On to the debt ceiling...

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Congress can't come to an agreement on a combo of cuts and revenues (again). The sequester will probably go into effect...again. Independent policy analysis predicts it will kill 700k jobs including some extremely important ones like food inspection agencies. That's a very bad thing in an already shit economy. Republicans are blaming it on Obama. Obama blaming it on Republicans. Public says they'll blame Republicans if the sequester hits. Or they could just...cancel the sequester and nothing happens. There's nothing in it that says "this cannot be undone." But...Congress.

 

My biggest takeaway from all this is the GOP has been professing since Obama's stimulus package that cutting spending instead of increasing spending will encourage economic growth. But now these cuts are going to be harmful for the economy and Obama is at fault? What? These guys have a real message problem.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Just the latest evidence that Congress is completely ineffective. Let the entire fucking economy crash and start over.

[OSUViking 505]

No; they don't care about starting over. The only reason they want this to happen is to make a political point. Put all of the Congressmen to the firing squads and start over. That's how you start over... not letting your economy crash and burn so you can say, "No! He did it!"

 

(I would prefer the revamp of America be done under the watch of the Tits and Ass Party.)

 

 

EDIT: Removed some tasteless political bias.

 

Edited February 22, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[OSUViking 505]

Businesses don't hire if there is no demand for products and services.

 

This is why I think the stimulus not only should have been larger (not because I want reckless spending but because I think we basically applied a Band-aid to a gaping wound), but it should have been directed more so at the tax payers. My dad told me that a lot of the money went into tax breaks for companies and small businesses. Well... what's the point of giving them more money if they will just sit on it after being shaken from an economic crisis? His reasoning, and I agree with him, is that we should have given more money to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts and other stimulus packages that would increase spending (and thus aggregate demand and thus the need to hire more workers).

 

EDIT:

 

Unrelated to above, but I didn't want a triple post...

 

The effects the Sequester could have on our military:

 

What

The

Actual

Fuck...

 

Naturally, a lot of this is rhetoric to scare people into thinking we need to give more money to the military. However, I don't think indiscriminately slashing at our defense budget will fix our problems; it will reduce spending, sure, but at the cost of our capabilities. I think lashing out at wasteful spending and regulating contractors on their projects (to avoid shit like the JSF budget crisis) are two big steps to helping shape up Pentagon spending; the Sequester is certainly not the answer.

 

EDIT 2: This article also does a good job of explaining my position.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[Guest Phailadelphia]

This is why I think the stimulus not only should have been larger (not because I want reckless spending but because I think we basically applied a Band-aid to a gaping wound)

 

The economists who wrote the legislation agree with you. They wanted close to $2T. That's politically impossible, but at the peak of the recession that's what they felt was necessary to stop the GDP hemorrhaging.

 

Your dad is right. An entire THIRD of the stimulus was tax cuts.

[OSUViking 505]

Tax cuts to businesses or individuals?

[CARDINAL 205]

Tax cuts to businesses or individuals?

 

Both of them help to stimulate the economy!

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Tax cuts to businesses or individuals?

 

Both!

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

Edited February 23, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[OSUViking 505]

So the problem was just the size of the stimulus?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

To many economists, yes. They believed the government was trying to plug a cannonball size hole in the side of the ship with their finger. Paul Krugman is one of those economists: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I dont see how a country in debt gets better by spending money we dont have. Fuck economists, eventually common sense has to come into play. There are other ways you could done this without a ridiculous stimulus imo.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

We weren't in a financial crisis because of debt, so I'm not sure I understand you.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

We weren't in a financial crisis because of debt, so I'm not sure I understand you.

 

So if we were not in debt or at least had a balanced budget we would still be in a financial crisis ? I think neither one of us really understand each other lol.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Guest Phailadelphia]

So if we were not in debt or at least had a balanced budget we would still be in a financial crisis ? I think neither one of us really understand each other lol.

 

I can't say "yes" definitively but...probably, yeah. Debt only becomes an issue when you can't make your payments. That's never been an issue and it's normal for debt and deficits to skyrocket with recessions. But it's not a drag on the economy by any means, at least not right now.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I can't say "yes" definitively but...probably, yeah. Debt only becomes an issue when you can't make your payments. That's never been an issue and it's normal for debt and deficits to skyrocket with recessions. But it's not a drag on the economy by any means, at least not right now.

 

I disagree. We would not need to be making payments if it did not exist. And instead of just keeping our head above water we should start making tough decisions that will hurt short term for long term success. Especially if it is because we are afraid of a social outcry about how it is not fair from a whiny ass demographic of douches (not saying any group is more prone than another). The only real regret I have is that I can not somehow retroactively go back and undo the first Bush, Clinton, G dub, and Obama. This country has been fucked by all of these guys which has landed us where we are. They should all consider themselves a blemish upon our country.

 

If not for them this whole debt would have been null and void and we may well be in the black. Each of these men contributed. We are not going to undo 20 years of this by trying to come to some sort of half assed plan that is going to take another 20 to see if it will work. Something has to be done NOW.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I still don't think we're on the same page lol. We've had debt every year of our country's existence but one. How sane is it to expect no debt? That's as very near an impossibility as we'll see in our lifetime.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I still don't think we're on the same page lol. We've had debt every year of our country's existence but one. How sane is it to expect no debt? That's as very near an impossibility as we'll see in our lifetime.

 

Probably not. That said I dont think it is impossible. Well theoretically. however with the way our government is set up and is at the present time then yeah, it is pretty close. However I think with the technology and endless capital it could harness has untold potential. The people even 20 years ago did not have the power to generate money like we do today. If we did not have people who were crooked, greedy, part puppeteers that are in office now we could get out of this debt. However we live in a society where people are looking for handouts and we are more than ok with screwing people for them.

 

I honestly believe we could get out of the debt. It does not have to be the norm, but it has been that way our whole lives and we think that it has to be that way. It does not. There are other ways to do this and some of the best financial minds in the world have said this. Warren Buffet has had a plan for years that could at least balance it, but it is fair to most people and it hurts politicians so of course it is not implemented. And I would like to see one person in this country who has a more proven track record of long term investment and capital gains who has the acumen of the owner of Berkshire Hamilton.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Ngata_Chance