<p>I've been reading titles if tweets and articles about President Obama, the Tea Party, and more debt crisis. I never read the articles because there are far too many and I'm not in the mood to read about politics in details (I know... pure laziness).</p>
<p>So in simple words, what's been going on this past week?</p>
<p>Uhh… I’ve only been keeping up with one thing.</p>
<p>Debt ceiling problems. Congress votes on Monday. Deadline is Tuesday.</p>
<p>Not much that hasn’t been know before.
Debts.</p>
<p>Well, somethings just gonna be done about it now. </p>
<p>But our lives wont be phased one bit.</p>
<p>[Tentative</a> deal would raise debt limit by $2.4 trillion - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-31-Obama-Congress-debt-limit-deal-default_n.htm?csp=34news]Tentative”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-31-Obama-Congress-debt-limit-deal-default_n.htm?csp=34news)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Out country’s generation will be effed:(</p>
<p>Our credit rating will likely drop even with the debt limit deal. We need massive cuts and tax increases, but neither party can advocate this or else they will lose the 2012 election. At this point it’s just a lot of political posturing until this happens again…eventually we will reach our breaking point.</p>
<p>Republicans and Democrats disagreeing and holding the country hostage, nbd.</p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p>Jesus, and it’s summer too. </p>
<p>Here is Obama’s speech on the matter. I felt it was very explanatory.
[President</a> Obama Debt Crisis Address (July 25, 2011) - YouTube](<a href=“President Obama Debt Crisis Address (July 25, 2011) - YouTube”>President Obama Debt Crisis Address (July 25, 2011) - YouTube) </p>
<p>The big deal that people are ****ed about is the fact that Washington (meaning Congress) has been bickering and playing political games instead of coming up with /some/ kind of solution to the debt crisis. This is mostly the fault of the Tea Partiers, who are turning a pretty routine piece of legislation-passing into a massive stand for American values. Basically, they’re toying with the American people’s economy in order to make some pretty phrases about how the government should live with its means (anti-Keynsian economy) and really cut spending down tremendously, without taxes on the rich.</p>
<p>That’s not to say Democrats or regular Republicans are at fault either-- both parties have been very childish about the whole thing and refusing to set aside political campaigns and images to work together to get a good plan.</p>
<p>What is the plan? The plan is to allow the debt ceiling to rise (I think this means we can borrow more money) and to make some cuts in spending/increase taxes on the very wealthy in order to start paying off our debts. Raising the debt ceiling is what people have always done in Congress, only this year the Tea Partiers have gotten in and are making something very routine into a last stand. The other part of the plan is equally contentious. Republicans want spending to be cut (* even to the point of cutting medicare *) and no tax increases on the very wealthy. Democrats want to make spending cuts, but less severe, and off set the mildness by taxing the rich, who haven’t been taxed properly since before Bush, and truly properly since Reagan. </p>
<p>Neither side was compromising for the longest time (up to last week really). The latest news is that the Republican plan of cutting spending only is the one going up for vote. However since neither Boehner (the Republican congress leader) nor Harry Reid (the democrat one) are Nancy Pelosi, it’s unknown if the legislation will pass. If it does not, and a plan is not found by the deadline, the USA is ****ed beyond belief, even more than the Republican plan would have us be.</p>
<p>We would not:
-Be able to pay our debts, the government would be broke. No more Social Security!
-People who have lent us money might not do so again, seeing as we’re broke
-Our credit rating with other countries would dramatically worsen, so that interest rates are higher for all Americans, not just the government</p>
<p>I’d like to add that big corporations that make Sagan’s billions and billions aren’t being taxed.</p>
<p>Hey, so if it doesn’t pass, who wants to start a workers’ revolution?</p>
<p>So should I call the bank and widthdraw my money now or after we default?</p>
<p>
Do you have a gun? If not, probably now.</p>
<p>dont criticize republicans for taking a stand. the debt ceiling being raised over and over cant be good in the long run. sure, we need a deal now but congress has got to look towards the future. we need to make sure this doesnt happen again. the major issue is that we need spending cuts.</p>
<p>imo, govt has been spending way too much recently in bureaucratic programs. and how can you say the rich arent being taxed enough, we have a progressive tax code. maybe a slight increase would be okay but you simply cannot justify massive increases to over 50 percent. these people are the investors and economic leaders and over taxing will ultimately discourage economic growth. my opinion is that if the govt absolutely has to, raise the top level to 40 percent but cap it there.</p>
<p>reagans economic policies helped the 80s and ultimately spawned economic growth sustained in the nineties once the cold war ended and spending decreased. i think that too much government hurts the economy. spending cuts are necessary, more so than tax increases.</p>
<p>in the end, i think that debating issues like these instead of rushing a bad bill through just to get something done is important. our democracy was founded on ideals of freedom, compromise, and discussion. sure, checks and balances cause delay but ultimately deliver what’s best for the nation.</p>
<p>America is going the way of Greece, that is what is happening !!!</p>
<p>The debt was tripled in the past two years, and now we reduce the 300% to 270%, and everyone says we are “cutting” the budget.</p>
<p>
What caused the current economic downturn? Was it,</p>
<p>A. Deregulation?</p>
<p>B. Dem Commies?</p>
<p>C. British Tea?</p>
<p>the current economic downturn was a result of wall street corruption and people making bad investments and buying homes they couldnt afford. it would have likely happened no matter who was president.</p>
<p>basically, it’s because of the russians</p>
<p>
It was because of the deregulation of the housing market and Wall Street that happened during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years, allowing for the obscure packaging of bad mortgages, the swinging stock market, and ultimate failure.</p>
<p>Now, if we had deregulated, seen the market go up, then re-regulated before it went back down, we could have done better, but that’s literally just gambling.</p>
<p>
Niet!</p>
<p>the housing market issue was due to bad lending and buying practices. home buyers tried to buy expensive houses way out of their means, thus leading to tons of foreclosures. people should know what they can or cannot afford without the advice of the government.</p>
<p>as for the government, if no deregulation occurred, the economy would not have grown in the first place. it would have been the stagnant 70s economy instead of an overall boom. increased regulation ultimately disallows growth.</p>
<p>o and the deal passed in the house</p>
<p>Regulation allows for slower, but steadier growth. Sure, it would be less dramatic, but who did the growth really benefit? Wages for the middle and bottom stagnated, while the rich grew fabulously wealthy. Tax cuts and deregulation cause economic growth that benefits the wealthy, while shrinking the middle class and impoverishing the working class.</p>
<p>Wages only went up significantly for the rich: <a href=“finfacts.ie”>finfacts.ie;
<p>Though, you got to hand it to the working class, they can be more productive for less, which only helps the rich: <a href=“http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/productivity_wages_graph.gif[/url]”>http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/productivity_wages_graph.gif</a></p>
<p>So there’s your economic growth. I admit, quite nice if you’re in the top 10%. Otherwise, I’ll take regulation.</p>
<p>the wages at 50th percentile increased modestly even up to 2009. you cant expect a massive increase in wages in the middle, but there were gains nevertheless. most historians and economists agree that the economy was great for everyone in the nineties and 2000s, primarily because of the dot com boom, made possible by deregulation.</p>
<p>This chart, adjusted for inflation, may be a little more enlightening: <a href=“http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart-rise-of-super-rich-2.top.gif[/url]”>http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart-rise-of-super-rich-2.top.gif</a></p>
<p>And corresponding article: [How</a> the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm]How”>How the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So there’s your growth. The average went down, but the rich (included in the average) went UP. Maybe you’re in the top 1%; if so, good for you. But the rest of us have seen little except cut social programs and general decline.</p>
<p>And before you say, “Oh, the blue line moved up a little,” remember, the blue line includes the red line. It’s the median, including the rich getting richer. It doesn’t go up more because the poor/working-/middle-classes didn’t go up, and many, in fact, went down.</p>
![http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/productivity_wages_graph.gif[/url]](http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/productivity_wages_graph.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart-rise-of-super-rich-2.top.gif[/url]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart-rise-of-super-rich-2.top.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
