What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
Raising revenue to compensate for spending is balancing a checkbook.
Click to expand...
The problem with both sides is neither is willing to do enough to bring things completely into balance. The left is fully willing to jack up the tax rates, but they don't want to do anything to seriously reform entitlement spending (and medicare is going to be a huge drag on the budget if healthcare spending isn't pulled back). The right is completely unwilling to raise revenue, and they believe every dollar of defense spending serves some vital national security interest.

In other words, we're basically screwed. It's just a question of how fast we get flushed down the toilet.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

busterman62 said:
They did. And they'll try again in the next election. Unfortunately, when your choice is between rampant stupidity and rampantly stupid you still end up with.................that's right, stupid.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm proud to be from the bluest of the blue states. :D
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

walrus said:
your stupid is stupider then his stupid, therefore his stupid is a better choice
Click to expand...
This should be the motto of every democracy.

I suppose it would sound better in Latin... ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

An interesting theory on the budget crisis (apologies if someone else has posted). Doing nothing actually helps solve the problem!

Right now by law the gubmint has to cut 1T due to the previous agreement plus the 1.2T mandated if the super committee failed. Add to that the expiration of the Bush gimmicky tax cuts for another 4T. Voila! 6.2T in cuts without any effort from Congress. Under that scenario, the annual deficit is cut from 1.3T to approx 500M, and I don't believe that includes any increased revenue from an improving economy (if that ever happens).
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Rover said:
An interesting theory on the budget crisis (apologies if someone else has posted). Doing nothing actually helps solve the problem!

Right now by law the gubmint has to cut 1T due to the previous agreement plus the 1.2T mandated if the super committee failed. Add to that the expiration of the Bush gimmicky tax cuts for another 4T. Voila! 6.2T in cuts without any effort from Congress. Under that scenario, the annual deficit is cut from 1.3T to approx 500M, and I don't believe that includes any increased revenue from an improving economy (if that ever happens).
Click to expand...
They THINK the expiration of the BTC will get $4T. Put it down to $3T as those that can afford to employ tax specialists will wiggle out about $1T of tax.

But the Congre$$ is now doing the wiggle and hinting that the cuts won't take place. They have an election to face and if the goodies get cut off, the voters may get angry at them.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

joecct said:
They THINK the expiration of the BTC will get $4T. Put it down to $3T as those that can afford to employ tax specialists will wiggle out about $1T of tax.

But the Congre$$ is now doing the wiggle and hinting that the cuts won't take place. They have an election to face and if the goodies get cut off, the voters may get angry at them.
Click to expand...


No doubt this happened purely by accident, but now Obama has the upper hand. As these are all laws Congress put into place, a simple veto forces them to accept the votes they've already taken. How do you argue against the upcoming 1.2T in cuts if that's what you voted for? Do you say "I didn't think this was serious"? By the time the tax cuts are due to expire, Obama's fate will have already been decided one way or the other.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Rover said:
An interesting theory on the budget crisis (apologies if someone else has posted). Doing nothing actually helps solve the problem!

Right now by law the gubmint has to cut 1T due to the previous agreement plus the 1.2T mandated if the super committee failed. Add to that the expiration of the Bush gimmicky tax cuts for another 4T. Voila! 6.2T in cuts without any effort from Congress. Under that scenario, the annual deficit is cut from 1.3T to approx 500M, and I don't believe that includes any increased revenue from an improving economy (if that ever happens).
Click to expand...

I thought as part of the debt ceiling hostage crisis, the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts was already included since they defined the budget as what would happen under current law - and current law has them expiring. In other words, letting them expire wouldn't decrease the forecasted budget gap, but reupping them would greatly increase the debt - it'd make the GOP vote for a worsened budget.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

unofan said:
I thought as part of the debt ceiling hostage crisis, the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts was already included since they defined the budget as what would happen under current law - and current law has them expiring. In other words, letting them expire wouldn't decrease the forecasted budget gap, but reupping them would greatly increase the debt - it'd make the GOP vote for a worsened budget.
Click to expand...

Good question and I don't know the answer. My understanding was that projections are based on if today's current laws stay in place. For example, there was talk of saving 1T on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and whether or not that was a "real" cut.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

A Randian argument for the OWS agenda.

Many (most?) of us think Ayn Rand was a pseudo-intellectual camp follower who was handsomely rewarded for doing literary legerdemain for her well-heeled sponsors -- a 20th Century jester to the courts of fat, happy, none-too-bright Capital.

But for the three or four of you who actually still take Rand's philosophy seriously, this is something to consider.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
A Randian argument for the OWS agenda.

Many (most?) of us think Ayn Rand was a pseudo-intellectual camp follower who was handsomely rewarded for doing literary legerdemain for her well-heeled sponsors -- a 20th Century jester to the courts of fat, happy, none-too-bright Capital.

But for the three or four of you who actually still take Rand's philosophy seriously, this is something to consider.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with the writer's premise: how 100% of the 1% generates their income and how they utilize 100% of it?

Am I reading it wrong or is the writer saying that the GOP platform is largely, or is it entirely, based on supporting these market exploiting money changers?

Lots of absolutes and statements of what we all 'know' to be true.

Guess it depends on who 'we' is.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
But for the three or four of you who actually still take Rand's philosophy seriously, this is something to consider.
Click to expand...
Simple solution: impose a trading transaction tax at the federal level. If you want to be an active trader or market-manipulating hedge fund, fine, knock yourself out - but you'll pay for the privilege of doing it. The tax doesn't even need to be that significant - a fraction of a percent might be sufficient (as that would be enough to erode the returns of high frequency traders).
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Rover said:
No doubt this happened purely by accident, but now Obama has the upper hand. As these are all laws Congress put into place, a simple veto forces them to accept the votes they've already taken. How do you argue against the upcoming 1.2T in cuts if that's what you voted for? Do you say "I didn't think this was serious"? By the time the tax cuts are due to expire, Obama's fate will have already been decided one way or the other.
Click to expand...
You don't -- unless you voted against the bill. Congre$$ is going to be hoisted by their own ignorance.

They're not THAT stupid, are they?
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Priceless said:
I was told by Brian Cuban (not Mark, the other one) that the students were in custody. They were not, however they were sitting on the ground, so not sure why the police had to get them up. Here's video. Someone is shouting right near the camera, so you may want to turn your speakers down.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q09i3PKIf50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...

The Official Police Explanation
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Bakunin said:
Simple solution: impose a trading transaction tax at the federal level. If you want to be an active trader or market-manipulating hedge fund, fine, knock yourself out - but you'll pay for the privilege of doing it. The tax doesn't even need to be that significant - a fraction of a percent might be sufficient (as that would be enough to erode the returns of high frequency traders).
Click to expand...

If they would take the taxes and develop better methods into detecting risks and fund enforcement of the current rules this type of thing could make sense.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

busterman62 said:
The Official Police Explanation
Click to expand...

I really can't imagine what was going through the supervisor's head when he/she authorized the spraying...of all the boneheaded moves. I can't see how their decision making process could ever result in that outcome being a good choice. But it happened.

It's not like they don't deal with students, and likely protests, so they can't say they had no prior experience. I'd ask them if they have a plan for student protests, peaceful and not peaceful. A little forethought on this and you'd have a clear plan to address or defuse the situation. initially I thought it was dumb to blame the school president but if there was no protocol, no plan, no prior thought of what to do with requests for protests, ad hoc protests, protests getting out of hand, protests following all the rules, protests that were causing damage etc. then there is a failure at senior levels.

They also knew there was a regents meeting and that OWS had been going on for a while, if there was no advance discussion of this potentially happening then I'd say somebody wasn't doing their job. That resulted in seat of the pants decision making that blew up on them.

At a certain point it was just 'make it up as you go along' and that is no way to run a rodeo.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

pirate said:
I really can't imagine what was going through the supervisor's head when he/she authorized the spraying...of all the boneheaded moves. I can't see how their decision making process could ever result in that outcome being a good choice. But it happened.
Click to expand...

Other than the obvious disproportionality/paramilitary creepiness/borderline criminality of the police action, the other glaring thing is apparently there are still places where it hasn't penetrated the heads of authorities that they are on camera now when they are interacting with the public. You can't just swing a truncheon anymore.

Wikileaks_cantstopsignal.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top