BF2S Forums DAST Chat

No one quite knows what would happen if the US defaulted, because it has never happened before. But everyone who knows anything about financial markets regards it as a potential catastrophe. Interest rates could sky-rocket; the US economy, already fragile, could lapse into a second recession. If the Greeks stagger towards default at the same time, we could be facing an event even more treacherous than the financial landslide that began with the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. This really could be the second Great Depression.

So the political parties are clear that they need to reach a compromise, right? Surely conservatives, of all people, would not want to trash the US's debt rating, risk the savings of millions and throw the world economy into a new depression.

Well, that's where you're wrong. The controlling faction of the Republican Party appears more than eager to push the US and the world over a fiscal and economic cliff. It has all but held a gun to the head of President Barack Obama, telling him that unless he takes the raising of taxes off the table they will let the global economy collapse. Some within the faction even hope that might help them defeat Obama in next year's presidential election.

I sincerely wish I could be bipartisan on this and write a column saying that blame lies on both sides. But I can't. The debt itself is bipartisan, built up over many years, but only the Democrats are taking responsibility for paying it back. Today's Republican Party in the US is so extreme, so doctrinaire and so reckless it stands alone on this question.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-05 06:28:20)

Granted the debt was bipartisan, to a point.  Then the Bamster came along and outspent all other before him (and most combined).  Remember that was supposed to stimulate the economy, and it didn't.   Was that the Democrat's 'fiscal responsibility' the author was referring to?  So instead of cutting the pork, the bamster is again playing chicken.  Remember this is the man along with Reid that threatened to hold off on paying the troops....

A poll last month found 66 per cent of Americans were willing to raise taxes on those earning more than $US250,000 a year, as part of a deficit-reduction package. A recent Gallup poll found only one in five Americans thought the debt could be tackled by cuts alone. And yet that 20 per cent is holding the rest of the country hostage.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-07-05 11:19:07)

DesertFox- wrote:

I liked yesterday how my Facebook was littered with people saying "Yay America, the greatest country in the world" when we've got no problem outspending what we make and adding on to our monumental debt in addition being governed by such strong partisan where getting the smallest piece of legislation through is a chore.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-07-05 11:31:54)

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

What I don't get is why are we trying to pay off the debt now when the economy is bad?

If we fixed the economy first, we would be collecting more in tax revenue and less people would need entitlements so we would have to pay less into those.

FEOS wrote:

Increasing corporate taxes and spending ourselves into oblivion certainly won't fix the economy. Those evil corporations are what power our economy. Obama needs to remember that the next time he's looking to punish them for succeeding.

Jay wrote:

They (politicians) see money, they spend money. It's why every state has a budget crisis right now. They gave out fantastic pay and benefits during the good times because they expected them to last forever. Now they're cutting back some, but as soon as the money rolls back in they'll go right back to their old ways. If you raise taxes to pay down the debt, the money will just get diverted into other programs and the can will be kicked down the road again. How do I know this? Because it's what's been done every fucking time in this nations history. "Hey, we have all this money, I have this great idea how we can help the poor...".

Granted the debt was bipartisan, to a point.  Then the Bamster came along and outspent all other before him (and most combined).  Remember that was supposed to stimulate the economy, and it didn't.   Was that the Democrat's 'fiscal responsibility' the author was referring to?  So instead of cutting the pork, the bamster is again playing chicken.  Remember this is the man along with Reid that threatened to hold off on paying the troops....

FEOS wrote:

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Increasing corporate taxes and spending ourselves into oblivion certainly won't fix the economy. Those evil corporations are what power our economy. Obama needs to remember that the next time he's looking to punish them for succeeding.

Is it just me or does that just seem a bit off. When the public is bailing out the corporations to the tune of billions of dollars everyone seems okay with it, to suggest the same thing happening in reverse... well you're labelled as a communist or told that your 'punishing companies for succeeding'.

Corporations were not bailed out...at least not the ones I'm talking about, and not the ones the administration is constantly complaining are making "too much profit." Financial houses were bailed out...and have paid back their loans--with interest, IIRC (that would be TARP). The auto industry, on the other hand, still hasn't paid back its loans, even though both Chrysler and GM are doing better now.

I'm talking about increasing taxes on the manufacturers/producers that Obama keeps talking about needing to keep ramping up employment here in the US. Well, those are the ones that will look for other alternatives if our corporate taxes go up. The way you entice business to plant and grow somewhere is to make the overall environment more appealing than other places. Cost of doing business is the key motivational factor for the large businesses that can relocate. For small businesses, it's the key to whether they will/can expand. Both of which mean more jobs, which means a better economy. The bulk of federal revenue comes from individual income taxes, not corporate taxes, so trying to get more out of that loses on the cost/benefit analysis.