Obama rules out short-term debt ceiling hike

reply to post by megabogie


because, sadly, the folks who run for the various offices fall under a few different banners:

1. failed lawyer
2. con artist
3. rich person who seeks more power or prestige to compliment the trust fund or large bank account.

Who else would want a job that, at the top position, only pays $450k a year and results in your being the butt of every late night talk show joke?

I've said this plenty of times but it's worth repeating. If government jobs had pay structures based on milestones and performance, you'd have smarter people running for office. Anyone with a brain is going to want to make more money and do more with their intellect. Offer that same person the chance to make $100 million a year, or more, if they produce a surplus, decrease our debt, avoid wars, create jobs, build infrastructure etc, and you'll find a better pool of candidates.

I thought the best solution was to increase the growth rate of the US economy and many debt problems can go away. However some spending should still be cut in my opinion where it does not promote growth. I do believe we have a lot of elected idiots. Obviously to most, Obama care does not promote job growth and is not going to save families $2500 a year like Obama once said. Hours worked have been cut. More temps have been hired. Young people are not signing up in droves to pay 3 times what they used to be able to pay. The system only benefits a few at the expense of most.

I heard allowing a continental pipeline for oil from Canada would generate millions of jobs. Obama must not want that. Yet the people voted for more of the same thing after the last election. I suppose our elected officials really do represent the people. Our education system has fallen through the cracks and it shows up at the top now.

reply to post by orionthehunter


obama talks about growing our way out of this mess but so far he hasn't actually given a means for procuring that growth.

We are poised to become the largest oil producing nation, surpassing Russia in the very near future. You'd think there'd be an opportunity there, since we are now the largest producer and china is now the largest importer but our government is not going to figure out a way to provide cheaper fuel to its citizens, instead suggesting the companies export it, allowing them to bring in nice profits and leave the locals, once again, suffering.

Crakeur
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

Given the scope of the mess we're in, I wouldn't cut taxes (except the medicare surchage). I'd keep the old rates, with the 35% cap.

Cut the spending that's been mentioned.

Create that pittance of an internet transaction tax

Legalize that which we do not talk about and tax the crap out of it.

debt problem would be reversed in short order.

Id prefer if they didnt tax the crap out of it. There's no reason to, and I think many of us can agree, they will tax it, but i dont trust where that money will eventually end up at. Id love to see legalization (actually de-criminalization is what us informed folks prefer), but if that tax money just goes to fund another war in the middle east, then whats the point? If it doesnt go directly towards reigning in the budget than I must stand against it, and even if they promise all of the taxation to our deficit, i would want some other measure to ensure that they are also making an effort to reduce the deficit in several other ways as well.

My point is they cant be trusted to spend the money as they claim, and I dont want them getting any more pieces of my pie than they are already taking.

As it stands now, everyone who is involved in any level with the unmentionable is already quite happy surviving on the black market. Its actually one of the last truly free markets we can see. The harvester makes money, all of the middlemen make money, and the end user is quite happy as well (ever seen one not happy?), and even willing to pay the prices for the product. Prices rise and fall with quality, demand, and overall availability as a free market should function.

To me taxing that substance is invading into our lives again even more than they should, but they have the users right under their thumb as always. The users are all to happy too allow legalization simply because its better than being thrown in jail for simple possession.

reply to post by phishfriar47


Nobody wants anything that they buy to be taxed but, honestly, if it was legal, and there was a $10 tax on the sale, nobody would balk because it's legal. Look at cigarettes. last time I bought a pack her (NYC) it was $14 I think. They could've charged $20 and I'd have paid for them. I think that they should charge more for cigarettes too. A big federal tax on them and that which we don't talk about. Ask around and you'll find nobody would stop buying that which we don't talk about. they might quit the cigs, which would be a good thing. The other, they'll continue to buy, even after the companies producing the legal stuff start putting the same cancerous crap in that, like they do with tobacco.

reply to post by Crakeur


Oh I am all to aware of that fact, thats why my last paragraph said this part:


To me taxing that substance is invading into our lives again even more than they should, but they have the users right under their thumb as always. The users are all to happy too allow legalization simply because its better than being thrown in jail for simple possession.

phishfriar47
reply to post by Crakeur

 

Oh I am all to aware of that fact, thats why my last paragraph said this part:


To me taxing that substance is invading into our lives again even more than they should, but they have the users right under their thumb as always. The users are all to happy too allow legalization simply because its better than being thrown in jail for simple possession.

Have those users thought about putting down the munchies and getting off the couch and actually developing a game plan that allows for legalization without taxation?

ETA - the quote feature seem to be borking up the posts a bit..

DOW futures -146 as I post this......going to be interesting to see how far they do go down tonight.

www.sgxniftydowfutureslive.com...


Also read that there has been an emergency meeting called by NY Fed and BIS trading desks.

reply to post by superman2012


Hope this link helps Superman

www.crikey.com.au...


and this one

www.theatlantic.com...

www.theatlantic.com...

Republicans Don't Think They Have to Raise the Debt Ceiling—They're Dangerously Wrong

The latest absurdity to migrate from the fever swamps to the slightly more respectable Heritage Foundation and on to Congressional Republicans is that not raising the debt ceiling would be no big deal.

Freshman Tea Partier Ted Yoho ventured furthest down this cul-de-sac when he said it would be salutary and "bring stability to world markets." But even Republicans like Tom Coburn have rushed headlong into this intellectual quagmire. As you can see below, Coburn doesn't think there's any chance that breaching the debt ceiling could mean a debt default, because he thinks that even then the Treasury could always pay the interest on the debt. This is not a minority position on the right: 64 percent of Tea Partiers and 54 percent of Republicans overall think there wouldn't be "any major problems" if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling in time. Call them the default deniers.

reply to post by keenasbro


You took the statements of two radical republicans and then make the blanket statement that "Republicans" don't think failure to raise the debt ceiling will aid in possible default. Who the hell is Ted Yoho? Boehner and the boys sent up an interim debt ceiling and Obama rejected it. Don't forget that next week.

WWJFKD
You took the statements of two radical republicans and then make the blanket statement that "Republicans" don't think failure to raise the debt ceiling will aid in possible default. Who the hell is Ted Yoho? Boehner and the boys sent up an interim debt ceiling and Obama rejected it. Don't forget that next week.

"My liar is better than your thief."
"My thief is better than your liar."

"You got your chocolate in my peanut butter."
"You got your peanut butter on my chocolate."

C'mon guys, this whole "left-right paradigm" nonsence is wearing thin.
They are BOTH the exact same.
Don't you see polarizing the people against each other like this is exactly what the system wants you to do? It keeps you paralyzed in a neverending cycle of conflict...that's what it was designed for.
Instead of argueing with each other over who each of you thinks should be voted to rule the tax farm, why not try and figure out why you shouldn't vote to NOT BE RULED OVER.
Just a thought.

-Amitaba-

Just a thought and not sure if anyone else brought this up, but could Obama driving us to default be part of a plan to replace the dollar with the euro or the Amero?

reply to post by Chance321



The euro? Absolutely not.

The amero - highly unlikely.

reply to post by Chance321


It is TOTALLY Unconstitutional to Default on the U.S. Debt . It's Written In Stone , it is The LAW . This Game being played out by Obamanation , the Seante , and the House is nothing more than Bad Theater . Where the Hell are All the Constitutional Lawyers who Sometimes " Infest " this Site ? Speak Up Man ! I am Requesting Backup to Defuse this Debate here !







.........

reply to post by Crakeur


yeah - they aught to institute a website tax, and a conspiracy website tax which would be even more than a regular website - it's a vice after all.