending. Note, in the article, they were intending $500 billion out, but $300 billion would go into new programs.
> 
> Or, in other words, they are perfectly willing to cut Medicare when alternatives are provided, and guess what's not being provided (oh, other than "Trust in the good will of the market")?


 200 billion dollars in 10 years IS NOT ENOUGH.  Thats a twenty billion dollar reduction every year. Did you see my post on the entire U.S budget? *When Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cost 1.4 TRILLION dollars a year, a 20 billion dollar cut once a year is nothing.* More is needed.

Straight from the CBO


> In the long-run, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to increase  dramatically relative to GDP, while other categories of spending are  expected to remain relatively constant. The CBO expects Medicare and Medicaid to rise from 5.3% GDP in 2009 to 10.0% in  2035 and 19.0% by 2082. CBO has indicated healthcare spending per  beneficiary is the primary long-term fiscal challenge. So in the  long-run, spending on these programs is the key issue, far outweighing  any revenue consideration.





Attaman said:


> Which? The one I found from Gallup dated yesterday say that over 10% more Democrats are for compromise than Republicans. Sources are your friend, so which counter-source do you have to provide?


 Poll is right here dude. If you actually watched the national news on a daily basis. You would have seen the poll. Watch the video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43807163/ns/politics-capitol_hill/



Attaman said:


> Again, Medicare / Medicaid compromise has been shown by the Democratic Party, so long as an alternative (and not an "Oh we'll get it eventually" alternative) is in the works.


 Small, little tiny cuts like 20 billion dollars a year is a joke. You really think that eliminates all the red tape in those programs? 100 billion spending cuts is needed. A year. The program can be streamlined. And in doing so, money can be saved. I am not just saying cut funding. I am saying we need to streamline the system.




CrazyLee said:


> That's the thing. Technically, the money for Medicaid/Medicare and SS  comes out of your paycheck, which means you should get that money back  when you need it. But where did all that money go, eh? Did it stay  separate from all other government money? Or was it just thrown in a  giant pile somewhere for politicians to use whenever. "Oh hey, we need  500 billion to go start a war and blow up brown skinned children." "Just  go borrow it from the Medicare pile, no one will notice."
> 
> I also love it how conservative Christians blab on about entitlement  spending and the poor getting free money. And completely ignore the fact  that Jesus took a vow of poverty, said specifically that it was very  hard for the rich to get into heaven, called out the Pharisees  (basically the first century version of rich conservatives) as being  hypocrites, and even passed out FREE bread and fish to hundreds of  people. Jesus is more of a commie liberal hippie than most neocons want  to admit.


What the crap does any of this have to do with a budget crisis? None what so ever. Why don't you go and read my previous threads where I put up links and quotes that explain the situation. I gave detailed info on the entire U.S budget. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cost 1.4 trillion dollars a year. Social Security is already under strain and cannot sustain itself. And with 77 million Americans getting ready to start drawing on it. The funds for SS will run dry by 2037.



Attaman said:


> After hearing about a Vietnam vet who uses Medicare and SS to survive  now that he's missing a leg and suffers from Agent Orange poisoning due  to being forced into a stupid proxy war, I am a lot more reluctant to  mess too much with those programs less people like him are kicked to the  curb. But conservatives would expect that vet to pull himself up by the bootstraps and wouldn't do a thing to help him, despite Jesus' commands to help the poor and suffering, and would run around loudly proclaiming what REAL Christians they are.


Veterans Benefits are not under Medicare. Thats under the defense budget. Nice try though. Had you read the wiki link I put up pages ago, you would have known that.
And enough with the snide remarks that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the American Debt crisis.

If you think the Medicair, Medicade, and SS don't have excess sending in them (ie red tape) then you are delusional at best. 
Read the link. You may actually learn something about the budget crisis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_budget





Bobskunk said:


> Another thing is that this isn't actually  meant to solve anything.  "Oh no, the debt is too big to solve by any  means of cutting spending or raising taxes"
> 
> However, this deficit  reduction is being demanded by the Republicans as ransom for (possibly,  but not likely) voting to raise the debt ceiling.
> 
> Cutting  spending, raising taxes may not help, and raising the debt ceiling (an  arbitrary limit to borrowing which was actually surpassed months ago)  may not give a positive/immediate/whatever result...  But not raising  the debt ceiling and defaulting and having our credit downgraded?  Yeah,  that has negative and immediate effects.  So as bad as Rukh is painting  things...  defaulting is much, much worse.  That's the real important  topic- along with the Republicans' fiscal terrorism and desire to see  this country fail, whether they outright admit it or not.


 
Again. Scenario one. We do massive budget cuts and raise taxes, and still the public debt increases.



> The CBO reported during June 2011 two scenarios for how debt held by the  public will change during the 2010-2035 time period. The "extended  baseline scenario" assumes that the Bush tax cuts  (extended by Obama) will expire per current law in 2012. It also  assumes the alternative minimum tax (AMT) will be allowed to affect more  middle-class families, reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates to  doctors will occur, and that revenues reach 23% GDP by 2035, much higher  than the historical average 18%. Under this scenario, activities such  as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs (excluding  Social Security, Medicare, and interest) would decline to the lowest  percentage of GDP since before World War II. Under this scenario, public  debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 84% by 2035, with interest payments  absorbing 4% of GDP vs. 1% in 2011.


Scenario 2. Public debt increases at an alarming rate.


> The "alternative fiscal scenario" more closely assumes the continuation  of present trends, such as permanently extending the Bush tax cuts,  restricting the reach of the AMT, and keeping Medicare reimbursement  rates at the current level (the so-called "Doc Fix", versus declining by  one-third as mandated under current law.) Revenues are assumed to  remain around the historical average 18% GDP. Under this scenario,  public debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 100% by 2021 and approaches  190% by 2035.


In the words of Neil Ferguson


> The United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path. And we know that  path ends in one of two ways; you either default on that debt, or you  depreciate it away. You inflate it away with your currency effectively."  He said the most likely case is that the U.S. would default on its  entitlement obligations for Social Security and Medicare first, by  reducing the obligations through entitlement reform. He also warned  about the risk that foreign investors would demand a higher interest  rate to purchase U.S. debt, damaging U.S. growth prospects.


Again, no matter what we do, its gonna suck. Which is why I said the storm is already gonna hit us. The choice we have, is what part of the storm we get hit by.

The reality is that the Congress, the Administration, and the American  people will have to choose among making modifications to entitlement  programs such as Medicare and Social Security, restraining federal  spending on everything else, accepting higher taxes, or some combination  thereof.

Its not either or, its all the above.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 19, 2011)

I remember what happened when the healthcare reform bill was supposed to partially streamline Medicare.

Republicans were like, "We're gonna send out mailers to old folks saying the Democrats are trying to destroy Medicare, because they have nothing better to do than vote, and care about Medicare so much!"

Meanwhile, under the Ryan budget, the first measure of fiscal (i.e. non abortion, non ACORN, non teleprompter birther lunacy) policy the GOP has actually proposed since their laughable roadmap to success...


----------



## Lobar (Jul 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 200 billion dollars in 10 years IS NOT ENOUGH.  Thats a twenty billion dollar reduction every year. Did you see my post on the entire U.S budget? *When Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cost 1.4 TRILLION dollars a year, a 20 billion dollar cut once a year is nothing.* More is needed.


 
Even more ironic that Dems were called assholes for it then, no?


Oh hey does everyone remember immediately after the 2010 elections how the Reps used their gains in the House and Senate to hold the rest of the Congressional session hostage to a massive tax cut for the upper crust?  They promised obstruction of all legislation until 700 *B*ILLION dollars were cut from taxes for the top 1%, every year, in perpetuum for the forseeable future until someone actually manages to raise taxes back again.  That's 4.2 *TR*ILLION in revenue the government will miss out on to pay this debt down from then to 2016.  I don't want to hear any GOP bitching about fiscal responsibility.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Even more ironic that Dems were called assholes for it then, no?
> 
> 
> Oh hey does everyone remember immediately after the 2010 elections how the Reps used their gains in the House and Senate to hold the rest of the Congressional session hostage to a massive tax cut for the upper crust?  They promised obstruction of all legislation until 700 *B*ILLION dollars were cut from taxes for the top 1%, every year, in perpetuum for the forseeable future until someone actually manages to raise taxes back again.  That's 4.2 *TR*ILLION in revenue the government will miss out on to pay this debt down from then to 2016.  I don't want to hear any GOP bitching about fiscal responsibility.



First of all, sources, links? 700 billion in tax cuts over how much of a time period? The way you wrote (most likely on purpose) was to word it a way that made it look like a 700 billion dollar tax cut in one year.

Secondly, we can't pay down this debt. Did you not read the quotes I have put up. Either we default our debt away or we depreciate it away. Thats the choices we are left with. Even if we raised taxes, cut spending drastically, we would still increase in public debt. Just not as fast if we didn't do anything about it.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 19, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Secondly, we can't pay down this debt. Did you not read the quotes I have put up. Either we default our debt away or we depreciate it away. Thats the choices we are left with. Even if we raised taxes, cut spending drastically, we would still increase in public debt. Just not as fast if we didn't do anything about it.



This is flat out wrong. You might want to cite how the heck you came to this conclusion because it makes absolutely no sense. Our interest payments are still quite low as a percentage of our total GDP.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> This is flat out wrong. You might want to cite how the heck you came to this conclusion because it makes absolutely no sense. Our interest payments are still quite low as a percentage of our total GDP.


 
...Is anyone actually reading the material that I am putting up here. Good grief, its all posted on the wiki article. I am not talking about interest rates here. I am not talking about us defaulting on our national debt as a whole. If you had read the quotes I put up, you would have known that.
Everything I have quoted has come directly from the CBO, which is the Congressional Budget Office... Its their conclusion to the budget crisis.

So please go read the quotes I have put up from the CBO.

Because people are so good at reading, lets try this one last time.

Scenario one. Even with spending cuts and tax increases look at what the CBO is saying.


> The CBO reported during June 2011 two scenarios for how debt held by the   public will change during the 2010-2035 time period. The "extended   baseline scenario" assumes that the Bush tax cuts   (extended by Obama) will expire per current law in 2012. It also   assumes the alternative minimum tax (AMT) will be allowed to affect more   middle-class families, reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates to   doctors will occur, and that revenues reach 23% GDP by 2035, much higher   than the historical average 18%. Under this scenario, activities such   as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs (excluding   Social Security, Medicare, and interest) would decline to the lowest   percentage of GDP since before World War II. *Under this scenario, public   debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 84% by 2035*, with interest payments   absorbing 4% of GDP vs. 1% in 2011.


Scenario two.


> The "alternative fiscal scenario" more closely assumes the continuation   of present trends, such as permanently extending the Bush tax cuts,   restricting the reach of the AMT, and keeping Medicare reimbursement   rates at the current level (the so-called "Doc Fix", versus declining by   one-third as mandated under current law.) Revenues are assumed to   remain around the historical average 18% GDP. Under this scenario,   public debt rises from 69% GDP in 2011 to 100% by 2021 and approaches   190% by 2035


Again, this is all from the CBO. Its not my conclusion.



> In the long-run, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to increase  dramatically relative to GDP, while other categories of spending are  expected to remain relatively constant. *The Congressional Budget Office  expects Medicare and Medicaid to rise from 5.3% GDP in 2009 to 10.0% in  2035 and 19.0% by 2082. CBO has indicated healthcare spending per  beneficiary is the primary long-term fiscal challenge. So in the  long-run, spending on these programs is the key issue, far outweighing  any revenue consideration.*


Niall Ferguson put it this way:
"The United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path. And we know that  path ends in one of two ways; you either default on that debt, or you  depreciate it away. You inflate it away with your currency effectively."

*He said the most likely case is that the U.S. would default on its  entitlement obligations for Social Security and Medicare first*, by  reducing the obligations through entitlement reform. He also warned  about the risk that foreign investors would demand a higher interest  rate to purchase U.S. debt, damaging U.S. growth prospects.


Thats what I was talking about when I used the word default. Please read next time.



Edit: Oh, some interesting info, Here are words straight from Obama.
"as the Baby Boomers start to retire in greater numbers and health care  costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the  amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our  health care programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- Social Security, and  the interest we owe on our debt. Thatâ€™s it. Every other national  priority -â€“ education, transportation, even our national security-â€“will  have to be paid for with borrowed money."

He warned that interest payments may reach $1 trillion annually by the end of the decade.

So yeah, interest payments of a trillion dollars a year would be a big, big problem.


----------



## Azure (Jul 19, 2011)

I didn't read your material, Rukh. Feel better?


----------



## Attaman (Jul 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 200 billion dollars in 10 years IS NOT ENOUGH.


 Hm, here's a thought: I provided a link stating what Dem's planned to cut from Medicare, and what they planned to put some of that funding in.

Why don't you show me how much of the Medicare cut from the recent Rep bill might be going into other projects, hm? :3c You're arguing it'd be a full, solid $600 billion gain. Well, may I see a source for that? Mind, you haven't even given a source for how much the Dem's said "no" to, you just said it was a Sacred cow, and now you've shifted the Goalpost to "It's not enough!"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats a twenty billion dollar reduction every year.


 And the Republican Bill is still only thrice that. Or is this just like where you said 9% of the total debt was a "drop in the bucket"?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Ending the wars will hardly make a dent into America's dept. As of right now, last time I checked, the wars have cost America about *1.29* trillion dollars. (and thats over a span of around 10 years) When we are *15* trillion in debt, that is hardly a drop in the bucket.



Skipping, by the way, further segments Rukh brings up that were not in my original post at all - I post that new Healthcare plan was being gutted before it came out and that Republicans are "Party of No". Somehow, Rukh dragged me into trying to debate with him how Medicare needs to be cut by about 8-10% (which, bear in mind, is in his math not even a drop in the bucket) after trying to argue that Democrats would never cut Medicare / Medicaid funding.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Poll is right here dude. If you actually watched the national news on a daily basis.


 Sorry that when I search up "July 19 Poll Compromise" I get a fuckin' different poll's result.

Oh, by the way, your source... it is not what you said it was.



			
				Rukh earlier said:
			
		

> 62% of Republicans polled (General Populace) said the Republicans in office should compromise. Whereas democrats polled, 52% of them said that Democrats should not compromise, should stand their ground, and should not cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.





			
				Poll says said:
			
		

> (ASK ONLY OF DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS (Q7:1-4))
> Q14a
> Do you want Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to make compromises to gain consensus on the current budget debate, or do you want them stick to their positions even if this means not being able to gain consensus on the budget?
> 
> ...



:3c 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Small, little tiny cuts like 20 billion dollars a year is a joke. You really think that eliminates all the red tape in those programs? 100 billion spending cuts is needed. A year.


 Fun fact: Republican proposal was $600 Billion, only $100 billion more than Democrats, and only $10bil more / year ($40 / year if you don't count what we know Dem's would spend it on, and discount what Rep's might), or still "drop in bucket" territory as it's under 9% of the total deficit.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The program can be streamlined. And in doing so, money can be saved. I am not just saying cut funding. I am saying we need to streamline the system.


 And getting $500 billion's worth with $300 billion isn't streamlining?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Veterans Benefits are not under Medicare.


 Rukh, I know we have our differences, but that's not me who said that.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 20, 2011)

Azure said:


> I didn't read your material, Rukh. Feel better?


 
You are not putting up ridicules statements that are denying what the Congressional Budget Office is saying will happen.



Attaman said:


> Why don't you show me how much of the  Medicare cut from the recent Rep bill might be going into other  projects, hm? :3c You're arguing it'd be a full, solid $600 billion  gain. Well, may I see a source for that? Mind, you haven't even given a  source for how much the Dem's said "no" to, you just said it was a  Sacred cow, and now you've shifted the Goalpost to "It's not enough!"
> 
> And the Republican Bill is still only thrice that. Or is this just like  where you said 9% of the total debt was a "drop in the bucket"?



Show me where I said the Republicans budget was any better. I didn't.





Attaman said:


> Skipping,  by the way, further segments Rukh brings up that were not in my  original post at all - I post that new Healthcare plan was being gutted  before it came out and that Republicans are "Party of No". Somehow, Rukh  dragged me into trying to debate with him how Medicare needs to be cut  by about 8-10% (which, bear in mind, is in his math not even a drop in  the bucket) after trying to argue that Democrats would never cut  Medicare / Medicaid funding.


 No, I am simply sick and tired off all the finger pointing at whos fault it is. And your perpetuatting that line of thinking. The fact is, its the democrats fault, its the republicans fault, its the American public's fault. Its everyone fault.



Attaman said:


> Sorry that when I search up "July 19 Poll Compromise" I get a fuckin' different poll's result.


 And thats my fault how? I was using the poll that was put up on the NBC national news, which was only found as a video.




Attaman said:


> :3c


 The Poll on the NBC video said differently. So now what?



Attaman said:


> Fun fact: Republican proposal was $600 Billion, only $100 billion more  than Democrats, and only $10bil more / year ($40 / year if you don't  count what we know Dem's would spend it on, and discount what Rep's  might), or still "drop in bucket" territory as it's under 9% of the  total deficit.


 I think your beginning to see what I am saying. Neither plan is good enough. Neither plan goes far enough. Neither plan is going to solve the problem.




Attaman said:


> Rukh, I know we have our differences, but that's not me who said that.


 My bad, I don't know how your name got swapped into that quote.




Edit: People need to realize I am not standing behind any party. I am not touting Republicans as having a better way since thats what some in here seem to be thinking.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First of all, sources, links? 700 billion in tax cuts over how much of a time period? The way you wrote (most likely on purpose) was to word it a way that made it look like a 700 billion dollar tax cut in one year.
> 
> Secondly, we can't pay down this debt. Did you not read the quotes I have put up. Either we default our debt away or we depreciate it away. Thats the choices we are left with. Even if we raised taxes, cut spending drastically, we would still increase in public debt. Just not as fast if we didn't do anything about it.



700 billion *per year*, yes.  Here, Reps threaten to block _all_ debate on _all_ Dem bills until they got their way.  And after that first article was written they decided that goes for the START treaty with Russia too.  The consequences of failing to ratify that could have led to a renewed arms race with Russia, and potentially World War III.  That is not an exaggeration, Reps risked WW3 for a cash grab.

And debt only climbs while you have a deficit.  If we actually snapped out of the Reagan voodoo and funded the fucking government this would be a solvable problem.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> 700 billion *per year*, yes.  Here, Reps threaten to block _all_ debate on _all_ Dem bills until they got their way.  And after that first article was written they decided that goes for the START treaty with Russia too.  The consequences of failing to ratify that could have led to a renewed arms race with Russia, and potentially World War III.  That is not an exaggeration, Reps risked WW3 for a cash grab.
> 
> And debt only climbs while you have a deficit.  If we actually snapped out of the Reagan voodoo and funded the fucking government this would be a solvable problem.



Your link says the opposite about the START treaty.
_"According to the AP,  which first broke the news of the letter, and portrayed it as a GOP  effort to block all Dem initiatives unilaterally, *the START treaty would  be exempted.* But everything else -- particularly DADT, unemployment  insurance and the DREAM Act would be ensnared."_

Edit: I didn't see the other link. But do you really think that a delay would have really caused a rearmament? 


And, it that link there is no mention of 700 billion dollars anywhere.

This is what the Republicans said they were going to do:

"_Republicans will block all debate on all legislation until the tax cut  impasse is bridged and the federal government has been fully funded"_

You forgot to mention anything about funding for the government as well. So please elaborate on this key piece of information. What were the Republicans talking about when they said the government needed to be fully funded?


Why did you leave out that key piece of information?


----------



## Onnes (Jul 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am not talking about interest rates here. I am not talking about us defaulting on our national debt as a whole. If you had read the quotes I put up, you would have known that.



This makes no sense anymore. Why would you bother to type something out when you really mean something completely different? I'm no mind-reader and even if I were I wouldn't waste that talent here.



> Niall Ferguson


Ferguson is as relevant to the current debate as Mr. T. At least go to the trouble of finding a real loony economist to cite.



> Edit: Oh, some interesting info, Here are words straight from Obama.
> "as the Baby Boomers start to retire in greater numbers and health care  costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the  amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our  health care programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- Social Security, and  the interest we owe on our debt. Thatâ€™s it. Every other national  priority -â€“ education, transportation, even our national security-â€“will  have to be paid for with borrowed money."
> 
> He warned that interest payments may reach $1 trillion annually by the end of the decade.
> ...


So you agree that our healthcare system needs to be brought in line with the more efficient systems found in the rest of the developed world? Because that is, in fact, how you fix our rising healthcare costs which are the primary source of our long-term budget issues.

The CBO projections assume healthcare spending keeps rising with absolutely no slowing down. If you assume that there is no way to control healthcare costs, a uniquely American anomaly, then we might as well end the union here and now.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> This makes no sense anymore. Why would you bother to type something out when you really mean something completely different? I'm no mind-reader and even if I were I wouldn't waste that talent here.


 Why don't you actually read all my posts in here instead of jumping in the middle and making baseless assumptions?



Onnes said:


> Ferguson is as relevant to the current debate as Mr. T. At least go to the trouble of finding a real loony economist to cite.


 He is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HistorianHarvard Historian who specializes in financial and economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets.

Again, if you would READ the freakin link to the U.S budget on Wikipedia you would know all of this. At this point, further discussion with you is pointless unless I copied and asted the entire link into a post on here.



Onnes said:


> So you agree that our healthcare system needs to be brought in line with the more efficient systems found in the rest of the developed world? Because that is, in fact, how you fix our rising healthcare costs which are the primary source of our long-term budget issues.


I have said that health care needs reform. What reform that looks like. I have not specified. Me personally, I don't like NHS idea. I don't like the idea of paying a heavy tax like Europe does for entitlements. What tax is that again? The VAT tax or something? Europe pays for that service, and their taxes show it. Theirs are much higher than ours last time I looked into it.



Onnes said:


> The CBO projections assume healthcare spending keeps rising with absolutely no slowing down. If you assume that there is no way to control healthcare costs, a uniquely American anomaly, then we might as well end the union here and now.


 I trust the CBO more than I do you or anyone here.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have said that health care needs reform. What reform that looks like. I have not specified. Me personally, I don't like NHS idea. I don't like the idea of paying a heavy tax like Europe does for entitlements. What tax is that again? The VAT tax or something? Europe pays for that service, and their taxes show it. Theirs are much higher than ours last time I looked into it.


We sort of love it, if you haven't noticed. Your loss. <3


----------



## Azure (Jul 20, 2011)

The idea of reform, as far as Neo-Cons are concerned, is to make healthcare so inaccessible to poor people, they will just die. Of course, that's after they've milked all the money out of their pockets. And all that money will end up in the military's pocket, so we can kill more brown people.

/thread
//comrade


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 20, 2011)

It always struck me as odd that conservatives are against a public option on the grounds of not wanting to pay for other's health care, because isn't that what health private health insurance is anyway? (The main difference private insurance isn't geared to actually helping people, it's designed to line corporate's pockets simply because it's a for-profit industry.)


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Not to mention that the UK founded the NHS in the _immediate aftermath of World War II_.  Tell me again why we can't afford to change to a public system, which actually cost _less_ in the long run.


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Except England's government wasn't able to sustain itself.


 
Way to go missing the point Rukh. In case you haven't read your history books (ones that deal with history _outside the USA_, I mean), the UK was *stone flat broke* after WW2 as a result of first defending itself then liberating Europe, being in hock to the USA so much that the UK finally paid off its war debt _only a few years ago._

And yet... with half its major cities having the crap bombed out of them, and having to rebuild a war-based economy so fragile that _food rationing continued for several years after VJ Day_, the UK *still* saw fit to lay down the foundations of the present-day NHS public health system that has served it well (compared to the overblown overspending under-performing US private health system) through good times and bad to the present day. Now if the UK could do this while it was on the bones of its arse, surely the US with its massive resources, in a time on peace with a fully-functioning economy can afford to restructure its health care system into something that _actually delivers comparable outcomes for significantly less cost._

And no matter how you try and spin it, the NHS is _not_ responsible for Britain's current economic situation: it's the unregulated wheeler-dealer money men gambling with gazillions of pounds and dollars that accomplished _that._



Mojotech said:


> It always struck me as odd that conservatives are against a public option on the grounds of not wanting to pay for other's health care, because isn't that what health private health insurance is anyway?



Consistency and logic has never been a conservative trait, I've noticed. Not around here anyway.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 20, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Consistency and logic has never been a conservative trait, I've noticed. Not around here anyway.


 
Bad logic seems perfectly logical to bad people.

Also, I love how it is nearly if not absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to get conservative fuckheads around here and elsewhere to admit for a moment that they have had the everloving shit beat out of them in an argument.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Way to go missing the point Rukh. In case you haven't read your history books (ones that deal with history _outside the USA_, I mean), the UK was *stone flat broke* after WW2 as a result of first defending itself then liberating Europe, being in hock to the USA so much that the UK finally paid off its war debt _only a few years ago._
> 
> And yet... with half its major cities having the crap bombed out of them, and having to rebuild a war-based economy so fragile that _food rationing continued for several years after VJ Day_, the UK *still* saw fit to lay down the foundations of the present-day NHS public health system that has served it well (compared to the overblown overspending under-performing US private health system) through good times and bad to the present day. Now if the UK could do this while it was on the bones of its arse, surely the US with its massive resources, in a time on peace with a fully-functioning economy can afford to restructure its health care system into something that _actually delivers comparable outcomes for significantly less cost._
> 
> And no matter how you try and spin it, the NHS is _not_ responsible for Britain's current economic situation: it's the unregulated wheeler-dealer money men gambling with gazillions of pounds and dollars that accomplished _that._



Way to edit my quote so it says something entirely different than what I was actually saying. Oh, thats right, you do that all the time...

Here is what I did say:

"I think its foolish to say a NHS will solve problems (which includes the  debt crisis). It will eliminate some sure (Not the debt crisis), but it  can and most likely will cause new problems to arise. There is no magic  fix to the problems the country now faces."

And I was using England as an example because their government had to do massive budget cuts to stay afloat, and they have a NHS. My point was, if you think going to a NHS will save the U.S, you are delusional at best.

And the U.S does not have a fully functioning economy as you put it. Far from it. And last time I checked we are not in a time of peace. You see, there are 2 countries over in the middle east that we have troops in...

And, funny enough you didn't seem to read your own post. England didn't pay off its WWII debt to the U.S until a couple years ago. So, they were not flat broke as you put it when they made their NHS. They borrowed U.S money so they could rebuild, which included making a NHS.

So tell me again how England afforded to make a NHS when they were "broke" as you put it.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 21, 2011)

> And last time I checked we are not in a time of peace. You see, *there are 2 countries over in the middle east that we have troops in...*


By US standard this means peace. :V



> England didn't pay off its WWII debt to the U.S until a couple years ago. So, they were not flat broke as you put it when they made their NHS. They borrowed U.S money so they could rebuild, which included making a NHS.


And apparently saw it worthwhile to pay an interest for. Also, being in debt does usually constitute as broke.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Jul 21, 2011)

That's it. I give up on politics forever. I know I came in out of nowhere just to post this, but the debt problem argument now seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back, to use a cliche. I know I shouldn't stop caring, that I have some sort of power, etc., but dammit, I'd rather be ignorant of this than constantly fret about it and get depressed over something I pretty much can't change. The whole thing just seems to be so divisive among people, too. I'm sick of getting into trivial arguments with others about my/their views. Why should I care what they think?

Call me stupid or ignorant. I'd rather use what intelligence I have elsewhere.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> "I think its foolish to say a NHS will solve problems (which includes the  debt crisis). It will eliminate some sure (Not the debt crisis), but it  can and most likely will cause new problems to arise. There is no magic  fix to the problems the country now faces."
> 
> And I was using England as an example because their government had to do massive budget cuts to stay afloat, and they have a NHS. My point was, if you think going to a NHS will save the U.S, you are delusional at best.



My *point * (which you again ignored) was that the UK was able to implement a proper healthcare system for its citizens while being in far _worse_ economic shape than the USA. And on further research, plans for the NHS were being laid down _during the Second World War_!



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And the U.S does not have a fully functioning economy as you put it. Far from it. And last time I checked we are not in a time of peace. You see, there are 2 countries over in the middle east that we have troops in...



Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realise that US cities were being bombed to pieces on a nightly basis, that US ships were being sunk off your costs, rationing was in full flight, *soldiers were being drafted* and you were in imminent danger of being invaded... oh wait. No. 

Yes, the US has troops in the Middle East. However not only is the Middle East several *thousand* kilometres from the mainland USA, the US _voluntarily_ put them there. If you define "US being at war" with "US troops on foreign soil", then the US hasn't been at "peace" since 1945, what with Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, US troops stationed in Europe, two Gulf wars, etc - and possibly from at least 1898 when US troops invaded the Philippines.  

And as noted above, the UK's planning for the NHS was running right through when the Germans were kicking the shit out of British cities, and was implemented when large chunks of British cities were piles of rubble and the British treasury was practically drained from the war effort. Yet you're saying that the USA - so long held up as the "can-do" land of opportunity and innovation, and *with the biggest GDP on the planet* - can't even _consider_ implementing a system even halfway like what most other Western democracies have in place because it's "too hard" and "too expensive"... especially as the US currently _wastes_ more money through it existing system?

I thought you conservative types hated wasting money?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So tell me again how England afforded to make a NHS when they were "broke" as you put it.



They financed it from general taxation, that's how they did it. Because they set *priorities*. Because unlike the conservative "trickle down" brigade, the British government of the time held to the view that:



			
				Clement Attlee said:
			
		

> 'In a civilised community, although it may be composed of self-reliant individuals, there will be some persons who will be unable at some period of their lives to look after themselves, and the question of what is to happen to them may be solved in three ways â€“ they may be neglected, they may be cared for by the organised community as of right, or they may be left to the goodwill of individuals in the community. The first way is intolerable, and as for the third: Charity is only possible without loss of dignity between equals. *A right established by law, such as that to an old age pension, is less galling than an allowance made by a rich man to a poor one, dependent on his view of the recipientâ€™s character, and terminable at his caprice'.*


----------



## Slyck (Jul 21, 2011)

*THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT*

ATTENTION ALL BASEMENT DWELLING CUDDLEBUNNIES Do not reply to Rukh_Whitefang. By making him think, you're just increasing the blood flow to his brain and I don't think his body can handle it.  On the other hand, if he has a stroke that'd be nice too.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 21, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> That's it. I give up on politics forever.


This is our demise.



> I know I shouldn't stop caring, that I have some sort of power, etc.,  but dammit, I'd rather be ignorant of this than constantly fret about it  and get depressed over something I pretty much can't change.


Damn right you shouldn't. And join the club with depression, we all pay this price.

_"You  cannot control what happens to you, but you can control your attitude  toward what happens to you, and in that, you will be mastering change rather than allowing it to master you."_



> Call me stupid or ignorant. I'd rather use what intelligence I have elsewhere.


I call you stupid _and_ ignorant. But, also, definitely intelligent. :smile:



Slyck said:


> ATTENTION ALL BASEMENT DWELLING CUDDLEBUNNIES  Do not reply to Rukh_Whitefang. By making him think, you're just  increasing the blood flow to his brain and I don't think his body can  handle it.  On the other hand, if he has a stroke that'd be nice  too.


We are rather nice people giving him a chance, aren't we?


----------



## Slyck (Jul 21, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> We are rather nice people giving him a chance, aren't we?


   He's been in debate after debate after debate making the same "mistakes". Honestly he's probably a troll. Don't feed him.  "Trust me, I'm a doctor."


----------



## Bliss (Jul 21, 2011)

Slyck said:


> He's been in debate after debate after debate making the same "mistakes". Honestly he's probably a troll. Don't feed him.  "Trust me, I'm a doctor."


I think there is still hope to break him from his illusion of finding the 'truth' and shutting everything else out.

Edit: That reminds me of similar behaviour. :V


----------



## Ikrit (Jul 21, 2011)

legalize all drugs
tax the shit out of them


----------



## Bliss (Jul 21, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> legalize all drugs
> tax the shit out of them


Maybe not all but some. Y'know.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 21, 2011)

Cease funding Pakistan, military and economically. Cease to be the largest giver of aid.to the united.nations and foreign countries. Bring manufacturing back home. remove bush.era.tax.cuts.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 21, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Cease funding Pakistan, military and economically.



This is something I have been trying to figure out for a while.  Why are we giving Pakistan money? If we're trying to buy their cooperation we're not doing a very good job of it.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jul 21, 2011)

How about we seize offshore accounts, illegalize outsourcing, and if a business tries to relocate because their negative tax is too burdensome, we threaten them by saying they can no longer operate in this country if they do so. 

We should replace all flat taxes with lower-rate progressive ones, highering the unemployed into the tax agencies. Increasing revenue is the only way to improve the debt without our country becoming less competitive. Spending cuts cost jobs, they don't create them. And "tea party" is just a rebranding of certain farther right-wing republicans.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 21, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> *How about we seize offshore accounts, illegalize outsourcing, and if a business tries to relocate because their negative tax is too burdensome, we threaten them by saying they can no longer operate in this country if they do so. *
> 
> We should replace all flat taxes with lower-rate progressive ones, highering the unemployed into the tax agencies. Increasing revenue is the only way to improve the debt without our country becoming less competitive. Spending cuts cost jobs, they don't create them. And "tea party" is just a rebranding of certain farther right-wing republicans.



Thats called protectionism. The international community would demonize us if we did so as well impose international trade/economic sanctions

Otherwise "GO FOR IT".



Another thing that's been bothering me as a Republican.

Our politicians tell us they were against Spending, and were voted in to do so. Now they turned 180 degrees.
But when we do get down on cutting spending, we argue with democrats on what to cut spending on. But they just completely fucked off the idea of spending all together.

also Bobskunk, make note. The F-35 Engine was needed because they botched the F-22. they tried making the fF-35 bastard child fighter a "DO ALL" "MULTIROLE" "jack of all trades, master of none" jet. it doesn't have the powerplant to fill its role as initially desired. So Fuck off with you're line-step "NOT NEEDED NOT DESIRED" bullshit.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 22, 2011)

Put Israel on the list next to Pakistan, too.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 22, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Put Israel on the list next to Pakistan, too.



I would personally do that, without bringing it to international attention. Would prevent opportunist attacks on the Nation.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 22, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I would personally do that, without bringing it to international attention. Would prevent opportunist attacks on the Nation.



As well as put a damper on their own opportunist attacks!  Besides, the bulk of international aid should be food and medicine, not guns and bombs- we have screwed up priorities.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 22, 2011)

*Re: THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT*



Slyck said:


> ATTENTION ALL BASEMENT DWELLING CUDDLEBUNNIES Do not reply to Rukh_Whitefang. By making him think, you're just increasing the blood flow to his brain and I don't think his body can handle it.  On the other hand, if he has a stroke that'd be nice too.



Says the one who spammed my shout page on FA the other day. So now you come onto FAF and start harassing me too. Grow up dude, seriously.
What is the point of following me around online? You said I must be a troll on FA, I told you I wasn't. So now you resort to posting crap like this?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 22, 2011)

Double post.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 22, 2011)

*Re: THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT*

When you post opinions and arguments online you can expect criticism. Especially if you choose to defy very basic fundamentals and on top of that act like... well, a _twit_.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Grow up dude, seriously.


*cough* *chuckle* *cough*


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm willing to sacrifice programs that benefit other people in order to keep ones that benefit me for the sake of keeping America's debt down! /Tea Party

Also. Forever endless tax cuts. Unless it's the Fair Tax, then a tax hike is ok.


----------



## Azure (Jul 22, 2011)

3 things will fix America Debt.

1. Nuke China
2. Nuke China
3. Before nuking China, Nuke China

Also move everything to Mexico, and annex that bitch. Hugo Chavez ain't got no balls without his commie friends to back him.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> 3 things will fix America Debt.
> 
> 1. Nuke China
> 2. Nuke China
> ...



Hugo Chavez is from Venezuela dude o.o


----------



## Azure (Jul 22, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Hugo Chavez is from Venezuela dude o.o


I know. He's just the most prepared to deal with us if shit goes down. We'll have Brazil on our side though, for good or ill. It's a wonder we haven't overrun our southerly neighbors long ago when expansion of that type was still acceptable and within our reach.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jul 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> 3 things will fix America Debt.
> 
> 1. Nuke China
> 2. Nuke China
> ...



I prefer a medium-rare slow cooked China. Nuking China makes it all rubbery.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> 3 things will fix America Debt.
> 
> 1. Nuke China
> 2. Nuke China
> 3. Before nuking China, Nuke China




The new Japanese strain of gonorrhea would be more effective. With a population so dense as China's, you could render an entire generation unable to safely reproduce.


----------



## Azure (Jul 22, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I prefer a medium-rare slow cooked China. Nuking China makes it all rubbery.


China is like a beef wellington that turns out to be a burnt loaf of bread filled with dogshit.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 22, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> legalize all drugs
> tax the shit out of them



Brilliant!  You create legitimate jobs out of dealers, and if you raise the taxes to incredible  rates, then no one can afford the drugs until only the very wealthy can afford them, then bang!  You win the 'war on drugs' by the epic downsizing of the population that uses them.  Not only that, but with legalizing drug use you can now clear out over 75% of the prision population....which now becomes part of the workforce 

That, and seriously, I think most of the GOP are stoned on any given day with the stunts they're pulling lately.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 22, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> As well as put a damper on their own opportunist attacks!  Besides, the bulk of international aid should be food and medicine, not guns and bombs- we have screwed up priorities.



If you call retaliation and self defense that, then i disagree!


----------



## Aden (Jul 23, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Brilliant!  You create legitimate jobs out of dealers, and if you raise the taxes to incredible  rates, then no one can afford the drugs until only the very wealthy can afford them, then bang!  You win the 'war on drugs' by the epic downsizing of the population that uses them.



And we all know that people will never find a way to buy drugs without taxes if it gets too expensive


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 23, 2011)

Aden said:


> And we all know that people will never find a way to buy drugs without taxes if it gets too expensive



You forgot the *:V* at the end of that ^^;


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 23, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> If you call retaliation and self defense that, then i disagree!



hahahaha if you want to call what Israel does 'retaliation and self defense' then I also disagree.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 23, 2011)

Azure said:


> It's a wonder we haven't overrun our southerly neighbors long ago when expansion of that type was still acceptable and within our reach.



Well the US did that with the Philippines in 1898... and it didn't work out so well. I guess it's hard to reconcile that "all men are created equal" thing with out-and-out colonialism - at least with a straight face anyway.


----------



## Azure (Jul 23, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Well the US did that with the Philippines in 1898... and it didn't work out so well. I guess it's hard to reconcile that "all men are created equal" thing with out-and-out colonialism - at least with a straight face anyway.


Tell it to the British, French, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish, Italians, Venetians, and Holy Roman Empire as well. At least back in the day you could barbarously conquer somebody and nobody would complain too much :V


----------



## Tycho (Jul 23, 2011)

Azure said:


> Tell it to the British, French, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish, Italians, Venetians, and Holy Roman Empire as well. At least back in the day you could barbarously conquer somebody and nobody would complain too much :V



Oh no, they did complain.  But then you killed them in a suitably horrific manner in a public execution, and that shut the rest up for a bit.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 23, 2011)

Azure said:


> Tell it to the British, French, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish, Italians, Venetians, and Holy Roman Empire as well. At least back in the day you could barbarously conquer somebody and nobody would complain too much :V



And how many of those empires are still around today? Towards the end, even the British Empire was more of a liability than an asset to Britain, what with having to single-handedly protect a good chunk of the globe and spending itself to death in the process. Hmmm, remind you of anything?

It was only the fall of the French Empire and the need for Napoleon to raise some cold hard cash quickly that got the US Louisiana in the first place - similarly for the Imperial Russia and the purchase of Alaska. 

Now there's a thought: the USA could always see if Russia wanted to buy Alaska back. At a price in line with the capital gain on the place with the oil of course. And you could always try flogging off Texas to Mexico


----------



## Azure (Jul 23, 2011)

I approve of both of those measures. Get rid of fundies and the Palin Family, and America is richer in the bargain. Plus, we can always welch on the Alaska deal later, and Operation Anchorage will begin!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 23, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Well the US did that with the Philippines in 1898... and it didn't work out so well. I guess it's hard to reconcile that "all men are created equal" thing with out-and-out colonialism - at least with a straight face anyway.



What the crap are you talking about? That was the Spanish American war. Spain had control of Cuba and the Philippines. When the U.S won that war, they gained control of those territories and others. The American-Philippine war didn't start until 1899. The war technically ended in 1902 but hostilities didn't come to a complete end until 1913. And In 1916, the United States granted the Philippines autonomy and promised eventual self-government, which came in 1934.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Well the US did that with the Philippines in 1898... and it didn't work out so well. I guess it's hard to reconcile that "all men are created equal" thing with out-and-out colonialism - at least with a straight face anyway.



Sometimes, i doubt you are actually a Kiwi and not some chi-com drone.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Azure said:


> I approve of both of those measures. Get rid of fundies and the Palin Family, and America is richer in the bargain. Plus, we can always welch on the Alaska deal later, and Operation Anchorage will begin!



Go a step further, Divide the U.S. into two separate countries, blue and red.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Go a step further, Divide the U.S. into two separate countries, blue and red.


This is the dream of many. :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What the crap are you talking about? That was the Spanish American war. Spain had control of Cuba and the Philippines. When the U.S won that war, they gained control of those territories and others. The American-Philippine war didn't start until 1899. The war technically ended in 1902 but hostilities didn't come to a complete end until 1913.



And why exactly *did *the US go to war against Spain in the first place, mmmm? Or do you still believe the bullshit about the Spanish sinking the _Maine_ in Havana as the provocation? In 1898 the Filipinos saw you lot as liberators from Spanish colonisers - but as you've admitted to with the advent of the American-Philippine War, the Filipinos rapidly found they'd swapped one bunch of colonisers for another. Why else would they be fighting their erstwhile "liberators"?



MaverickCowboy said:


> Sometimes, i doubt you are actually a Kiwi and not some chi-com drone.



What, because I actually have an opinion different to yours? Everyone who thinks differently to you is a "commie"? Wow, what a shallow world you live in.

I've got news for you mate - the *Cold War ended over twenty years ago*, and McCarthyism is dead and buried. Knee-jerk accusations of being a communist just because someone doesn't lick Uncle Sam's boots or worship the Stars and Stripes and the almighty greenback don't work any more.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> And why exactly *did *the US go to war against Spain in the first place, mmmm? Or do you still believe the bullshit about the Spanish sinking the _Maine_ in Havana as the provocation? In 1898 the Filipinos saw you lot as liberators from Spanish colonisers - but as you've admitted to with the advent of the American-Philippine War, the Filipinos rapidly found they'd swapped one bunch of colonisers for another. Why else would they be fighting their erstwhile "liberators"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You share the same rhetoric as those who post on other political forums on the internet and echo the same regurgitated sentences verbatim. 

Nothing to do with America or the Cold war.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 24, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> And why exactly *did *the US go to war against Spain in the first place, mmmm? Or do you still believe the bullshit about the Spanish sinking the _Maine_ in Havana as the provocation? In 1898 the Filipinos saw you lot as liberators from Spanish colonisers - but as you've admitted to with the advent of the American-Philippine War, the Filipinos rapidly found they'd swapped one bunch of colonisers for another. Why else would they be fighting their erstwhile "liberators"?



Lets see, its easy enough to find real information o the war.

The main issue was Cuban Independence, but the Democrat party pushed then then Republican President McKinley to war after the USS Maine sunk mysteriously in the Cuban Harbor. The U.S. Navyâ€™s investigation, made public on March 28, concluded that  the shipâ€™s powder magazines were ignited when an external explosion was  set off under the shipâ€™s hull.A study commissioned by National Geographic magazine in 1999, using AME computer modeling, stated that the explosion could have been caused by a mine.
So its not B.S as you put it. Two words. External explosion...In other words, not an accident.

And the reason for the American-Philippine war was basically because of a lack of good communication basically. It had to do with the American commanders who did not know of a cease fire between Spain and America, made a agreement with the Spanish military of the island to take control of the capitol themselves.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 24, 2011)

Rukh, you really gotta get better sources than Yahoo Answers. No wonder you  never cite anything.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, you really gotta get better sources than Yahoo Answers. No wonder you  never cite anything.



Its the new Google! didn't you hear?


----------



## Blutide (Jul 24, 2011)

Wow, lots of different ideas and thoughts! 

Sorry, I didn't forget about this topic, I just have been away. But from what I am reading its more of if the individual basis? As in, if everyone one by one was more money smart would it help on a national scale? I mean the government is reckless as hell, and we will revolt.....on monday < ( joke about Americans revolting anymore... ) But what to you, seems to be the step in the right direction? 

I got a lot of responses, but I am not clear on what some are saying on a solution. ( or your thought on a solution, I know this is a awkward question but I am curious )

My idea? Stop trying to fix the world, and have informed voting in the states....I have a feeling that most people, have no idea what is ACTUALLY being voted...or what/who they are voting for. ( Watch Cspan for in house talks, etc for what I am talking about...the crap these politicians talk about.... )


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You share the same rhetoric as those who post on other political forums on the internet and echo the same regurgitated sentences verbatim.



And one could say the same of you, frankly. 

Now shall we dispense with the bullshit?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> And one could say the same of you, frankly.
> 
> Now shall we dispense with the bullshit?



You must surrender your CHE GUEVARA dog fist Comrade! :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 24, 2011)

Maverick, please stop projecting your own flaws onto Mayfurr and get back on topic. :V


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Maverick, please stop projecting your own flaws onto Mayfurr and get back on topic. :V



We both know we have our political convictions. Butt out. You're the one victimizing communists in the other thread for christsakes.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> We both know we have our political convictions. Butt out.
> 
> You're the one victimizing communists in the other thread for christsakes.


 
No. :V

Also that's neither true nor relevant to this thread. :V Don't mix two active threads. Like beer and wine.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> *No. :V*
> 
> Also that's neither true nor relevant to this thread. :V Don't mix two active threads. Like beer and wine.



You're not my boyfriend. BACK UP, GROWN UPS ARE TALKING. Unless that's your MO :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 24, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Now shall we dispense with the bullshit?


 


MaverickCowboy said:


> Further Bullshit.


 
:V


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> :V



Cute.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, you really gotta get better sources than Yahoo Answers. No wonder you  never cite anything.



Its all from Wikipedia smart one. Nice try though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War


----------



## Raphael (Jul 24, 2011)

It's not the first time they've been in a 15 trillion dollar deficit, remember when you all owed the Bank of Sweden? The money is all invisible anyways, it's made up wealth. Everybody'll say "I told you so", all the people who say "Everything is fine" or "I don't care" will start to care and say "I told you so" as well... and when the world falls apart, and some new country will take it's place, only to be corrupt again.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 24, 2011)

Raphael said:


> It's not the first time they've been in a 15 trillion dollar deficit, remember when you all owed the Bank of Sweden? The money is all invisible anyways, it's made up wealth. Everybody'll say "I told you so", all the people who say "Everything is fine" or "I don't care" will start to care and say "I told you so" as well... and when the world falls apart, and some new country will take it's place, only to be corrupt again.



De donde eres?
Como tu puedes amoral Fidel y el Che? los dos son assesino's. Tu ablas de currupcion, pero supportas dos assesinos y mas?
No entiendo eso compadre.
Tu no supporta el cummonismo, pero una gorvierno dictadura anti humana del es estremo satanico iscierdista de poder assesinato y terror.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> De donde eres?
> Como tu puedes amoral Fidel y el Che? los dos son assesino's. Tu ablas de currupcion, pero supportas dos assesinos y mas?
> No entiendo eso compadre.
> Tu no supporta el cummonismo, pero una gorvierno dictadura anti humana del es estremo satanico iscierdista de poder assesinato y terror.



Uh, okay, for the record I'm not... Spanish, but I translated your paragraph with Google and let me try to answer you.

*What I think you said:*

Where are you from?
You support Fidel and Che but both are killers. You think they're not corrupt?
Um. You don't understand why...
You do not support communism, but a human anti-government dictatorship is the extremity of satanic power and terror...

*What? *

I'm from Canada.
I do support communism. But who ever said I supported Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?

I'm not sure if this is against my opinion or in support of it... :\


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You must surrender your CHE GUEVARA dog fist Comrade! :V



Awwww...  capitalist running dogs are so cute when they're miffed 



MaverickCowboy said:


> De donde eres?
> Como tu puedes amoral Fidel y el Che? los dos son assesino's. Tu ablas de currupcion, pero supportas dos assesinos y mas?
> No entiendo eso compadre.
> Tu no supporta el cummonismo, pero una gorvierno dictadura anti humana del es estremo satanico iscierdista de poder assesinato y terror.



Geez. Enough of the one-trick "anyone not worshipping unrestricted capitalism is a dirty filthy commie" rhetoric, it's boring. And _so _20th century.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 25, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Geez. Enough of the one-trick "anyone not worshipping unrestricted capitalism is a dirty filthy commie" rhetoric, it's boring. And _so _20th century.



If I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. If I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You must surrender your CHE GUEVARA dog fist Comrade! :V





Mayfurr said:


> Awwww...  capitalist running dogs are so cute when they're miffed


If you two canidae make-a-baby they'll turn out third way puppies! :3c


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 25, 2011)

> I'm from Canada.
> I do support communism. But who ever said I supported *Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?*
> 
> I'm not sure if this is against my opinion or in support of it... :\



Its on your page.

http://heymynameisjohnny.wordpress.com/

"THE THINGS I LIKE â™¥
_OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA. 613. 420. MOTHER RUSSIA. KNOWLEDGE. HISTORY. ANCIENT HISTORY. POLITICS. ECONOMICS. PSYCHOLOGY. SOCIOLOGY. ANTHROPOLOGY. JOURNALISM. COMMUNISM. KARL MARX. VLADIMIR LENIN. *FIDEL CASTRO. CHE GUEVARA.
*_


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 25, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Awwww...  capitalist running dogs are so cute when they're miffed
> 
> 
> 
> Geez. Enough of the one-trick "anyone not* worshipping unrestricted capitalism* is a dirty filthy commie" rhetoric, it's boring. And _so _20th century.



I never said this.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Its on your page.
> 
> http://heymynameisjohnny.wordpress.com/
> 
> ...



Yeah, *I like them.* Does it say Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's Communist Regime or does it say _*FIDEL CASTRO. CHE GUEVARA.*_ Pay attention to detail.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 25, 2011)

Raphael said:


> Yeah, *I like them.* Does it say Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's Communist Regime or does it say _*FIDEL CASTRO. CHE GUEVARA.*_ Pay attention to detail.



They are both responsible for the regime. No one says "I like Hitler, not his regime".


----------



## Raphael (Jul 26, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> They are both responsible for the regime. No one says "I like Hitler, not his regime".



Nobody in the entire world has ever said that? And how do you know that? Seriously, bro...


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 27, 2011)

Raphael said:


> Nobody in the entire world has ever said that? *And how do you know that?* Seriously, bro...



How do i know Castro/Che is responsible for the Cuban Regime? because he and Che overthrew the government there, and established a dictatorship. Killed my family and took their belongings.
Castro has been a ruthless dictator ever since for decades, recently he got his illness recently and his brother Raul came to power.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 27, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> How do i know Castro/Che is responsible for the Cuban Regime? because he and Che overthrew the government there, and established a dictatorship. Killed my family and took their belongings.
> Castro has been a ruthless dictator ever since for decades, recently he got his illness recently and his brother Raul came to power.



"You killed my family! You took their stuff! You took their country! ...[worst-of-all tone of voice]YOU ARE COMMIES![/worst-of-all tone of voice]" [/conanthecapitalist]


----------



## Azure (Jul 27, 2011)

Most of those people wanted communism at the time, soooo...


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 27, 2011)

Azure said:


> Most of those people wanted communism at the time, soooo...



Considering what the Capitalists were doing to them at the time, it was probably the lesser of evils.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 27, 2011)

don't hate the communism, hate the communist, man.

Look at the Shakers.  A bunch of Commies, all of them.  Pretty damn salt of the earth type folks.  And American.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 27, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Its the new Google! didn't you hear?


Yahoo Answers sucks. It can't even explain how babby is formed.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Look at the Shakers.


and


> salt of the earth



Ye gawds.....


----------



## Tycho (Jul 27, 2011)

Irreverent said:


> and
> 
> 
> Ye gawds.....



Wonderfully descriptive.  Elaborate a bit, it might be even MORE wonderful.  :|

They had a better grasp of social responsibility, communitarian philosophy and work ethic than any boomer dared dream of having.

The ONLY real fault I find with them as a societal model is the use of religion as the keystone.

You know, if you've got an issue with "Marxism/Leninism/Maoism Communism" you need to learn how separate the two terms from one another.  Communism gets badmouthed constantly because people tie it to the Soviets as they feel it is convenient to do so, for the purposes of "defeating" it in an argument.

What ACTUALLY makes communism look unworkable in modern society is the almost complete absence of trust between people, fostered by the "fuck-you-got-mine" mentalities of the bad apples of capitalism.  The inability of people to see BEYOND themselves and to acknowledge that there are things bigger and more important than themselves (like, say, the continuation, health and prosperity of human society as one whole organism - god not needed) is what truly cripples it.

Gotta have your BMW, gotta have your in-ground swimming pools and big sport boats, gotta have your summer vacation home condo in Puget Sound.  The guy down the street who is about to file for bankruptcy, the family that got crippled by their dad's job loss right as the kids got into college, the guy out by the streetlight with the sign saying "don't lie, don't steal, honest man looking for an honest meal" and saying "thank you" as many times as he can before cars pull away after giving him cans of chili and a warm jacket... yeah, fuck them, they're not your problem.  Right? Sure.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> "You killed my family! You took their stuff! You took their country! ...[worst-of-all tone of voice]YOU ARE COMMIES![/worst-of-all tone of voice]" [/conanthecapitalist]



Are you mocking the loss?



Irreverent said:


> Considering what the *Capitalists* were doing to them at the time, it was probably the lesser of evils.



Batista. who was a ruthless motherfucker too that came to power from a COUP. By no means was a capitalist. He was letting organized crime run the country, much like the red mafia in the Russian Federation.



Azure said:


> Most of those people wanted communism at the time, soooo...



No, they wanted to get rid of Batista. Fidel Castro/Che was an opportunist, manipulator, and a propagandist.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 27, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> No, they wanted to get rid of Batista. Fidel Castro/Che was an opportunist, manipulator, and a propagandist.



You think those people like that government? that isolation from the rest of the world? Can't think your own thoughts? Different opinions from the Communist Party of Cuba? (its the only party allowed)

You believe in Michael Moore's depiction of "Free healthcare" for all Cubans? I'd like to know where this glorious revolution is. I still travel down there about every year taking clothes and medicine to Family stuck there since the cold war.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 27, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Are you mocking the loss?



No, mocking the loser and his terminal case of McCarthy-itis

sorry about your family

I mean, no one deserves to be shot and robbed

right


----------



## Raphael (Jul 27, 2011)

> How do i know Castro/Che is responsible for the Cuban Regime? because he  and Che overthrew the government there, and established a dictatorship.  Killed my family and took their belongings.
> Castro has been a ruthless dictator ever since for decades, recently he  got his illness recently and his brother Raul came to power.



Cool story, bro. Except you COMPLETELY misunderstood what I said, and you completely missed the sarcasm. You said nobody has ever liked Hitler but not agreed with his regime and I said, yes, lots of people like and admire Hitler, but do not agree with his methods.

I like and admire Castro and Che, and do not agree with their methods. I do not know them, I don't know what goes on in their mind. I don't know if they kill out of spite, or whether they really do genuinely believe in something that is of higher moral value than is possible for us to understand. It's not my fault Castro and Che killed people, and it's not my fault that your family was born where they were born, so don't get all butthurt because I'm a communist who supports certain ideas and opinions, which HAVE to come from a person first by the way, they don't just magically appear.

*To all you guys arguing politics, did you know the Communist Party still receives around 8 million votes in the U.S.S.R.?*



> You believe in Michael Moore's depiction of "Free healthcare" for all  Cubans? I'd like to know where this glorious revolution is. I still  travel down there about every year taking clothes and medicine to Family  stuck there since the cold war.



I travel there, too. And yes, I do believe in Michael Moore's depiction, according to my experience in Cuba, it's pretty damn accurate.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 27, 2011)

Raphael said:


> *To all you guys arguing politics, did you know the Communist Party still receives around 8 million votes in the U.S.S.R.?*



Do you have a time machine or something

because damn I can NOT seem to find the USSR on a map these days


----------



## Raphael (Jul 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Do you have a time machine or something
> 
> because damn I can NOT seem to find the USSR on a map these days



My mistake. I was thinking of the next sentence I planned to write. Let me correct:

*To all you guys arguing politics, did you know the Communist Party still receives around 8 million votes in Russia?*

My bad. I'm very tired today. XD


----------



## Raphael (Jul 27, 2011)

Double post by accident.


----------



## Aden (Jul 27, 2011)

Raphael said:


> Double post by accident.



_And_ your poetic signature has extraneous commas
Man _get back in the game_


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 27, 2011)

Wonder what happened to debating the debt problem? Oh well.

I do find it interesting that Irrelevant (great name, btw, pretty much describes your arguments) and Maverick (borrow that from Sarah Palin?) rant about the evils of Communism like it's still the Red Scare or some shit like that. Leave it to old white men to be stuck in the past. Leave it to conservatives to be deathly afraid of anything that even remotely looks like socialism.

Communism, Marxism, and Socialism are similar but have many differences. You can't just assume that someone who likes Socialism, or believes in the teachings of Marx or Engels will suddenly start worshipping Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. You can agree with the general ideas of say, Communism, yet not agree with the actions of people like Che or Stalin.

As for the debt itself, I have become more and more disappointed with the way the government is handling this, especially the Republicans. The Republicans seem more intent on getting reelected and making Obama look bad instead of actually preventing the country from defaulting. A good example of this is with Obama's speech compared to Boner Boehner's speech. Obama said "We need to work together to fix this problem." Boehner, the spineless bastard licking the boots of his superiors, said "It's Obama's fault, he screwed up the country, and he's trying to raise the nation's debt."

I noticed it when I noticed that Obama conceded to the demands of the Republicans for cuts to Medicare and Social Security, pissing off a lot of Democrats, yet when he asked for taxes in the form of eventually letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, as well as other things, Boehner backed down, supposedly from pressure from his more conservative buddies in the GOP.

I see that, as usual, reelection and looking good for the camera is more important to politicians nowadays.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 27, 2011)

Raphael said:


> *I travel there, too. And yes, I do believe in Michael Moore's depiction, according to my experience in Cuba, it's pretty damn accurate.*



Cool story bro. How bout you come down and meet my relatives? You know what medicine they get? American.
Why?
Because i bring 50 pound BAGS of it every year.
What they get from Cuban Healthcare is pathetic and minuscule.
for almost 15 years I've been sending Money, travelling down there for months at a time. Building homes for them, leaving all my clothes and buying them food from the *Tourist only districts*. Prove to ME. someone struggling to support family there that CUBAN health care is better than what is here available in the U.S.

Even the condoms they have available are sad Chinese made unreliable garbage.




CrazyLee said:


> Wonder what happened to debating the debt problem? Oh well.





CrazyLee said:


> I do find it interesting that Irrelevant (great name, btw, pretty much describes your arguments) and* Maverick (borrow that from Sarah Palin?)* *rant about the evils of Communism like it's still the Red Scare or some shit like that.* *Leave it to old white men to be stuck in the past. Leave it to conservatives to be deathly afraid of anything that even remotely looks like socialism.*



I was Maverick LONG before Palin/McCain had anything to do with it. This comparison is tiresome and overplayed. Thanks for playing.

I rant about the evils of communist because my family was lined up and shot in the streets of Havana, Bombed, and thrown in Political prisons for not agreeing with Castro and Che with the banner causes of Socialism and Communism.

My family and I have very GOOD fucking reasons to be afraid. Castro forced suffering on the Religious, and those that owned property Such as Farms, and houses. (my family). 

Quit your racial stereotypes with "old white guys" living in the past. Look not to far on your map of South America, Africa. They are places where atrocities are being STILL committed with leaders championing the causes of Socialism and Communism the the common good of the people.

I'll say it Again. i Spent YEARS in Columbia Fighting the FARC. Marxist rebels hellbent on overthrowing the Democratic government and its Democratically elected officials. They get funding from selling Narcotics, Coke, marijuana, and Illegal arms trade. They also work in human traffic. They terrorize villages, take hostages and prisoners, or kill entire villages who don't succumb to their guerrilla tactics and ideology. They take children and raise them as Child soldiers and sell little girls into prostitution. I've personally retrieved those as young as 7 years old. Their end goal is to rule over Columbia in a Communist government. Guess what? They are still there and will continue to do so. They are self declared communists.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 27, 2011)

Double post.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 27, 2011)

Damn, I'm horrible secular leftist scum! :V

_Edit: Now he blocked me - for my BS and omniscient teen nature - when I enquired about this. And I swear I behaved to my best ability (and wasn't even *that* argumentative)! 3:

Well, first time's a first time. :V_


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Damn, I'm horrible secular leftist scum! :V
> 
> *Edit: Now he blocked me - for my BS and omniscient teen nature - when I enquired about this. And I swear I behaved to my best ability (and wasn't even that argumentative)! 3:
> 
> Well, first time's a first time. :V*



Don't bring BULLSHIT from FA to the Forums.

You were arguing and starting shit with everyone and commenting on their pages too. You were deliberately seeking them out in an argumentive fashion. Cut the fuckin' bullshit NOW and stop playing the victim. I told you MULTIPLE times to stop starting trouble, and you simply said "NO" MORE than once. Fucking deal with the consequences of your actions.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Well, first time's a first time. :V[/I]


 
It's pretty common among conservatives. If they can't find whole in your argument, they'll go right for the personal attack. As just demonstrated by Maverick's last post. And every post before it. :V


----------



## Bliss (Jul 28, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You were arguing and starting shit with everyone and commenting on their pages too.


I _most_ _certainly_ did not! Where'd you get that idea? One person watched _me_ and I simply said 'hello'.



> You were deliberately seeking them out in an argumentive fashion. Cut the fuckin' bullshit NOW and stop playing the victim. I told you MULTIPLE times to stop starting trouble, and you simply said "NO" MORE than once.


Why do you want to make a claim and then exclude people who don't go with your bandwagon? (Not that it isn't enjoyable for a time!) What should I say? Arguing on FA is funfunfun.



> Fucking deal with the consequences of your actions.


Do not worry. I will get over you and mend my heart... one day. :V


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 28, 2011)




----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 28, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Prove to ME. someone struggling to support family there that CUBAN health care is better than what is here available in the U.S.



In some respects, yes Cuba actually IS better in delivering health care than the USA. How about some actual statistics?
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Cuba/United-States/Health

*Access to essential drugs*: Cuba 95% (ranked 17th), USA 95% (ranked 27th)
*Hospital Beds per 1,000 people*: Cuba 4.9 (ranked 28th), USA 3.3 (ranked 37th)
*Physicians per 1,000 people*: Cuba 5.91 (ranked 1st), USA 2.3 (ranked 31st)
*Prevalence of HIV, total % of population ages 15-49*: Cuba 0.09% (ranked 144th), USA 0.6% (ranked 69th)
*Probability of reaching 65 (Male)*: Cuba 78.1% (ranked 25th), USA 77.4% (ranked 32nd)

And this is done on the smell of an oily rag compared to the USA

*Health expenditure per capita current US$*: Cuba $229.80 (ranked 72nd), USA $6,092.20 (ranked 1st)



MaverickCowboy said:


> I rant about the evils of communist because my family was lined up and shot in the streets of Havana, Bombed, and thrown in Political prisons for not agreeing with Castro and Che with the banner causes of Socialism and Communism.
> 
> My family and I have very GOOD fucking reasons to be afraid. Castro forced suffering on the Religious, and those that owned property Such as Farms, and houses. (my family).
> 
> Quit your racial stereotypes with "old white guys" living in the past. Look not to far on your map of South America, Africa. They are places where atrocities are being STILL committed with leaders championing the causes of Socialism and Communism the the common good of the people.



There's also people championing the causes of "Capitalism" and "Freedom" who have / are committing EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF ATROCITIES on people that disagreed with them - I certainly recall places like Chile and Argentina falling into this category. Not _all_ dictators are "commies".


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 28, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> In some respects, yes Cuba actually IS better in delivering health care than the USA. How about some actual statistics?
> http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Cuba/United-States/Health
> 
> *Access to essential drugs: Cuba 95% (ranked 17th), USA 95% (ranked 27th)
> ...



This is NOT the case for my relatives in Cuba.

Most of the figures pumped out by the Cuban Government is Fabrication to statistical organizations and the U.N.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 28, 2011)

> Communism, Marxism, and Socialism are similar but have many differences.  You can't just assume that someone who likes Socialism, or believes in  the teachings of Marx or Engels will suddenly start worshipping Stalin  or Mao or Pol Pot. You can agree with the general ideas of say,  Communism, yet not agree with the actions of people like Che or Stalin.



THANK YOU! This is the hardest part of my arguments to actually convey to some flag-fucking capitalist.



> _And_ your poetic signature has extraneous commas



That's song lyrics, and the comma's indicate the stopping points when the vocalist sings.



> Cool story bro. How bout you come down and meet my relatives? You know what medicine they get? American.
> Why?
> Because i bring 50 pound BAGS of it every year.



What the hell does this have to do with me admiring Fidel Castro and Che Guevara as leaders and people, and not for their injustices? And not even *their* injustices, but their guerilla's injustices. Bro, seriously, look at the big picture, stop over-analyzing. Just because *I'm *a communist, doesn't mean *I'm* a killer.



> *Access to essential drugs*: Cuba 95% (ranked 17th), USA 95% (ranked 27th)
> *Hospital Beds per 1,000 people*: Cuba 4.9 (ranked 28th), USA 3.3 (ranked 37th)
> *Physicians per 1,000 people*: Cuba 5.91 (ranked 1st), USA 2.3 (ranked 31st)
> *Prevalence of HIV, total % of population ages 15-49*: Cuba 0.09% (ranked 144th), USA 0.6% (ranked 69th)
> ...



Like I said, pretty well-off country in my experience.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 28, 2011)

Double post again. Seriously, I think this is an error by Fur Affinity... this is the second time it's done it for no apparent reason, and has kept the BB markup code in the post with it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 28, 2011)

Maverick, not every figure about Cuba is manufactured by the Cuban government for express purpouses of inflating themselves, just so you're aware. Cold war's over, brah.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jul 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Maverick, *not every figure about Cuba is manufactured by the Cuban government for express purpouses of inflating themselves*, just so you're aware. Cold war's over, brah.



Okay, I'll go tell my family down there that they aren't actually facing hardships and lacking medical care.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 28, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Okay, I'll go tell my family down there that they aren't actually facing hardships and lacking medical care.


You do know this isn't only a Cuban issue, but also prevalent in countries with modern mixed-economies? Human rights violations ignored for being a communist nation those numbers seem surprisingly adequate.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 28, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Okay, I'll go tell my family down there that they aren't actually facing hardships and lacking medical care.



There's people in the richest cities of America facing hardships and lacking medical care. Not every single country is perfect, but Cuba is far from North Korea.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 28, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Most of the figures pumped out by the Cuban Government is Fabrication to statistical organizations and the U.N.



Would that be including the statistics from the SAME sources for the indicators where the US is actually *ahead* of Cuba in healthcare - like T.B cases, intestinal diseases, birth rate and sanitation? Perhaps Cuba is faking those as well to make themselves look _bad_ for some reason?

Bullshit. 

Cuba ain't perfect by a long shot - but neither is the USA.


----------



## Aden (Jul 28, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> This is NOT the case for my relatives in Cuba.
> 
> Most of the figures pumped out by the Cuban Government is Fabrication to statistical organizations and the U.N.



http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2307


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 28, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> In some respects, yes Cuba actually IS better in delivering health care than the USA. How about some actual statistics?
> http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Cuba/United-States/Health
> 
> *Access to essential drugs*: Cuba 95% (ranked 17th), USA 95% (ranked 27th)
> ...



Can we reasonably look at these statistics and take them as they are?

I mean really, we're comparing two countries here, one with 11 million people and the other with 300 million people.

That doesn't come off to you as a possible issue with these figures?


----------



## Raphael (Jul 28, 2011)

> That doesn't come off to you as a possible issue with these figures?



It really doesn't. If you have a country with 10x the amount of taxes, you sure as hell should be able to support 10x as many people.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 28, 2011)

What I'm curious about is why we're still focusing on the debt, as if Congress doesn't get Boehner to shut the fuck up soon we may be looking at the US defaulting, and you do _not_ play political chicken with the "We don't get our way" repercussion being "Drag world into Great Depression MKII."


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 28, 2011)

Raphael said:


> It really doesn't. If you have a country with 10x the amount of taxes, you sure as hell should be able to support 10x as many people.



But not nearly at the same rate.

American taxes are notoriously low.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> But not nearly at the same rate.
> 
> American taxes are notoriously low.


 
There's a reason the American people pay so much more out of pocket per person than other countries for the same-or-worse health care....


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jul 28, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> There's also people championing the causes of "Capitalism" and "Freedom" who have / are committing EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF ATROCITIES on people that disagreed with them - I certainly recall places like Chile and Argentina falling into this category. Not _all_ dictators are "commies".



I'm going to ignore this portion of your post. 

Now I'm going to claim that I'm worried about all Christians because of Anders Breivik. Because radicals are the whole of the non-violent, peaceful and generally egalitarian people that happen share their beliefs.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Can we reasonably look at these statistics and take them as they are?
> 
> I mean really, we're comparing two countries here, one with 11 million people and the other with 300 million people.
> 
> That doesn't come off to you as a possible issue with these figures?



No, because _that population difference has already been accounted for, _ as the figures are based on "per capita" ratios which account for the population difference. Hell, three of the figures quoted explicitly stated "percentage" or "per 1,000 people". That's the entire _point_ of using per capita statistics - to give a coherent comparison between dissimilar countries.

Anyway, back on topic... some commentary from Wall St (courtesy of BBC News):



> The traders on the New York Stock Exchange are used to making snap decisions, making millions in an instant, on a hunch and good intelligence. From here the inability of politicians in Washington to close a deal looks crazy.
> 
> One trader, Ben Willis, told me: "We are very upset our elected officials are behaving like children, continually drawing lines in the sand and jumping over them.
> 
> "It's an embarrassment to the world. *Today the Philippines told us that we had to take care of the dollar! I don't know what is left after that... the Ethiopians telling us how to grow crops?* It's an embarrassment."



Meanwhile, the New Zealand dollar has been steadily breaking records with its strength against the plummeting greenback, currently sitting at US$0.87 - a few years ago the Kiwi dollar would rarely climb above US$0.60 and was jokingly referred to the "Pacific Peso". Not any more by the look of it...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 28, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> No, because _that population difference has already been accounted for, _ as the figures are based on "per capita" ratios which account for the population difference. Hell, three of the figures quoted explicitly stated "percentage" or "per 1,000 people". That's the entire _point_ of using per capita statistics - to give a coherent comparison between dissimilar countries.



Yet some of those aren't based Per Capita, like drug access which both rate at 95% yet Cuba is rated much higher than the US.

Also, you are extremely cherry picking your figures.

More Cubans die of intestinal diseases than Americans, possibly due to the prevalence of better drugs and care.  More women in the US have access to contraceptives than Cuban women, not to mention women in Cuba have 3 TIMES the likelihood of dieing of maternal causes.

I'm not sure you can fairly compare these two systems based solely on what I've provided here.  Your source hasn't objectively stated that either side is better than the other.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Yet some of those aren't based Per Capita, like drug access which both rate at 95% yet Cuba is rated much higher than the US.
> 
> Also, you are extremely cherry picking your figures.
> 
> ...



If you look back at my post, I said SOME indicators were indicating that Cuba had a superior record - and when Maverick stated claiming that these positive figures were Cuban propaganda, I pointed out some indicators where the US was better than Cuba and asked him if they were "propaganda" as well. In fact, the indicators I pointed out to him were pretty much the ones you cite.

The source I quoted doesn't make the claim that the US is overall better or worse than Cuba - it's simply a source of statistics. But given that Cuba life expectancy is at least on a par with the US despite spending a comparative pittance on health care, Cuba must be doing _something_ right... and it's certainly no North Korea or Somalia.


----------



## Blutide (Jul 28, 2011)

* Sadly goes through my thread *
** Wonders if this is the reason I should be around more.....damn it work....taking up all my time. **
*** Omg asterisks lol ***


----------



## Rsrallygrl (Jul 28, 2011)

I think the government should take a hard look at who they are giving $ to.  I see people every day who are cashing their state/fed/disability checks that have a cig in their mouth, or a beer in the car console. The money isn't going to help them better their lives. Its feeding their habit. You figure 1000 people 1 pack @ $4 a pack. That's $4000. IMO anyone who receiving gov assistance in order to live shouldn't be allowed to buy cigarettes or alcohol.They are not a need. 

Limit spending on travel. Meetings can be help by video skyping. 

Stop the wars and bring the soldiers home.

Savings: MILLIONS


----------



## Raphael (Jul 29, 2011)

> Stop the wars and bring the soldiers home.



Agreed .Goddamn military budget could feed the world. I'm seriously going from radical to extremist, I'm sick and tired of stuff like this. Who's ready for World War 3?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Jul 29, 2011)

Rsrallygrl said:


> Stop the wars and bring the soldiers home.
> Savings: MILLIONS


 
When we are nearing 15 trillion dollars in debt. Millions of dollars of savings doesn't cut it. Furthermore, the wars have not been that expensive when you actually look at the numbers. A little over 1 trillion dollars over 10 years (or close to that number). Where as we have spent 14 trillion over 10 years on entitlement programs that are bloated. So, eneding the wars, won't really do anything to the budget. 


Raphael said:


> Agreed .Goddamn military budget could feed the world. I'm seriously going from radical to extremist, I'm sick and tired of stuff like this. Who's ready for World War 3?



Yeah, no. Military budget of the entire U.S national budget is 20%. Don't get me wrong, there are cuts that need to be made. And they were lined out by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 29, 2011)

> Defense Secretary Robert Gates.



Sweet. Hopefully, somebody with a sniper rifle and a history of mental imbalances will have read the outlines, then. One _can_ hope.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 29, 2011)

Rsrallygrl said:


> I think the government should take a hard look at who they are giving $ to.  I see people every day who are cashing their state/fed/disability checks that have a cig in their mouth, or a beer in the car console. The money isn't going to help them better their lives. Its feeding their habit. You figure 1000 people 1 pack @ $4 a pack. That's $4000. IMO anyone who receiving gov assistance in order to live shouldn't be allowed to buy cigarettes or alcohol.They are not a need.



Logically you might be right - but from a social perspective I couldn't disagree with you more. Given that these people on welfare are on the bones of their arse and at the bottom of society's heap anyway, you're proposing to deny then even a _hint_ of enjoyment from having the odd beer or two? Aren't they degraded enough by having to go cap in hand to welfare to survive in the first place?

Tobacco addition, welfare exploitation or alcoholism is one thing, but wanting to deny someone the right to have the odd bit of enjoyment in their lives just because they're on a benefit - that's pretty small-minded and draconian.

Besides, it wasn't people on welfare which caused the great recession / crash / whatever, it was the bankers and traders in Wall Street and other places that did it. _They_ caused this train wreck, let _them_ pay for it!


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 29, 2011)

And to all the people who believe that cutting back social welfare should be the sole method of fixing government defects while leaving the rich alone, and who would deny people at the bottom of society even basic pleasures simply because they are receiving some kind of welfare payments to ensure they don't starve, I submit this quote from Herman Melville (recently posted on a local blog):

*"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well housed, well warmed and well fed."*


----------



## Holsety (Jul 29, 2011)

Raphael said:


> Sweet. Hopefully, somebody with a sniper rifle and a history of mental imbalances will have read the outlines, then. One _can_ hope.


As if we needed more reasons to ignore you for being a total nutcase.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Furthermore, the wars have not been that expensive when you actually look at the numbers. A little over 1 trillion dollars over 10 years (or close to that number). Where as we have spent 14 trillion over 10 years on entitlement programs that are bloated. So, eneding the wars, won't really do anything to the budget.


Priorities, mon, priorities.


----------



## Blutide (Jul 29, 2011)

John McCain, hobbits, tea party, debt ceiling.....I changed the channel quick and just sighed.

Anyone catch that?


----------



## neifaren (Jul 29, 2011)

I'm British, and our country is currently Â£1trillion in debt.

One thing that pisses me RIGHT off is the complete injustice in how much some of our political figures and even FOOTBALL players are paid compared to us ordinary citizens. The majority of the population works their arses off for toffee while others are paid thousands and millions for laying back and/or kicking a ball around. And even then some of the fatcats are dipping their grubby hands into the trough.

Our current government is/has also been attempting to cut public services in a 'bid' reduce our debt; *important* services, might I add, like emergency services and the NHS. Along with that, food and other bills are going up immensely. The tax went up as well. It's all in the name of saving a few million pounds at the sacrifice of thousands of families being chucked out of their homes.

It's just disgusting how out of balance we are with each other. I mean how are we going to claw our way out of these debts if we keep getting dragged back in by those who want to snatch every penny for something that's totally un-necessary? It sounds like Russia all over again but without the purpose of further developing their technology and the purging. Sort of.

Sorry if any facts are wrong. e_e;


----------



## neifaren (Jul 29, 2011)

After reading the starting post for this thread, I thought our country was in a bad enough mess e_e


----------



## Attaman (Jul 29, 2011)

Blutide said:


> John McCain, hobbits, tea party, debt ceiling.....I changed the channel quick and just sighed.
> 
> Anyone catch that?


Yes, McCain rightly called out the Tea Party and Boehner as if they don't shut the fuck up soon there is the somewhat real risk that they could trigger "The Great Depression 2: Greater Depression!"


----------



## Aden (Jul 29, 2011)

neifaren said:


> One thing that pisses me RIGHT off is the complete injustice in how much some of our political figures and even FOOTBALL players are paid compared to us ordinary citizens. The majority of the population works their arses off for toffee while others are paid thousands and millions for laying back and/or kicking a ball around.



Re: sports salaries, it's really the market's fault. We like our entertainment so much that a team owner can afford to spend $x million per player because doing so will net them even more profits if the team (or the team's image) does better because of it. Tickets, TV, DVDs, T-shirts, jerseys, memorabilia, club-level seats...


----------



## Bliss (Jul 29, 2011)

neifaren said:


> I'm British, and our country is currently Â£1trillion in debt.


I'm curious. My very cosmopolitan teacher once told us that - at least in her humble opinion - UK still retains to class system more so than other countries where it was to be abolished for a longer while. As in: your birth circumstances affect relatively strongly where will you get in life. Do you subjectively think it's true or not?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 29, 2011)

Aden said:


> Re: sports salaries, it's really the market's fault. We like our entertainment so much that a team owner can afford to spend $x million per player because doing so will net them even more profits if the team (or the team's image) does better because of it. Tickets, TV, DVDs, T-shirts, jerseys, memorabilia, club-level seats...


 
Not to mention that football players aren't all paid like Peyton Manning, and that most of their money is subtracted due to taxes, agent fees, team penalties (being late, flagrant fouls), and future medical expenses when they leave the game.

That last point has driven HUNDREDS of pro football players to go bankrupt.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 29, 2011)

Holsety said:


> a total nutcase.



Coming from FaF, that means a lot. **Argues about it with everybody for 4 pages**


----------



## ArticSkyWolf (Jul 29, 2011)

http://costofwar.com/en/ 

just for the wars


----------



## Bobskunk (Jul 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not to mention that football players aren't all paid like Peyton Manning, and that most of their money is subtracted due to taxes, agent fees, team penalties (being late, flagrant fouls), and future medical expenses when they leave the game.
> 
> That last point has driven HUNDREDS of pro football players to go bankrupt.



Don't forget health problems causing misery and early death brought on by constant physical exertion and impact- it's not covered, and the cash flow stops as soon as they stop playing.  Considering how much they make, it's hard to consider football players as being exploited- but when you look at what most of them go through, especially for the salaries of the non-AAA players, then you look at the OWNERS...

Yeah.

Also lol again at someone mentioning "Stopping the wars would help."  Surprise, Rukh starts going "that would only save a few million dollars that's not enough so why bother?  In fact, when you LOOK at the numbers, they haven't been THAT expensive!"  wow, _what a deal_, even ignoring their playing fast and loose with numbers

Rukh, you really do want perpetual war, don't you?  I mean, in the face of all your sudden AND DISINGENUOUS concern with "the debt" that you didn't give a shit about three years ago that is being played with by the same people who ran it up on a platform of misery and exploitation and insisting on getting the worst price for everything because it hurts the country and enriches private enterprise at no benefit to the average American- mostly a detriment to them and others around the world.  Let alone implying that all of a sudden all 14 trillion dollars of gross debt is Obama's fault, even though you try to conflate future spending with the debt that's really money already owed.

I think you want the country to default.  I think you want everything to come crashing down when it didn't have to so you can blame Barack Obama.  Bush going from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion?  You didn't bat an eye because that debt was accrued in selling out the country.  Those borrowing increases were asked for and received, then.  But now?  When luminaries such as Saint Ronald say "deficits don't matter," you believe it- while you have terrible policymakers like Bush and a subservient Congress in power.  You'd rather get rid of any and all safety nets for the poor than stop bombing the Middle East for a day?  What kind of Christian are you?

Get the hell out, Rukh.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 29, 2011)

Until Obama puts the debt up +20% during a term Bushists be quiet. :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 29, 2011)

neifaren said:


> Our current government is/has also been attempting to cut public services in a 'bid' reduce our debt; *important* services, might I add, like emergency services and the NHS. Along with that, food and other bills are going up immensely. The tax went up as well. It's all in the name of saving a few million pounds at the sacrifice of thousands of families being chucked out of their homes.



Our current National (conservative) government here in NZ is doing the same sorts of things - cutting back on public services, treating various essential welfare provisions as "nice to have" and up for cuts, while at the same time implementing tax cuts for the rich, the removal of gift duty, employment relations "reform", and further business deregulation.  But despite all that, we've got record high inflation, practically no economic growth, an all-time high of people using charity foodbanks, and 6.6% unemployment...

... while the fortunes of the country's 150 richest people have *grown *by almost 20 per cent in one year. 

"Trickle-down economics"? More like being pissed on, I reckon.


----------



## 350125 GO! (Jul 29, 2011)

I'm scared. It's strange that everyone, including myself, is just going about their business like everything's normal. Even though my county might not exist in 3 days. There's not really much else we can do.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 29, 2011)

Oh, look! The White House sent me a message!


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 29, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I rant about the evils of communist because my family was lined up and shot in the streets of Havana, Bombed, and thrown in Political prisons for not agreeing with Castro and Che with the banner causes of Socialism and Communism.


That does not mean that everyone who shows an interest in Marxism, communism, or socialism agrees with the actions or policies of Cuban or South American and African governments. If your family was killed entirely by blacks, would you sit there and rant and rave about the evils of black people? Because that's the way you're acting.



MaverickCowboy said:


>


Whoo, ignore anyone who disagrees with you. Fun!

Who's next? Am I next? Me! Me! I want to be next! Over here! *waves hand* Pick me!



Attaman said:


> Yes, McCain rightly called out the Tea Party and Boehner as if they don't shut the fuck up soon there is the somewhat real risk that they could trigger "The Great Depression 2: Greater Depression!"


I think I have more respect for McCain now. He's actually more moderate than most of the Republican party, but ended up acting more conservative during the election to get GOP support.



Lizzie said:


> Until Obama puts the debt up +20% during a term Bushists be quiet. :V


I love how the debt started rising again during Regan's term. So, how's those Reganomics doing for ya? :V
Praising a guy that, despite no political background or law/political schooling, and who was originally an actor, somehow managed to get elected. I blame it on everyone hating Carter.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 29, 2011)

Some interesting graphs about the US debt over the years:
From 1800 to 2000
So here you have the debt slowly going down until 1860, where it shot up a little thanks to the Civil war. Then it goes down again, shoots up again for WWI, goes down, goes up for the Depression, goes down a bit, shoots up thanks to WWII, starts going down, goes up during Regan's terms, and starts going down during the surplus of the late '90s.
Actual debt from 1940 to present
Here, we have a graph of the actual debt, that's been pretty steady until it hits the 1980s. Then it starts going up until it hits the late 90s, where it goes down due to the surplus. Then during the 2000s, it starts going up. It sharply goes up around 2007-8 due to the stimulus packages, most of which were passed by Bush. The government is trying to pour money into the economy to stabilize it at this point.


I've been meaning to reply to Rukh's earlier post about 1000 posts ago, but never got around to do it. So I'm going to do so now, and I'm going to use the very Wikipedia page that Rukh linked to but apparently missed some key information in.

Rukh mentioned that Social Security and Medicare are the biggest spenders in the government. In all actuality, according to this graph, which I got from the page HE linked, he's only partially right. Medicare is 23% of the budget. SS is 20%. Defense spending is 20%. And then discretionary (rather than mandatory) spending is 19%. These are the four biggest spenders of the government, but Republicans are only concerned about the first two.

The thing is, though, Social Security and Medicare are not money the government is giving out for free. The programs were supposed to be paid for wholly by social security and medicare taxes, which according to this graph equal 20% of government income, and which some people have been paying into for their entire lives. Social Security should be looked at like a retirement savings account. I put in $100k over my lifetime into Social Security, the government should give me that $100k back when I retire. That money should be left alone. However, the SS and medicare taxes were thrown into the rest of the government's money pot and used for other things, it seems.

According to this graph, Social Security isn't even the problem. Even according to that graph, SS and Medicaid is only a small part of government spending until recently. And if you notice, SS is only rising a little, and stabilizes in the future, while it's Medicare that is rising and rising. I blame this on four things. A: The number of people past retirement is growing. B: people are living longer. C (a major one): The cost of health care, especially for seniors, is way more expensive than it should be, and way more than other countries. Cutting health care costs would help. And D: welfare fraud, which isn't a huge problem but still costs taxpayers money.

Certainly, trimming down Medicare and Social Security may help. Cutting spending for the military and the wars we're in would help to. Cutting some discretionary spending would help. Cutting a little from everywhere would help. Looking at these two graphs again, you can see that the US spends $3.456 trillion and gets $2.162 trillion in revenue, which means we overspend by $1.294 trillion. If we could get the yearly spending below that, to a negative number, by cutting spending and raising revenue by above $1.2 trillion, we'd eventually start paying this debt off. But doing so by cutting deeply into Medicare and Social Security, which many have paid into their whole lives and some rely on to survive, like some on the Right want to do, is cruel. IF we cut into it, we have to be smart about it. And we should look at other cuttings as well, like cuts to the military, which is 20% of the budget as well, and spends just as much as Social Security OR Medicare. A more intelligent tax code wouldn't help either.

Rukh, I kinda do agree with you, to an extent. However, I don't want to screw over low-income old people in the name of debt reduction, either.

Also, mods, sorry about the double post. I just didn't want a single uber-long post. 

Edit: The NYT came out with an interactive puzzle several months ago where you could try to fix the budget, but I can't find it.


----------



## Aden (Jul 29, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


>



YEAH
CUT HIS MIC


----------



## Raphael (Jul 29, 2011)

> That does not mean that everyone who shows an interest in Marxism,  communism, or socialism agrees with the actions or policies of Cuban or  South American and African governments. If your family was killed  entirely by blacks, would you sit there and rant and rave about the  evils of black people? Because that's the way you're acting.



Where were people like you when my beliefs were being assumed and butchered in my political manuscript thread? Heh. I agree with this. Many people may not support communism or *ANY* ideology for that matter, and that's fine, it's up to you, but the worst thing you can do is assume that the person who supports the ideology supports violence or some kind of corruption because of injustices in the past.

As for the debt convo, the fact that Apple has more money than the U.S., that's just disturbing.


----------



## Aden (Jul 29, 2011)

Raphael said:


> As for the debt convo, the fact that Apple has more money than the U.S., that's just disturbing.



Technically, since the US has -$15 trillion, everyone here has more money than the US


----------



## Raphael (Jul 29, 2011)

Aden said:


> Technically, since the US has -$15 trillion, everyone here has more money than the US



They may have a 15 trillion dollar defecit, but the country still has wealth, considering it's corporate.

Latest figures  from the US Treasury Department show that the country has an operating  cash balance of $73.7 billion, while Apple's most recent postings show a balance of $76.4 billion.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 30, 2011)

Aden said:


> Technically, since the US has -$15 trillion, everyone here has more money than the US


 
As any economist can tell you,  Your total value is Assets - Liabilities. The current total Assets of the US government is around 150 trillion.

TL;DR explanation - Massive tax cuts and kickbacks to the rich are what's hurting the most. Tax them more and the deficit will vanish.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Tax them more and the deficit will vanish.



Agreed. I know the solution to the problem. Tax the greedy, not the needy. **rants about Left-wing political systems being better**


----------



## Bliss (Jul 30, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Edit: The NYT came out with an interactive puzzle several months ago where you could try to fix the budget, but I can't find it.


You mean this? :3c


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Jul 30, 2011)

TAX THE POOR, FELLATE THE RICH


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> As any economist can tell you,  Your total value is Assets - Liabilities. The current total Assets of the US government is around 150 trillion.
> 
> TL;DR explanation - Massive tax cuts and kickbacks to the rich are what's hurting the most. Tax them more and the deficit will vanish.


It would take a decade, but still I support this.  The downside is increasing the tax rate for the rich is like trying to take kids to the dentist, they'll kick and scream, but it's for their own good.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=w2t155rc

I'm not entirely happy with it, but... hm.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It would take a decade, but still I support this.  The downside is increasing the tax rate for the rich is like trying to take kids to the dentist, they'll kick and scream, but it's for their own good.


Welcome back, CannonFodder!



Tycho said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=w2t155rc
> 
> I'm not entirely happy with it, but... hm.


Here is mine. What do you folks think?

By the way, seriously... USA HAS NO VALUE-ADDED TAX!?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 30, 2011)

I don't see why they didn't just mint enough to cover the debt. Ya know, they own the mint. They wouldn't have had to admit to us that the country is in debt (in my case, Britain) if they kept their yaps shut and just minted the damn money. I'm sure they keep many, many, many secrets from us anyway.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> By the way, seriously... USA HAS NO VALUE-ADDED TAX!?



Hits lower brackets harder than higher ones by its very nature.  A "regressive" tax, IIRC.  And it's not a particularly good idea IMO.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Welcome back, CannonFodder!


I'm visiting for a few minutes, I'm in zeke's library 
But seriously I am in a library, I would've logged on sooner, but logged onto DA and "10752 messages"..... @.@



The downside to the deficit is it's not as simple as people claim it is.  People spout get rich quick schemes on how they think  they can fix the deficit, but realistically I think we will have this problem for the next twenty years paying it off.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 30, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Hits lower brackets harder than higher ones by its very nature.  A "regressive" tax, IIRC.  And it's not a particularly good idea IMO.


I know and am against rising it except for things like fast food. But it still sounds alien. :I


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I know and am against rising it except for things like fast food. But it still sounds alien. :I



Oh man, if I could figure out a way to JUST hit fast food, that'd be swell.  Thing is, there are nice restaurants and diners that are not part of big chains that serve what could be defined as "fast-food" - burgers, fried chicken, etc. and it would hit them harder than it would hit the big chains, I think.  I also thought "well, maybe if we look at the calories of all the items on the menu, and all the fat of the items on the menu, averaged it out and taxed based on that" it would STILL hit the little guys harder.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 30, 2011)

I gotta ask though, what were people smoking that they let it get this bad?  I mean we should've been panicking when it got to five trillion, or even seven trillion, but jeez it took us to get to a 15 trillion debt for everybody to start trying to fix it?!
That'd be like waiting until a patient in a hospital is just about to die to start treating them.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I gotta ask though, what were people smoking that they let it get this bad?



Top-grade NeoCon-brand hashish.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That'd be like waiting until a patient in a hospital is just about to die to start treating them.



Doesn't that happen _anyways_? Lol.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 30, 2011)

I'll see you folks later, gotta go grocery shopping.



I've been trying to catch up since I don't have a tv either, but for future congresses I think they should have a permanent committee and leave the rest of out it, cause it took them _*THIS*_ long just to agree on a committee for further talks.  It's already almost august and they're still working on the budget.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 30, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Oh man, if I could figure out a way to JUST hit fast food, that'd be swell.


We put up this 'sweets tax'; 0,75â‚¬ per kilogramme and 0,07â‚¬ per litre. Seemed like a good idea but it doesn't include biscuits which means manufacturers can evade it, and it almost included xylitol... which means it would've taxed all chewing gum. Ironically the idea was to better public health and consumption didn't fall. 

Edit: Small individual manufacturers were fortunately left untouched by it.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 30, 2011)

Sorry for double posting but I got an e-mail which indicates that "President Obama could use his 'constitutional authority' to avoid economic crisis."

I guess they mean the 14th Amendment, Section 4: "_The validity of the public debt of the United States,  authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and  bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall  not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall  assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or  rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or  emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims  shall be held illegal and void._"

It obviously sounds like overenthusiastic hogwash but does it have _any_ real backing?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 30, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Hits lower brackets harder than higher ones by its very nature.  A "regressive" tax, IIRC.  And it's not a particularly good idea IMO.



VAT is on everything you buy here and I do mean, everything, everything has Value added tax which increased earlier this year. It's fucking stupid, the British government increases taxes but decreases the amount of money we get.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 30, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Hits lower brackets harder than higher ones by its very nature.  A "regressive" tax, IIRC.  And it's not a particularly good idea IMO.



On the other hand, don't most states (in the US sense) have sales taxes anyway? VAT / GST (Goods and Services Tax, the Australian / NZ equivalent) is just another form of sales tax - one that's applied globally at a standard rate rather than selectively at different rates.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You mean this? :3c



I had stumbled upon that page but it didn't seem to be working for me at the time.



Lizzie said:


> Sorry for double posting but I got an e-mail which indicates that "President Obama could use his 'constitutional authority' to avoid economic crisis."
> 
> I guess they mean the 14th Amendment, Section 4: "_The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._"
> 
> It obviously sounds like overenthusiastic hogwash but does it have _any_ real backing?


That amendment was one of the amendments giving Blacks rights after the American Civil War. That part of it basically says "US debts are valid, but Confederate debts (the Confederates owed money to France and Britain) are void, and we don't owe anybody money in the south if they went broke after their slaves left."


----------



## Aden (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Sorry for double posting but I got an e-mail which indicates that "President Obama could use his 'constitutional authority' to avoid economic crisis."



Was it a forward from your grandparents
did it have big font and lots of colors
are you okay


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> On the other hand, don't most states (in the US sense) have sales taxes anyway? VAT / GST (Goods and Services Tax, the Australian / NZ equivalent) is just another form of sales tax - one that's applied globally at a standard rate rather than selectively at different rates.



That's true.  My state has a "sin tax" on crap like candy, soda, and bottled water.  Probably a few other things as well.  But WA has NO income tax, at all.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 30, 2011)

Aden said:


> Was it a forward from your grandparents
> did it have big font and lots of colors
> are you okay


My grandparents died, thank you very much. -.-

No, I got it from some campaign website that asks for you to sign stuff. To me US seems a little like Russia; the president has relatively great power.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> My grandparents died, thank you very much. -.-
> 
> No, I got it from some campaign website that asks for you to sign stuff. To me US seems a little like Russia; the president has relatively great power.



No, not really.  He has a fair amount but so does the legislative branch.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jul 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I gotta ask though, what were people smoking that they let it get this bad?  I mean we should've been panicking when it got to five trillion, or even seven trillion, but jeez it took us to get to a 15 trillion debt for everybody to start trying to fix it?!
> That'd be like waiting until a patient in a hospital is just about to die to start treating them.
> 
> It would take a decade, but still I support this.  The downside is increasing the tax rate for the rich is like trying to take kids to the dentist, they'll kick and scream, but it's for their own good.
> ...


 
We should have been worried when we hit a deficit with no plans on how to get out, or when those plans were ruined by later politicians. But no, they had to be worried more about hunting down imaginary communists, stopping those trying to get a decent system of health care for our citizens, or worried about which person is sleeping with who. :V

And yeah, it's not really a simple issue, but apparently the government doesn't get that shutting off their main income (Preposterously low tax rates on the rich and corporations) then starting expensive things like wars over ideology tends to drain the ol' coffers. We need to manage getting surpluses in our budgets each year, then we move on to other things. Baby steps. Baby steps.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't see why they didn't just mint enough to cover the debt. Ya know, they own the mint. They wouldn't have had to admit to us that the country is in debt (in my case, Britain) if they kept their yaps shut and just minted the damn money. I'm sure they keep many, many, many secrets from us anyway.


 
That would cause some pretty severe inflation. At least 25% in one year. That would be... disastrous. There are a few other reasons, but that's one of the main ones.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> We should have been worried when we hit a deficit with no plans on how to get out, or when those plans were ruined by later politicians. But no, they had to be worried more about hunting down imaginary communists, stopping those trying to get a decent system of health care for our citizens, or worried about which person is sleeping with who. :V
> 
> And yeah, it's not really a simple issue, but apparently the government doesn't get that shutting off their main income (Preposterously low tax rates on the rich and corporations) then starting expensive things like wars over ideology tends to drain the ol' coffers. We need to manage getting surpluses in our budgets each year, then we move on to other things. Baby steps. Baby steps.
> 
> ...



I just never understood why, despite having the power to print pretty much as much money as they wanted, that they don't to at least clear the debts owed and no more. It's a pitty they couldn't print enough money to cover their debts, I mean the debts would be gone, no more stupid cuts would be needed and everyone would be happy. But I guess it isn't as simple as that, life's a bitch ain't it?


----------



## Aden (Jul 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> My grandparents died, thank you very much. -.-



last question stands then


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 31, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I just never understood why, despite having the power to print pretty much as much money as they wanted, that they don't to at least clear the debts owed and no more. It's a pitty they couldn't print enough money to cover their debts, I mean the debts would be gone, no more stupid cuts would be needed and everyone would be happy. But I guess it isn't as simple as that, life's a bitch ain't it?



Well Zimbabwe tried the old "printing money to get out of debt" trick... and now the Zimbabwe dollar no longer exists, having dissolved into being worth so little that it was cheaper to wipe your arse with Zimbabwe banknotes than to use them to buy toilet paper, and Zimbabwean merchants were having to deal with numbers so huge that they were previously the sole domain of astronomers.

So no, printing money to pay debt won't really work.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 31, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I just never understood why, despite having the power to print pretty much as much money as they wanted, that they don't to at least clear the debts owed and no more. It's a pitty they couldn't print enough money to cover their debts, I mean the debts would be gone, no more stupid cuts would be needed and everyone would be happy. But I guess it isn't as simple as that, life's a bitch ain't it?



Research hyperinflation. That will answer your question. The debts increase to be the same value as they are now, as the value of your currency plummets, you could never print off enough money.
Also, VAT isn't applied to food, just fyi. Or at least basic foods like bread, milk etc.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 31, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I just never understood why, despite having the power to print pretty much as much money as they wanted, that they don't to at least clear the debts owed and no more. It's a pitty they couldn't print enough money to cover their debts, I mean the debts would be gone, no more stupid cuts would be needed and everyone would be happy. But I guess it isn't as simple as that, life's a bitch ain't it?


"So... how much do these eggs cost?"



Aden said:


> last question stands then


No, I'm not 'kay. D:



ramsay_baggins said:


> Also, VAT isn't applied to food, just fyi. Or at least basic foods like bread, milk etc.


Depends on the country in question. For example here it's normally 23%, for groceries and provisions 13%, books / medicine / culture and sports services 9%, restaurants 13%, etc.

Finland, Sweden, France and Denmark have pretty high VAT. If I recall correctly half of France's budget comes from it.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 31, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Depends on the country in question. For example here it's normally 23%, for groceries and provisions 13%, books / medicine / culture and sports services 9%, restaurants 13%, etc.
> 
> Finland, Sweden, France and Denmark have pretty high VAT. If I recall correctly half of France's budget comes from it.



I was talking about UK VAT =P But 23%? That's pretty damn high. Our VAT in the last coupla years went from 17.5% to 15%, then to 20%.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 31, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> Also, VAT isn't applied to food, just fyi. Or at least basic foods like bread, milk etc.



Here in New Zealand, it's 15% GST (VAT equivalent) to damn near _everything_, including food.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 1, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I gotta ask though, what were people smoking that they let it get this bad?  I mean we should've been panicking when it got to five trillion, or even seven trillion, but jeez it took us to get to a 15 trillion debt for everybody to start trying to fix it?!
> That'd be like waiting until a patient in a hospital is just about to die to start treating them.



to be honest it was less about "Oh wow it's at 15 trillion dollars let's do something" and more about "Oh wow we have a center-right Democrat president who is also black let's burn everything down and make him get the blame"

never mind all the unfunded wasteful nonsense and revenue cutting tax cuts of the past decade


----------



## iTails (Aug 1, 2011)

I didn't read the rest of the thread except the first 2 pages, but I will definitely say that people need to start stocking up in the case of the event we do have an economic disaster. I predict that our overly paid politicians in congress will not come to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and that the market will start looking very, very grim by the end of this year. It's better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 1, 2011)

iTails said:


> I will definitely say that people need to start stocking up in the case of the event we do have an economic disaster.


Not spending money in an economic crisis only feeds it.

Edit: There might be a solution at hand. Though, hell hath no fury like this bitch if it's done with only spending cuts...


----------



## iTails (Aug 1, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Not spending money in an economic crisis only feeds it.



Hence, "economic disaster", and by that I mean a total collapse of the economy. When money becomes worthless due to hyperinflation, there's no point in feeding the system. It's like having AIDS and dying from it and the doctors keep trying to feed you antibiotics.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 1, 2011)

Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin calls US the 'parasite on global economy'. :V


----------



## CrazyLee (Aug 1, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Not spending money in an economic crisis only feeds it.
> 
> Edit: There might be a solution at hand. Though, hell hath no fury like this bitch if it's done with only spending cuts...



Blame the Tea Party fuckheads. They're all like "No new taxes!" I swear, the more I look at the tea party, the more I think they're a bunch of nutjobs. A party of idiots.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Aug 1, 2011)

American big business wins again! Free profits for everyone! 

Well for those who are already rich at least.


----------

