What could happen if USA goes bankrupt?

[JakeRS]

We all know that U.S.A. may go bankrupt,only about 4 or 5 days are left to make a deal,the last time they tried it failed....Personally i believe that they will make a deal,they aren't stupid (at least not that much) but still what do you think that could happen to U.S.A. and the world if it does go bankrupt?
Please,only realistic answers and no indirect or stupid off topic-ing
anyway
1.dollar looses its value and becomes a useless,having that in mind a lot of small island countries change dollar for some other currency
2.wanting to save money,u.s.a. orders to stop all wars,in Libya,Afghanistan,,,,Also orders to leave protectorates like Kosovo...Some other super powers like china and russia start to act the role of the world policeman,what usa was before
3.salaries drop low
and that's it,i can't think of anything else...

[Sugaree]

1. Stock market crashes, most likely worst than the 1929 crash.

2. Government services like Social Security and Medicare cease to exist.

3. Because of economic disaster, companies eventually let go of large amounts of workers and go out of business.

4. Interest prices sky rocket. I'm not talking a 1 or 2 percent increase; think along the lines of 20 to 30 percent more, probably higher.

5. Taxes shoot up, causing nearly every eligible tax payer to go on the verge of bankruptcy. No one pays taxes? They lose their home, car, and just about everything else.

6. Because people have no money, banks start to dwindle. Any money that they DO have is taken away from their clients in a last ditch attempt to pay their bills.

7. Without any funding from the national government, state governments will soon be faced with having to cut essential services to their own inhabitants and are more than likely to shut down (see Minnesota).

8. Prices for everything sky rocket because there is no control of the economy. Gas will probably be the first item affected and oil will go well beyond 100 dollars a barrel.

9. Everyone blames Obama and hails the Tea Party.

[Schizothemia]

1. Stock market crashes, most likely worst than the 1929 crash.

2. Government services like Social Security and Medicare cease to exist.

3. Because of economic disaster, companies eventually let go of large amounts of workers and go out of business.

4. Interest prices sky rocket. I'm not talking a 1 or 2 percent increase; think along the lines of 20 to 30 percent more, probably higher.

5. Taxes shoot up, causing nearly every eligible tax payer to go on the verge of bankruptcy. No one pays taxes? They lose their home, car, and just about everything else.

6. Because people have no money, banks start to dwindle. Any money that they DO have is taken away from their clients in a last ditch attempt to pay their bills.

7. Without any funding from the national government, state governments will soon be faced with having to cut essential services to their own inhabitants and are more than likely to shut down (see Minnesota).

8. Prices for everything sky rocket because there is no control of the economy. Gas will probably be the first item affected and oil will go well beyond 100 dollars a barrel.

9. Everyone blames Obama and hails the Tea Party.

Which is their plan in the first place. From my understanding, many of the "Freshman Republicans" who were elected during the midterm signed a pact saying they would never increase the debt ceiling, essentially, wanting to starve the government allowing for a massive restructuring. And the part that sucks is people WILL blame Obama, ignoring the fact that he has been trying to stop this and work on a compromise only to be ignored.

I'm getting so sick of the rhetoric going on in Washington. No longer is the government for the people, it's for the corporations and record profits. Let's not care about middle america who is going to be royally fucked at the end of all this.

What's funny to me is that during the Bush administration the debt ceiling was raised like 10 times, no questions asked. During the Reagan administration it was raised a jaw dropping 18 times. And yet we can't do it now? Because... why exactly? Oh right, it would mean actually giving a fuck about the people and ensuring their protection and well being.

[Modus Operandi]

Republicans should really pull their heads out from their asses. I'm not saying Democrats have never acted childish before, but the Republicans are putting a lot at risk, and are being, if I may say so, selfish cunts.

Obviously, Obama will be blamed, no matter what happens. The president is sort of the face of the government, and so they take all the heat. It's unfortunate that the public needs a scapegoat, but it is what it is.

[RoseyCadaver]

I agree with Murdoc said have a few comments.
Chaos.People will be freaking out,all the conspiracy people will be like I TOLD YA SOO LOL.Then people will go and riot(or just freak out) a little here and there,then if we're smart enough we start working hard again to try to recover and get out of it,and if that does happen then we'll be forced to live a much simpler life.I wouldn't say third world country,but we won't be on top of the hill like we we're.I'm also sure people's food supplies will start being limited.


Hopefully we can avoid this situation......which I doubt we can or will.

[User Deleted]

Wait... did you say 4-5 days O.o

[Amnesiac]

I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the current situation, but from what I've read, even the most optimistic of predictions for the default are pretty grim. From what I've heard, the dollar would collapse, government benefits would come to a standstill and the United States would essentially become hell on Earth for quite some time.

It would be a pretty interesting yet horrifying thing to watch.

[Matt_is_Awesome]

horrible things but i hope that day never comes!

[Azunite]

Turkish Lira people, come join us and it will save your life.

[Schizothemia]

Wait... did you say 4-5 days O.o

Yes, the deadline for an agreement to be met is August 2nd. If nothing is reached, the government will be forced to default on Social Security, Military payments and a few other key necessities. Currently we don't have an FAA. And the defaults are only going to get larger and more intensive as time goes on.

[User Deleted]

Yes, the deadline for an agreement to be met is August 2nd. If nothing is reached, the government will be forced to default on Social Security, Military payments and a few other key necessities. Currently we don't have an FAA. And the defaults are only going to get larger and more intensive as time goes on.

So is this severe like goodbye internet, car, school, or is it mediocre?

[Schizothemia]

So is this severe like goodbye internet, car, school, or is it mediocre?

It shouldn't upset things on an item by item basis, like internet, cars, etc.

The huge problems it causes are in infrastructure, basic government systems that provide many with money they need, organizations like the FDA and EPA. That still is pretty fucking scary to me, and is not just "mediocre."

[RoseyCadaver]

Hmmm horible money problems so far,and we're having a drought in parts of the country,does this sound familiar at all?

[CaptainObvious]

it should be noted that the US does not go bankrupt when it runs out of ability to meet payments, it merely goes into default. it's also not true to say that this has never happened; the US has defaulted at least a couple of times in its history, though in recent history nothing ever than a minor technical default has occurred and should the US find itself in substantial default the fallout will be severe.

[pageplant77]

And the part that sucks is people WILL blame Obama, ignoring the fact that he has been trying to stop this and work on a compromise only to be ignored.

I think Conan o'Brien put it best. "Compromise has become a dirty word"

Bring on the Great Depression again!

....shit.....

[Angel Androgynous]

Ugh... why can't they reach a decision? Do the republicans NOT see how deep in shit we are?

[Perseus]

Ugh... why can't they reach a decision? Do the republicans NOT see how deep in shit we are?

Some Republicans signed some kind of pact where they refuse to vote on any legislation which does not deal with the budget or with continuing tax cuts on the rich. Obama wants to get rid of the tax cuts for the rich. And what I find ridiculous is the debt ceiling was raised under Bush numerous times, but the Republicans won't raise for Obama. I swear that the Republicans are so immature. They shouldn't be holding office at all since they only care about politics and not the people.

[RoseyCadaver]

I think they should all fighting and being elitest over who's party is better and start fixing the problem :neutral: .I mean seriously,who gives a fuck what party you're in?You're in here to fix our problems.Not to play the blame game or to have the better "image".

[Schizothemia]

I think they should all fighting and being elitest over who's party is better and start fixing the problem :neutral: .I mean seriously,who gives a fuck what party you're in?You're in here to fix our problems.Not to play the blame game or to have the better "image".

That is one of the many problems of a two party system. There are so many nuances in political ideologies there is no way two parties can perfectly detail or even come close to detailing people's political perspectives. Unfortunately, our government and society is so ingrained in the two party system, it makes it difficult for any other parties to become well established. There are other parties out there, between the numerous independent parties, the green party, even the communist party, but no one listens to them. We focus far too much on democrat or republican and unfortunately that won't be changing any time soon.

As I said earlier, the government is no longer about the people, it's about corporations, mass profits and being re-elected to keep that money flowing out of middle america and into the pockets of the upper echelon. This reminds me of the old political rings of the 1930's and 40's.

[Professional Russian]

well be owned by china russia will try to invade the millitary will take care of that. there will be another revoulution and thats just about it

[Schizothemia]

well be owned by china russia will try to invade the millitary will take care of that. there will be another revoulution and thats just about it
And where is proof of this exactly? A word to the wise, don't always believe everything you hear on the TV. Especially when it thrives on your fears.

[Hatsune Miku]

1. Stock market crashes, most likely worst than the 1929 crash.

2. Government services like Social Security and Medicare cease to exist.

3. Because of economic disaster, companies eventually let go of large amounts of workers and go out of business.

4. Interest prices sky rocket. I'm not talking a 1 or 2 percent increase; think along the lines of 20 to 30 percent more, probably higher.

5. Taxes shoot up, causing nearly every eligible tax payer to go on the verge of bankruptcy. No one pays taxes? They lose their home, car, and just about everything else.

6. Because people have no money, banks start to dwindle. Any money that they DO have is taken away from their clients in a last ditch attempt to pay their bills.

7. Without any funding from the national government, state governments will soon be faced with having to cut essential services to their own inhabitants and are more than likely to shut down (see Minnesota).

8. Prices for everything sky rocket because there is no control of the economy. Gas will probably be the first item affected and oil will go well beyond 100 dollars a barrel.

9. Everyone blames Obama and hails the Tea Party.

tl;dr we're fucked.

[Sugaree]

well be owned by china

China is already mad at us for not repaying all our loaned money. They'll probably just turn away like the rest of the world.

russia will try to invade the millitary will take care of that.

Even the slightest thought that Russia would invade this country is absolutely absurd. Either give us some good reasons that Russia would invade or get your head out of your backside. This isn't the Cold War.

there will be another revoulution and thats just about it

Boy, are you joking or just stupid? Another revolution for the United States?

[Awesome]

It looks like were not going bankrupt, the government just passed the bill to raise the debt ceiling

[Perseus]

It looks like were not going bankrupt, the government just passed the bill to raise the debt ceiling

It has to get passed in the Senate.

[Amnesiac]

It has to get passed in the Senate.

Which it probably won't, since the Senate is controlled by Democrats who won't put up with a short-term plan. Therefore, we are this close to being royally fucked.

[Schizothemia]

Which it probably won't, since the Senate is controlled by Democrats who won't put up with a short-term plan. Therefore, we are this close to being royally fucked.

Exactly. The bill itself (Boehners Balanced budget bill) doesn't propose nearly the same amount of long term solutions.

As for Reids bill, that is just out of the question. It doesn't do much of anything and doesn't provide any additional much needed revenue for the government.

[Sugaree]

Exactly. The bill itself (Boehners Balanced budget bill) doesn't propose nearly the same amount of long term solutions.

As for Reids bill, that is just out of the question. It doesn't do much of anything and doesn't provide any additional much needed revenue for the government.

Both of the proposed plans have little to no revenue for the government. Boehner just wants cuts without revenue while Reid wants cuts with only limited revenue. Really, Reid's plan is the only one with actual revenue. Cutting does help give us more money, but it only goes so far. Taking in revenue takes months, even years, for the government. Let's all accepted that we'll be bumfucked into the ocean by our own damn government.

[Kahn]

Obama said "This is the time to not put parties first."

Why the fuck would you put parties first to begin with? When you're running a campaign, you're not running to be President of the Democrats, or Congressman of the Republicans, you're running to be President of the United States and a United States Congressman. This is what fucked us over. Polarized political parties.

[Schizothemia]

Both of the proposed plans have little to no revenue for the government. Boehner just wants cuts without revenue while Reid wants cuts with only limited revenue. Really, Reid's plan is the only one with actual revenue. Cutting does help give us more money, but it only goes so far. Taking in revenue takes months, even years, for the government. Let's all accepted that we'll be bumfucked into the ocean by our own damn government.

To be fair, I accepted that inevitability while Bush was still in office.

There were so many fuck ups going on during the Bush administration, and some blunders while Obama was in office that anyone who paid any attention whatsoever to what was going on could see this one coming. However, no one listened, and no one tried to become educated about what was going on.

Ultimately, it's our fault we are being so fucked over. We the people elect these idiots into office buying a lot of their false promises and empty ideas only to be royally fucked when they actually get into office. Although, the election of all of those freshman republicans was just fucking retarded, and the fact they signed a pact to not even budge on issues like tax reform and raising the debt ceiling should be fucking criminal.

Well, to all of my fellow college students I say, let's enjoy increased interest rates on our loans! And enjoy being homeless with a college degree!

[Sith Lord 13]

Which is their plan in the first place. From my understanding, many of the "Freshman Republicans" who were elected during the midterm signed a pact saying they would never increase the debt ceiling, essentially, wanting to starve the government allowing for a massive restructuring. And the part that sucks is people WILL blame Obama, ignoring the fact that he has been trying to stop this and work on a compromise only to be ignored.

He's given the tiniest of inches and is asking for miles. That's not a compromise, he's playing just as much politics as anybody else. Probably more.

*snip*
What's funny to me is that during the Bush administration the debt ceiling was raised like 10 times, no questions asked. During the Reagan administration it was raised a jaw dropping 18 times. And yet we can't do it now? Because... why exactly? Oh right, it would mean actually giving a fuck about the people and ensuring their protection and well being.

Why? Because now the economy's sinking. The government needs to obey the laws of economics. If the people are tightening their belts, the government needs to tighten its even further.

Republicans should really pull their heads out from their asses. I'm not saying Democrats have never acted childish before, but the Republicans are putting a lot at risk, and are being, if I may say so, selfish cunts.

The democrats are being just as, if not more selfish, demanding that government keep spending at unsustainable rates. If I have to take a second job, and am still worrying about how I'm going to afford a modest lifestyle (and by modest I mean afford school, living off cheap as shit ramen) then why shouldn't the government be looking to cut spending too?

Obviously, Obama will be blamed, no matter what happens. The president is sort of the face of the government, and so they take all the heat. It's unfortunate that the public needs a scapegoat, but it is what it is.

He's as much if not more to blame than anyone. If he were willing to come forward with a real plan that would cut spending the way every family in america has, and tell the democrats to work with it, things would be clear sailing.

Ugh... why can't they reach a decision? Do the republicans NOT see how deep in shit we are?

You could replace the word republicans there with democrats and the statement would be equally true. You can't blame one party.

Some Republicans signed some kind of pact where they refuse to vote on any legislation which does not deal with the budget or with continuing tax cuts on the rich. Obama wants to get rid of the tax cuts for the rich. And what I find ridiculous is the debt ceiling was raised under Bush numerous times, but the Republicans won't raise for Obama. I swear that the Republicans are so immature. They shouldn't be holding office at all since they only care about politics and not the people.

In this situation, no one cares about the people of today. The republicans care about the people of tomorrow, creating sustainability. The democrats care about votes, and making sure the people won't vote against them for cutting entitlements.

[Peace God]

Obviously, Obama will be blamed, no matter what happens. The president is sort of the face of the government, and so they take all the heat. It's unfortunate that the public needs a scapegoat, but it is what it is.
Meh, he also gets too much credit/praise for a lot of things too. I think it balances out.

[Schizothemia]

He's given the tiniest of inches and is asking for miles. That's not a compromise, he's playing just as much politics as anybody else. Probably more.
Let's both be real. We both know that the intent of the Republicans once they gained majority in congress was to make Obama a lame duck. Every time a bill has been to a place where it can be passed, the Republicans in congress has shot it down. Even if a republican submitted a bill that would help, and Obama gave the okay, it was then withdrawn. Do you blame him for playing hard ball at this point? It's been shown that Republicans are just as resistant to compromise. And even now he is giving in, he's giving in to cut spending in Medicaid and health care.



Why? Because now the economy's sinking. The government needs to obey the laws of economics. If the people are tightening their belts, the government needs to tighten its even further.
No. If the people and corporations are unwilling to stimulate the economy, then it's been proven the government needs to spend MORE. Look at every time we have been close to economic downfall like this, it has been MORE government spending, not less that has gotten us out of these situations. Yes, certain areas should be cut, like the military and sure lets cut from health care since it hasn't proven to be amazingly effective thus far (although it still has 4 years before it's fully enacted so we could really see the full effect.) But lets also increase taxes, not just for the middle and lower classes but for that upper echelon that seems to have the largest voice despite being the smallest percentage of the American populous.

You also fail to acknowledge the fact that during a republican presidency this wasn't a problem, yet because of it, Bush was able to accumulate approximately have of the debt we are having issues with now. Yet, lets try and give Obama a chance to work towards a solution, the republicans say: Fuck that. I'm sorry that is pretty damn hypocritical. Also, lets acknowledge the fact that this debt can't be solved in a matter of 4 years, but we should atleast be looking for a solution, one that provides a fair future for all to enjoy the spoils of, not just the rich. Remember we are a democracy, not a corporatocracy.

The democrats are being just as, if not more selfish, demanding that government keep spending at unsustainable rates. If I have to take a second job, and am still worrying about how I'm going to afford a modest lifestyle (and by modest I mean afford school, living off cheap as shit ramen) then why shouldn't the government be looking to cut spending too?
I'm all for cutting of spending, but in smart appropriate places. IE; Military. Even now, military cuts aren't really being discussed to much. Instead we look to institutions like the FAA or the FDA or the EPA. The government should provide cuts, but also we need to look for something more sustainable, and shouldn't be attacking the middle and lower class to do it. Why is it, on the republican side, there are more and more tax cuts being provided for the right while they want to take away one of the only deductables the lower and middle class has left: mortgage interest tax?



He's as much if not more to blame than anyone. If he were willing to come forward with a real plan that would cut spending the way every family in america has, and tell the democrats to work with it, things would be clear sailing.
He has, and he is still talking about cuts. They just aren't cuts where the republican party wants. You can't expect just cuts to make it. Tax increases HAVE to happen. However in the republican party there isn't a willingness for tax increases for the top 3% who should be able to afford a minor increase in taxes. Many celebrities and news casters have come forward saying the could afford to pay a little more taxes if it means helping sustain the economy, why is it so hard for others to do so? The middle and lower classes have nothing comparatively to the top 3% but we hardly look to them because there are people who still believe Trickle Down economics work. Look where trickle down has gotten us? And many are still naive enough to think it's effective? It along with greed and an unsustainable and unaffordable war that got us into this fucked up situation.

In this situation, no one cares about the people of today. The republicans care about the people of tomorrow, creating sustainability. The democrats care about votes, and making sure the people won't vote against them for cutting entitlements.
I'm calling bullshit. The republicans are not even looking out for the people of tomorrow. They are looking out for the corporations of today and their future profits of tomorrow. Don't even try and pass off the republican rhetoric as any concern for the people. The republicans don't want to piss off the corporations that are paying for their campaigns, and their fancy dinners and nice cars. Am I saying democrats are devoid of this too? No, but don't try and pass off the literal intention of working towards record profits as a "concern for the people of tomorrow."

[Sith Lord 13]

Let's both be real. We both know that the intent of the Republicans once they gained majority in congress was to make Obama a lame duck. Every time a bill has been to a place where it can be passed, the Republicans in congress has shot it down. Even if a republican submitted a bill that would help, and Obama gave the okay, it was then withdrawn. Do you blame him for playing hard ball at this point? It's been shown that Republicans are just as resistant to compromise. And even now he is giving in, he's giving in to cut spending in Medicaid and health care.

No, the real goal of the Republicans once they gained the majority was to get this country back on its feet economically. They're not going to accept anything less than fiscal responsibility.

No. If the people and corporations are unwilling to stimulate the economy, then it's been proven the government needs to spend MORE. Look at every time we have been close to economic downfall like this, it has been MORE government spending, not less that has gotten us out of these situations. Yes, certain areas should be cut, like the military and sure lets cut from health care since it hasn't proven to be amazingly effective thus far (although it still has 4 years before it's fully enacted so we could really see the full effect.) But lets also increase taxes, not just for the middle and lower classes but for that upper echelon that seems to have the largest voice despite being the smallest percentage of the American populous.

Actually, the only place where government spending stimulates the economy is military projects. It's the last place that should be cut, though it could certainly be trimmed a little. Raising taxes will kill the economy and turn this into a depression as bad as the one of 1929.

You also fail to acknowledge the fact that during a republican presidency this wasn't a problem, yet because of it, Bush was able to accumulate approximately have of the debt we are having issues with now. Yet, lets try and give Obama a chance to work towards a solution, the republicans say: Fuck that. I'm sorry that is pretty damn hypocritical. Also, lets acknowledge the fact that this debt can't be solved in a matter of 4 years, but we should atleast be looking for a solution, one that provides a fair future for all to enjoy the spoils of, not just the rich. Remember we are a democracy, not a corporatocracy.

No, but the corporations are the only ones who can get us out of this. You need tax cuts for corporations, both large and small, to stimulate growth and reduce unemployment. And no one is saying Obama can't work towards a solution. It's simply that his "solution" in this case would simply make things worse.

I'm all for cutting of spending, but in smart appropriate places. IE; Military. Even now, military cuts aren't really being discussed to much. Instead we look to institutions like the FAA or the FDA or the EPA. The government should provide cuts, but also we need to look for something more sustainable, and shouldn't be attacking the middle and lower class to do it. Why is it, on the republican side, there are more and more tax cuts being provided for the right while they want to take away one of the only deductables the lower and middle class has left: mortgage interest tax?

That's because the military makes the government money. Most of modern technology started as government research, which means the government gets a cut of the profits. It also keeps people employed, and at a fair better rate than those other organizations.

And lower and middle class mortgage interest tax is being left as is. The only possible change to mortgage interest tax, proposed by a bipartisan committee, would be to lower eligible mortgages from $1,000,000 to $500,000 and to restrict it to primary residences. Neither of those would affect the middle class.

He has, and he is still talking about cuts. They just aren't cuts where the republican party wants. You can't expect just cuts to make it. Tax increases HAVE to happen. However in the republican party there isn't a willingness for tax increases for the top 3% who should be able to afford a minor increase in taxes. Many celebrities and news casters have come forward saying the could afford to pay a little more taxes if it means helping sustain the economy, why is it so hard for others to do so? The middle and lower classes have nothing comparatively to the top 3% but we hardly look to them because there are people who still believe Trickle Down economics work. Look where trickle down has gotten us? And many are still naive enough to think it's effective? It along with greed and an unsustainable and unaffordable war that got us into this fucked up situation.

No, they don't. Tax increases would kill the economy, cause higher unemployment, lead to less taxable revenue and higher government payouts. Trickle down economics is what led to the economic boon of the 90s and 00s. What's put us in the situation we're in is untenable spending and a subprime mortgage crisis. If democrats hadn't pushed for unsafe lending practices in banks in order to get lower income persons into houses they couldn't afford, none of this would have happened.

I'm calling bullshit. The republicans are not even looking out for the people of tomorrow. They are looking out for the corporations of today and their future profits of tomorrow. Don't even try and pass off the republican rhetoric as any concern for the people. The republicans don't want to piss off the corporations that are paying for their campaigns, and their fancy dinners and nice cars. Am I saying democrats are devoid of this too? No, but don't try and pass off the literal intention of working towards record profits as a "concern for the people of tomorrow."

Everyone in politics is playing the political game of catering to certain groups. You have to look at what else they place at the same level of importance. For the most part (you can't say anything in absolutes about either side of the aisle) the republicans are putting this nations economic future at the same level as catering to their interest groups. The democrats, however, are catering to their interest groups, instead of caring for the nation of tomorrow.

[Spock]

the world falls apart WW3 maybe?

[Professional Russian]

Look around you thats whats happening

[Harlequin]

AHAHAHAAHAH

your funny, we have been in debt and trying to get out for years since the Clinton organizations.

you wanna gain money? stop handing it out. non profits if they do business right do not need it. stop paying for foreign oil. use our own resources. for a start.

[huginnmuninn]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

how about we try to lower tax rates and stop increasing the amount of money the government can spend since its only putting us more in debt

[Schizothemia]

No, the real goal of the Republicans once they gained the majority was to get this country back on its feet economically. They're not going to accept anything less than fiscal responsibility.
And this was done how exactly? By signing a pact before going into office leaving them to a preconcieved conclusion to not negotiate? Sorry, but I feel like we are looking at two different parties under the same name. You can not tell me that many of the republicans came into office WITHOUT the intent of making Obama a lame duck. Mitt Romney even came forth and said so.


Actually, the only place where government spending stimulates the economy is military projects. It's the last place that should be cut, though it could certainly be trimmed a little. Raising taxes will kill the economy and turn this into a depression as bad as the one of 1929.
I will concede that my statement was faulty. Yes, military projects did help the economy in the past. However, right now it's partially because of the military that we are in this mess. Again, I look towards the two pointless wars we associated ourselves with. Instead of a full invasion, why didn't we simply send in Special Ops, get results and report that? Because it was of massive profits for corporations like Haliburton and yet we the people haven't seen much of that money. Raising taxes won't kill the economy. Not when its an increase on those who hardly pay anything. Trickle down doesn't work because it doesn't take into consideration the greed factor of many of those with the money to make trickle down work.
But bare minimum we need to close tax loopholes that allow corporations like GE to make a 14 billion dollar profit and not have to pay a cent in taxes. Then they get to decide to close one of their largest plants on the east coast and move it over to China. If you are so much for helping our domestic economy, please explain to me how globalization is helping us now?



No, but the corporations are the only ones who can get us out of this. You need tax cuts for corporations, both large and small, to stimulate growth and reduce unemployment. And no one is saying Obama can't work towards a solution. It's simply that his "solution" in this case would simply make things worse.
Many corporations already pay almost nil on taxes in the first place due to many tax loopholes put into place, at this point how can we lower them anymore? Many corporations follow a new business model: Make profits due to less taxes, cut employees and earn even more. Sorry, but it's clear that at this point and time corporations no longer have an economy as their interest, but instead just want to make record profits and pull out of the sinking economy as quickly as possible. Corporations feel more like a virus, than a fix to our sinking economy.


That's because the military makes the government money. Most of modern technology started as government research, which means the government gets a cut of the profits. It also keeps people employed, and at a fair better rate than those other organizations.

And lower and middle class mortgage interest tax is being left as is. The only possible change to mortgage interest tax, proposed by a bipartisan committee, would be to lower eligible mortgages from $1,000,000 to $500,000 and to restrict it to primary residences. Neither of those would affect the middle class.
Again, I concede that my statement on military was faulty to an extent. But again I'd also like to bring up the point that clearly as this point in our economy the military is not making sufficient enough money for us to even begin to make back what was lost in the pointless wars we are a part of.

As for the mortgage interest tax, I wasn't talking about the change in the tax, I was talking about the fact it was talked about being removed as a tax write off. It's one of the few write offs the middle class has left. And will lead to individuals in the middle class paying more in taxes. We shouldn't just be expecting the middle class to be shouldering the debt of the government while we give corporations more tax breaks and loopholes to exploit, letting them earn record profits while the people see none of it. Again, the principle of Trickle Down economics doesn't work. It's what got us into this place and will only further it the more we let it continue.



No, they don't. Tax increases would kill the economy, cause higher unemployment, lead to less taxable revenue and higher government payouts. Trickle down economics is what led to the economic boon of the 90s and 00s. What's put us in the situation we're in is untenable spending and a subprime mortgage crisis. If democrats hadn't pushed for unsafe lending practices in banks in order to get lower income persons into houses they couldn't afford, none of this would have happened.
Actually, that wasn't the fault of the democrats. If we're talking about the mortgage crisis you can thank Bush. Bush's statement on housing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68)Also, I'm going to point out the fact that Bush also gave incentives for outsourcing which loses us jobs and stimies our economy.
Also, since 2002, unemployment has been on the climb, so the only economic boon I can see is for the large corporations that are supposed to save us but haven't. Again, trickle down economics does not take into consideration the factor of greed for the individuals who are supposed to spend and let money flow down into the economy. Instead the hoard it.


Everyone in politics is playing the political game of catering to certain groups. You have to look at what else they place at the same level of importance. For the most part (you can't say anything in absolutes about either side of the aisle) the republicans are putting this nations economic future at the same level as catering to their interest groups. The democrats, however, are catering to their interest groups, instead of caring for the nation of tomorrow.

The nations economic future is not what republicans are looking for. They are looking to starve the government to allow for restructuring and the only way to do this, is to filibuster as much as possible as the American people suffer. It isn't about the future of the people, it's about the future of their precious corporations that will save us when they can earn more money. Instead of putting so much hope into corporations that honestly could give two shits about the economy and only want record profits, let's actually work towards something that's sustainable.

[Dack]

Stop this pointless bickering; the government isn't going to see this.

Here is an ultimatum that should help fix this:

Government stops all military activities in foreign countries
Imposes taxes on ALL businesses with a gross profit larger than $500Million per year; tax rates vary from 10 to 75% of total profits per annum.
Government dispands all parties and forms a single democratic medium, in order to remove all idealistic differences.'
All expansive operations are now used to promote tourism

[CaptainObvious]

No, the real goal of the Republicans once they gained the majority was to get this country back on its feet economically. They're not going to accept anything less than fiscal responsibility.

Indeed, playing chicken with the debt ceiling and directly raising treasury yields (leading to higher borrowing costs for all Americans) is most definitely fiscally responsible.

The idea that it is anyone other than the Republicans' fault for that is ludicrous. In addition, given that the Presidents under whom the vast majority of recent debt increases occurred (except Obama, but much of his additional deficit spending was an unavoidable response to the financial crisis) were Republican, and given that the largest single debt increase items have been wars and the Bush tax cuts (both Republican ideas), the idea that the Republican party is all of a sudden the party of fiscal responsibility is absurd.

More absurd is the idea that not allowing any compromise whatsoever in fixing America's fiscal issues is principled as opposed to childish. America's not about to go bankrupt, even for decades if nothing is changed. To act as if it is is irresponsible politics. More irresponsible is the idea that some revenue generation measures cannot be a part of fixing the deficit. They must be. You simply cannot fix the deficit by only cutting, and to argue you can is a stupid argument. Unfortunately, that's the argument the Republicans are making, and it is why they're so blatantly in the wrong.

Actually, the only place where government spending stimulates the economy is military projects.

Obviously, this makes total sense. It makes complete sense that when the government buys a truck for the military, it stimulates the economy but doesn't if the truck is for a civilian agency. Equally, I can totally understand now that when a road is built, if it's for the military it stimulates the economy, but not if it's just a civilian road.

That explains why we never cut military spending then! God, thanks for finally illuminating this!

The quoted sentence is one of the most nonsensical things I have seen said in a long, long time.

No, but the corporations are the only ones who can get us out of this. You need tax cuts for corporations, both large and small, to stimulate growth and reduce unemployment. And no one is saying Obama can't work towards a solution. It's simply that his "solution" in this case would simply make things worse.

It works on both sides. Reams and reams of economic evidence promote the Keynesian idea that high spending can stimualte an economy out of a downturn. If you've taken macro past a very preliminary level, you'd know this.

The problem is that Keynesian economics requires governments not just to spend deficits in downturns, but also to raise taxes and save surpluses during good times. Guess which party had the Presidents who used projected government surpluses for more tax cuts, military spending, and therefore created additional deficits, hamstringing the government's ability to deficit spend in a crisis? The Republican party.

That's because the military makes the government money. Most of modern technology started as government research, which means the government gets a cut of the profits. It also keeps people employed, and at a fair better rate than those other organizations.

I won't pile on further about how stupid your distinction between military and non-military is, but a great deal of government research is non-military (for example, in universities). You're inadvertently arguing against yourself.


No, they don't. Tax increases would kill the economy, cause higher unemployment, lead to less taxable revenue and higher government payouts. Trickle down economics is what led to the economic boon of the 90s and 00s. What's put us in the situation we're in is untenable spending and a subprime mortgage crisis. If democrats hadn't pushed for unsafe lending practices in banks in order to get lower income persons into houses they couldn't afford, none of this would have happened.

This is not just something you can say, wave, and it will be true. In some cases lowering taxes leads to higher receipts. However, to say that this is universally true is stupid (and contradicted by the facts). Furthermore, to argue that the financial crisis is the fault solely of the Democrats is blindingly stupid. It took failures on the part of both parties, as well as other institutions. Ultimately the Republicans deserve the lion's share of the blame, however, for the simple reason that the worst part of the crisis now is the government's inability to deficit spend to get out of the hole. If the Republicans had stewarded big budget surpluses well, there would be more cushion for maneuvering here. Similarly, poor people getting into houses they can't afford wouldn't have been a problem had the MBS market and credit derivatives not exploded, unbeknownst to most people. Similarly, that might not have been a problem had ratings agencies been on their game from the start (instead of rating absolute junk AAA).

A lot of the things you are saying here betray the economic views of someone who learns their economics through political talking points. How much economics have you studied?

The democrats, however, are catering to their interest groups, instead of caring for the nation of tomorrow.

Indeed, this is something that only the Democrats do. Republicans don't have constituents.

Seriously? What a joke.