Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:09 AM
riqster (13,986 posts)
Congressional Spending is why the Debt Ceiling has to be raised. No other reason.
I know most of us here know this: but I thought I'd post just to help us ignore all of the distractions and red herrings that the Wingnut-contolled media throws out there:
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/congressional-spending-is-why-the-debt-ceiling-has-to-be-raised-no-other-reason/ Full Post (I'm the author, so it's legal): The “Republicans” who control the House of “Representatives” are once again threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless their whiny, silly, pouting, and just generally idiotic demands du jour are met. In this case, it’s a demand that ObamaCare be destroyed. A ridiculous demand, of course, but that’s not how deep the rabbit hole of stupid goes.
|
10 replies, 1509 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
riqster | Sep 2013 | OP |
Happyhippychick | Sep 2013 | #1 | |
riqster | Sep 2013 | #2 | |
Happyhippychick | Sep 2013 | #3 | |
kentuck | Sep 2013 | #4 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Sep 2013 | #5 | |
Happyhippychick | Sep 2013 | #8 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Sep 2013 | #9 | |
Happyhippychick | Sep 2013 | #10 | |
muriel_volestrangler | Sep 2013 | #6 | |
riqster | Sep 2013 | #7 |
Response to riqster (Original post)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:12 AM
Happyhippychick (8,379 posts)
1. I would argue that the loopholes in the tax code are another reason
Super rich people are able to funnel their money off shore, as are corporations, and they don't contribute to the pot.
|
Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:37 AM
riqster (13,986 posts)
2. That is part of the same issue, and Congress's fault.
They refuse to bring in enough revenue to cover their spending, and they won't distribute the revenue burden in an equitable manner.
You are quite right in your post. ![]() |
Response to riqster (Reply #2)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 11:30 AM
kentuck (108,792 posts)
4. Good point.
They refuse to raise the revenue needed and they refused to make necessary cuts to balance the budget.
|
Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 11:38 AM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
5. "Super rich people are able to funnel their money off shore, as are corporations"
That's not a loophole, that's a fact of law. We can't force other nations to tax for us. "Hey, I need you to collect a half-trillion dollars from those guys and then give it over to us." is not a tax strategy. Even if these other nations collected the money (they won't, they make more money being a tax haven) they sure as heck wouldn't just hand it over like obedient simpletons.
|
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:26 PM
Happyhippychick (8,379 posts)
8. It never even occurred to me that we should force other nations to tax for us.
I don't know where you would have presumed that from what I said. I think we should prevent untaxed money from going overseas in the first place.
|
Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #8)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:32 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
9. I wouldn't say that was your intent and I understand your counterpoint
but, for the sake of completeness of discussion, these things get set-up on purpose. Remember, much the value of currency is its liquidity, to be there to take advantage of opportunities or cover expenses as they arise. If you keep it from moving off-shore it won't move on-shore either.
I would also add that, while not your intent, there are many who do carry the erroneous idea that it is possible to tax money outside US jurisdiction. If I unfairly saddled you with their errors I apologize. |
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:43 PM
Happyhippychick (8,379 posts)
10. Ah, got it. No apology necessary! :)
Response to riqster (Original post)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 11:45 AM
muriel_volestrangler (99,213 posts)
6. That's a feature of a bicameral system - it can get a deadlock
in which one house wants to reverse previous commitments, but the other house wants to implement them. When they can't pass bills to either go ahead (by funding it) or back out, you get a situation in which politicians are expected to negotiate. But Republicans have, since the 1990s at least, seen 'negotiation' as 'do what I say or the country gets it'.
|
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #6)
Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:07 PM
riqster (13,986 posts)