It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Boehner's revised debt ceiling Plan supported in U.S. House on Friday

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
www.examiner.com...

House Speaker John Boehner's newly revised plan for the debt ceiling/impending default crisis has been met with favoritism by the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday.

Read more: www.examiner.com...




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Here is the bill, as it stands this morning..

Bill here

I'm still reading.. A lot of it seems to be the same 'ol same 'ol switching which hands have what,

I'm seeing Broadband subsides.. wtf.

Still reading..

ETA: It's now 104 pages.. Yesturday it was only 4 pages.. wtf
edit on 29-7-2011 by Cygnis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cygnis
 


Yes, it's admittedly very similar to the version that was available yesterday and rejected. But a few twists by Boehner, overnight, seem to have really pleased the House members. Meeting with the Senate's approval is another story, of course. But at least it's a move like we haven't seen all week.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
As I was reading, it just struck me !

I find myself actually agreeing with Mr. Boehner point.

We should not put any more taxes on the "job creators"!

You see, I just realised what he was saying.

Every time someone goes out and buys something that places more demand for the production of that particular product or service. The more things which are purchased the more demand there will be so the makers of these products will have to produce more of them. This is what has always created jobs in any economy.

The idea of someone creating jobs just because they already have a lot of money would seem to be folly.What incentive would they have to take on more work and responsibility than they have.

The more money which can find it's way into consumers pockets, the more they will spend and the more demand there will be for more products. Yes, even old people on Social Security buy stuff.

So the next time you hear someone say we should not increase taxes on "job creators", I hope you will think about who the real ones are. The top 10% of the people can only buy @ 10% of anything which is made. The remaining 90% can easily out spend them any day of the week.

If some of you really think "supply side economics" work, find a buggy wipe plant and look at their sales charts.

If they really want to cut spending why don't we hear anyone talk about the cost of all the limos they use in Washington. Oh, and how about cutting back on the number of the congressional staffers. I would bet they could find lots of money which is wasted on such things if they dared to look around.

If your going to cut spending, every penny will add up.
edit on 29-7-2011 by hdutton because: New thoughts

edit on 29-7-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 



As I was reading, it just struck me !

I find myself actually agreeing with Mr. Boehner point.

We should not put any more taxes on the "job creators"!

You see, I just realised what he was saying.

Every time someone goes out and buys something that places more demand for the production of that particular product or service. The more things which are purchased the more demand there will be so the makers of these products will have to produce more of them. This is what has always created jobs in any economy.


Supply and demand. But you need money to buy things, not more credit, which is the point we are at.

And more money comes from more jobs.


The idea of someone creating jobs just because they already have a lot of money would seem to be folly.What incentive would they have to take on more work and responsibility than they have.


You will never be rich with that interpretation. Rich people's 'work' is limited to being angel investors.



So the next time you hear someone say we should not increase taxes on "job creators", I hope you will think about who the real ones are. The top 10% of the people can only buy @ 10% of anything which is made. The remaining 90% can easily out spend them any day of the week.


Totally wrong. The top 10% of incomes can easily buy 90% of goods, if they so chose. And they can buy many items above a certain price point, ie a $100K boat, which lower incomes can only dream about owning.


If they really want to cut spending why don't we hear anyone talk about the cost of all the limos they use in Washington. Oh, and how about cutting back on the number of the congressional staffers. I would bet they could find lots of money which is wasted on such things if they dared to look around.


Pennies on the dollar, but I agree that we have a bloated bureaucracy. Get rid of entire depts, such as Dept of Labor or Dept of Education. And get rid of all "czars". Redeploy many military back home.

edit on 29-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Quick question, does this mean the debt ceiling will be raised or not ?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cyanhide
 



Quick question, does this mean the debt ceiling will be raised or not ?


Almost every person involved or interested seems to have the same answer: Yes it will be raised.

I am against raising it. If we cut $100billion in spending, that should mean we have $100billion more at our disposal, right? So more cuts are a better answer.

Also, raising the debt ceiling has become the standard answer to every economic problem. It is now an automatic response. So it begs the question - why do we even have a debt ceiling if we never stick to it? It's a joke. We might as well give the pres a blank check every time he demands more money.

But more money is never enough. This current battle is because Obama wants not only an IMMEDIATE gift of $2.4 trillion in the debt ceiling, but he also wants HIGHER TAXES on all of us. What a greedy f*!!!
edit on 29-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
From the last words on the new proposed bill:


TITLE IV—PUBLIC DEBT

SEC. 401. PUBLIC DEBT.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in that subsection and inserting ‘‘$16,994,000,000,000’’.


So it looks like the limit will be raised if this bill passes.


edit on 7/29/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
oh come on die already



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
www.examiner.com...

And of course, by now we know Sen. Harry Reid had the Senate kill the bill so nothing got accomplished again. Reid is so determined to get his name on whatever passes that he appears to not give a damn whether this thing gets settled or not - just as long as whatever gets passed - whenever it gets passed - says Harry Reid on it.

That guy said the Boehner bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate before Boehner even rewrote the thing.

www.examiner.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I somehow instictively knew I was wrong when I made these statements.

I should have remembered that rich guy carrying out those 5,000,000 bigmacs from McDonalds the other day.

I was, however, a little disappointed you failed to point out the buggy wipe plant that had a record quarter of profits last year.

For some time I have been looking for someone who is intelligent enough to answer one question which has bothered me for the past several months.

If our current tax structure, the lowest it has been for years, is so bad; how did this country become the dominate economic super power on the planet? I have not been able to figure out how this country managed to build such things as the interstate highway system and all the hydroelectric dams which we currently use, from the private investments of the big banks and rich hedge fund managers. Did they use up all their money already and that's why they deserved the bail out they got in 2008?

I am saddened when I think of how real change is so slow. It is almost generational in nature.

The current generation seems to have not learned from those which came before.

It would seem they know nothing of the earlier financial history of this and other countries. There is a well known law about things financial. It sounds very much llike one of Murphy's Laws. If anything can go wrong-- it will go wrong. Too much power, specially financial power, concentrated in too small a group will never bring about those things which are in the best interest of the general populace.

As for closing down some departments of government.

Might I give a resounding YES to the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Labor. After all their regulations really do get in the way.

The Dept. of Education basically allowcates the federal monies sent back to each state. The education dept. of the variou states are in charge of designing their own studies and buying their own books. Oh yes, there are some pesky rules about giving all the kids within a state an equal chance for this education, but without the federal guidelines those "other kids" can get by just fine.

The Dept. of Labor has very little interest in what you make or who you employ to make it. They are just in they way when a boss wants to have some employees go into places which have hazardous gasses present or where the plant is about to fall down because the company can get by a few more days, with luck, before it collapses.
But I guess most people have never hear of or seen the benefits of OSHA. Nor do they think any company would simply cut their employees pay because they can.

Or, then again, maybe we do need to go back to working for $0.25 per day, seven days a week. The main problem is that it will not be those who help set this reversal in motion who will end up at those wages. But, then again, they won't have to worry about it, they will long since be burried in a fancy grave plot along with a coffin full of cash.

I do hope any of those who read this rant will quickly dismiss and forget about it. I get a little carried away. I can never remember just how wrong I am in these matters about life - living - and working.
edit on 30-7-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
It's a good rant, though. I mostly disagree with you saying the "other kids" (or "any kids" for that matter) get along just fine with our educational system and how it's funded. Compared to students from many other countries in this world, our kids are NOT doing "just fine." They're doing much poorer than "just fine." Our educational system, and it's method of being financed, isn't fine.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnis
Here is the bill, as it stands this morning..

Bill here

I'm still reading.. A lot of it seems to be the same 'ol same 'ol switching which hands have what,

I'm seeing Broadband subsides.. wtf.

Still reading..

ETA: It's now 104 pages.. Yesturday it was only 4 pages.. wtf
edit on 29-7-2011 by Cygnis because: (no reason given)


What's the end game? More kick the can down the road?
----------
At least we have something to read.
Where is Obamas plan ???
---------
I hear all of the so called spending cuts in the Reid bill have no enforcement mechanisms.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChicagOpinion
 


It would appear you may have slightly missed my point about the education of "the other kids".

In the area of the country where I live there has been a history of some kids being given more opportunities of education than have others. After the federal government brought about some changes in "the system" many of these inequaties were addressed.

In the past several years there has come about a "splintering" of the education system which has found ways to bypass the rules set forth by the Dept. of Education. If this Dept. were dismantled the old system of outright denial to these opportunities could easily return.

Many of these same people who decry the state of our current educational system give only lipservice, or less, to those efforts necessary to improve it.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I am glad someone see's through this fallacy. "Job creators" will not spend a dime of their money unless they can make more money. However, consumers will spend every penny of any break they get, funneling that money to the "job creators." It seems silly to me to give tax breaks or incentives to the top, when the people on the bottom are hurting. In great economic times I could see rewarding "job creators" with tax breaks, but not at this time in history.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join