It will be interesting to see where the Wall Street money goes. I imagine they were horrified at how close we came to default. It's not any type of game anymore to much of the Tea Party base - they truly do want a default, they want to destroy our economy.

I guess I won't be listening to anything by Randy Travis anymore.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/0811/Michele_Bachmann_recruits_Randy_Travis.html?showall

I've been watching Al Sharpton on MSNBC recently. He's really settling in on his new show. He was god awful when he first debuted.

LMAO at Obama. I'm just shaking my head at how inept this guy is as a leader... It's a sad for Americans that this guy is probably going to be re-elected by default.

Although I give Obama some credit for his ability to come to a compromise (see below), I do agree that he is a very weak leader. I also agree that he'll probably get re-elected next year, simply because I have every confidence that the Republicans will screw it up and nominate a Bachmann/Palin/Perry type.

I guess I won't be listening to anything by Randy Travis anymore.

Carl, you're entitled to like or dislike anybody you want, but I personally can never understand why somebody would chose to like or dislike an entertainer (and the products he sells) based on his political belifs. To me, it's irrelevant (unless that entertainer is running for public office).

The problem is that Obama would rather throw a lot of long-held programs under the bus in order to appear bipartisan. There is no real effort to talk to the public about how vital these programs are. Instead he has just gone along with this "let's cut waste" story, when what he knows, and what many people don't, is that those in power see "waste" as things like Social Security, Medicare, and, likely, retirement pay.

Most people--aside from partisan Democrats--concede that cuts in Social Security and Medicare are necessary in order to (1) balance our budget and (2) keep both programs solvent in the long-term. (This is not the same thing as throwing those programs "under the bus.") On the other hand, most people--aside from partisan Republicans--concede that tax increases on the rich are also needed in order to balance the budget. (In other words, neither tax increases nor Social Security and Medicare cuts alone can get rid of our deficit.) This mixture of entitlement cuts and tax increases on the wealthy is what the highly respected Bolwes-Simpson commission recommended to the president last year. For once, it seems as if the president is actually choosing to listen to that commission.

Edited August 3, 201114 yr by Max

Max, poll after poll has shown that much of the public does not want to cut these programs.

Carl, you're entitled to like or dislike anybody you want, but I personally can never understand why somebody would chose to like or dislike an entertainer (and the products he sells) based on his political belifs. To me, it's irrelevant (unless that entertainer is running for public office).

I would like to agree with you, but not when Michelle Bachmann is involved. Her track record in Minnesota was heinous. She feels gay people are part of Satan.

Edited August 3, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Max, poll after poll has shown that much of the public does not want to cut these programs.

Carl, I certainly believe that the vast majority of the public does not want to cut Social Security or Medicare. However, that doesn't mean that some cuts aren't necessary (like the Bowles-Simpson commission stated). By raising taxes on the wealthy, we can make sure that neither program is "gutted."

Unfortunately, even the Democrats are usually cowards when it comes to tax increases, and even the Republicans are usually cowards when it comes to cutting entitlements (because both tax increases and entitlement cuts are so unpopular).

Tax increases on the rich are popular, but the politicians will never go along with it, because they're bought and paid for.

Carl, you are correct in stating that tax increases on the rich are popular. However, it all depends on how "rich" is defined. If rich is defined as those making at least $200,000 (or even $100,000), then tax increases on the rich are popular. (Tax increases on people making less than $100,000 are highly unpopular.) Unfortunately, I highly doubt that increasing taxes on just those making six figures will be enough to erase our deficit; entitlement cuts are needed as well.

In the end, the ultimate blame lies not with the political parties, but with the American voter, who wants to be able to have his cake and eat it too. The American voter won't stand for tax increases that affect him (though he will be supportive of tax increases on the "wealthy"), while at the same time will not tolerate any cuts in Medicare or Social Security (or any other government program they rely on). The politicians are merely behaving in ways that will ensure their re-election; if they ever did the "right" thing, they then would be unemployed.

Edited August 3, 201114 yr by Max

Mittness Protection

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=34BF3250-6326-42C2-B561-DA314148D4D9

The Dow lost 500 points today, apparently shedding all 2011 gains in the process. Default or not, things are getting shaky.

I never understood the assumptions a few years ago that the economy had to be improving, or the disdain heaped on any effort to grow the economy. Instead it is always just let's cut, and cut some more, because if we keep cutting, then everything will be great. Great for who? Billionaires, I guess.

Even dollar stores are struggling.

http://www.slate.com/id/2300828/

Okay...

So, anybody here spend more per month than they earn? I don't. I budget myself so that my obligations can be met with some extra when/if needed. While I currenly have *zero* on credit cards, I do have five "loans" that are outstanding that I must pay monthly: two car payments, a mortgage, a low-interest home improvement loan from my bank, and the orthodontist for the boy's braces.

In order to meet those obligations and the other monthly bills/expenses such as water or electricity, I make sure I don't spend more than my family earns in a given month. We have built a decent savings account in case of trouble (or preferably, down the road for retirement/pleasure)... I shift a certain amount of money into what I call a "reserve" subaccount for the occasional ridiculously large bill auto insurance every six months so funds are there for that or something like it.

So then... why can't the government do it? Sure, governmental obligations are larger and the problems more complex... But COME ON.

Should I need extra money for something, I reduce my spending... I don't demand my employer give me more upon request. Does anyone else here do that?

Yes but the more people save and save, the less money goes to develop anything. It's similar to the way that many people have been tightening their belts, because of the economy. If the government follows suit then it's a catch-22.

Yes but the more people save and save, the less money goes to develop anything. It's similar to the way that many people have been tightening their belts, because of the economy. If the government follows suit then it's a catch-22.

But, Carl, you DO develop something when you bank money - you develop wealth. And when people develop wealth in a stable and secure financial environment, they begin to spend it on things.

I don't see the catch-22 here... The government must do what you and I do when money is tight - invest wisely and selectively in what we want or need, and cut our spending to meet our obligations so we don't lose our shirts.

If you are suggesting that government shouldn't cut spending because it is a source of income and security for the masses, then we have a fundamentally different view of what the role of government should be.

But, Carl, you DO develop something when you bank money - you develop wealth. And when people develop wealth in a stable and secure financial environment, they begin to spend it on things.

Yes but it's hard to develop wealth even with saving when the cost of living goes up without any real increase in wages, when jobs are increasingly scarce, when safety nets are cut. People just keep their heads above water, if they're lucky.

I guess I just don't see why we are always talking about cutting spending and never about any incentive to grow. Surpluses are bad, tax increases are bad. Companies that ship jobs overseas are coddled by both parties. Companies give more and more work to less and less employees. People end up being screwed.