Raising the Debt Ceiling

Tea partiers, What the fuck is wrong with you? You're about to cause the US treasury to default on its loans. Isn't that exactly the kind of shit a fiscal conservative would want to prevent?

LOLNO

Fiscal conservatives have changed into ancap radicals.  They want to see the US government fail so they can build it up in their image.  This is a process started 40 years ago, they call it starving the beast.  First they lower taxes, then find some reason they have to spend money like national security or social security.  They ramp up spending in that area slowly while also eroding taxes and pumping out right wing rhetoric for decades.  Now they think they have made enough influence to get most Americans on board to change this country forever and for their own betterment.

>>3
Fiscal conservatives have changed into ancap radicals.
Not really, ancap radicals are a minority, they just yap a lot on the internet.

>>4
If radicals are really a minority then why are republicans in congress being such shits about this? Why aren't they willing to compromise?

>>4

Minority?  They make up the majority of house republicans.  Have you read any of Paul Ryans budget plan?  It a delusional libertarian fantasy.  Also crashing the government to make sure that they don't raise taxes?  That's radical no matter how you slice it.

You only default if you can't meet interest payments. The US is not going to default.

>>7

It'll cause a government shut down to divert the funds necessary to pay off interest.

>>7
Source please. Or do you just live under a rock?

I'm part of the tea party.
I support the raising of the debt limit if,

Republicans cut 500 billion out of their pet projects,as well as the democrats do the same.

Balanced amendment gets passed,and term limits well.

>>10

How about we cut 500 billion out of our military spending, end the wars and come home and use those billions building energy infrastructure to get us off of foreign oil so that no more Americans have to die in the Middle East and we can mind our own business so that everyone leaves us alone; serving our national security.

How about we stop the drug war and save billions per year there? How about we stop the prison-industrial complex and save billions there? How about we stop giving subsidies to oil companies and save more billions?

The tea party doesn't give a shit about debt or spending. You niggers are a joke.

>>10
What about letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire? Wouldn't a balanced approach to defecit reduction include spending cuts and tax increases?

You can't have a balanced budget.  In an ideal situation, you would have a surplus in the good years and a deficit in the bad years.  Unfortunately you have a huge trade deficit, so you need a budget deficit to match so that the private sector can take up the slack.

>>11
I'm sure a Obama faggot can adequately describe other people's political beliefs for them without bias or dishonesty. 

Liberal sheeple....

>>12
No. Balanced is just a word for wanting something. It's like saying the word 'logical' in your argument in order to make it sound better. We have high taxes. The tax increase will hit the wrong people.

The obscenely rich dodge their fair share of taxes with tax shelters and loopholes in the tax code. When liberals say that they want to fuck the rich, they actually mean small and large businesses. This hurts jobs and businesses alike. It's just a con game for liberals who are usually affluent and better off than most of us. They don't like to admit that they are fucking the economy over rather than rich people.

Even with this present deal, the deficit is still growing and most likely will balloon to even greater levels of debt.

>>15
Get real.  You do NOT have anything resembling "high taxes".  Your taxes are about as low as they've been in recent times.  The top rate is 37% - that is the lowest it has been in a century.

>>15
No. Balanced is just a word for wanting something.

Cuts in spending and increasing taxes are both bad for economic growth. Grow the fuck up.

>>16

But a libertarian fervor has swept many rich faggots and they want 0% tax income.

>>18
The cool thing about living in America is that they have freedom.  This includes the freedom to move to Qatar, and renounce their citizenship whilst there.

>>17
So says the 12 year old who didn't make an argument. Low taxes does promote the economy. Cutting spending is a good thing in most cases, especially if your spending is out of control and you have trillions of debt building up because of it.

This is very basic economic theory here. I shouldn't have to explain it to you as if you were an imbecile.

>>19
I'm sure most Democrats will be planning that once they are done bleeding America dry.

>>21
riiiiiiight

>>22
Or, depending on who becomes the next American President, Dems might be put into deat..reeducation camps.

>>20
Ignorance is strong with this one. Cutting spending will hurt the economy. Government spending makes up huge chunk of our GDP. This is very basic economic theory here. I shouldn't have to explain it to you as if you were an imbecile.

>>23
Much more likely.

>>24
Depends on what the government is spending on. If it took out even bigger loans, raised taxes even higher and spent 20 trillion a year paying people to polish rocks on the beach that would increase the GDP by 20 trillion but it would also be a massive bubble ponzi scheme pyramid scheme and scam.

>>15
The US has some of the lowest taxes in the Western world. Plus, most of your so-called "high taxes" are from your state governments, not the Federal. It seems most Americans don't give a flying fuck about state politics, hence the "high taxes" being bitched about constantly and nothing every getting done.

>>20
Pretty much any country that got out of the Great Depression had used spending to get its way out of it. The problem lies not with government per se, but with douchebags in the financial sector fucking things up. It would be nice if China forgoes some of the US' debt. If people grew the fuck up and really cared about the debt, there would be diplomatic talks with China to come up with an agreement on letting go of some of the obligations. But politics like the rest of society is run by small, mental children.

>>26
GDP is a meaningless scale of economics anyway. The US economy is a hollow shell of itself and it barely has a manufacturing base. Is it any wonder why then that shit is fucked up?

>>24
>Cutting spending will hurt the economy. Government spending makes up huge chunk of our GDP.

Spending money you don't have to buy things you can't afford while amassing a debt so large that it is becoming a burden by itself on the economy. I understand that there are up and downs and temporary debts. No one is saying we need to shut down the entire government as you seem to be implying. A private sector job and a government job isn't the same thing. Deficit spending without any limits forever is a bad thing. 14 trillion in debt is not a good thing. 

I'm only saying that you might have to need to control spending to match what your dying economy is rather than treating the deficit like it's a new high score on a video game.

Greece is not a fucking role model. Your mindset doesn't work with your checkbook in RL. It won't work in the long run for a real business. It sure as hell didn't work for the EU and Greece.

Status: not told [ ] Told [x]

>>28
It's 2011 now and our economy is now credit based, unlike during the Great Depression. They hit rock bottom and had no where to go but up. The people of that time worked hard to drag us out of it.

Our present day economy is dying. We produce less every year. We can't compete and lack the will to do so. We only make liberal beta males that want everything but can't lift a paperweight while being stuck to their lazyboys. However, they can still call anyone that disagrees with their retarded ideas a child. Good for them.

>>30
The worst thing that'll probably happen to Greece is that it ends up getting kicked out of the Eurozone. That won't be the end for Greece nor the Eurozone. As another Anonymous poster put it, "The sky is falling is a really shitty literary device".

>>31
You've made a good point until you started bitching about "liberals". Both mainstream parties are right-wing (excepting only a few individuals), Dems are center-right (or right of center depending on the situation) and the GOP is even further to the right. The problem in the US is right-wing government. Not "liberals", not "conservatives", right-wing government. This is a universal facet of politics it seems.

Also, as I previously stated in >>29 , the US economy is a hallow shell of itself, it barely has a manufacturing base, and there's plenty of debt to go around. The fact that things are "credit based" now doesn't fundamentally change that.

>>29
GDP is meaningless
Bubbles eventually burst, so long term GDP is meaningful. The point is to have an efficient economic system where price bubbles burst quickly so they don't grow to astronomical sizes and warp the economy for a few years. The dotcom bubble, Enron and credit crunch were all revealed by the market, not government regulators, it is mathematically impossible to centrally plan the price mechanism, you need independent actors to quantify the utility of various actions from the chaotic and unpredictable natural world.

The irony is that while Keynesians dream of the state playing a wider role in the economy this would only become feasible if the state abandoned inefficient Keynesian economics.


manufacturing base
The US is primarily a service economy, we sell brand names, technology and expertise.

America has huge debts. They will have to be paid off and contained into a manageable amount. The US government will make cuts or it will die a slow death.

The deficit is a cancer. It will be a bloody painful operation to fix it. If you don't remove it, it will ruin all of the major organs and kill the host in time. Ignoring it, praying to it, feeding it, or negotiating with it is pointless. It doesn't care.

It steals resources you need in order to survive. It takes more from you as it grows. You can starve it without starving yourself if you're careful and patient, but it has friends called AIDS.

AIDS wants you to think that the cancer has a right to live, that it is a normal and necessary organ. It tells you the viruses are your friends. It tells you METH is fun. AIDS wants to take over the brain and that the immune system response is racist, greedy and evil. It thinks the cancer will let it take over the brain.

>>33
Bubbles eventually burst, so long term GDP is meaningful.
I meant GDP itself as an arbitrary formula for determining economic health. It's bullshit that practically borders on pseudoscience that makes the American economy look strong on paper, but in reality the economy is nothing more than a hollow shell.
The irony is that while Keynesians dream of the state playing a wider role in the economy this would only become feasible if the state abandoned inefficient Keynesian economics.
This I agree.
The US is primarily a service economy, we sell brand names, technology and expertise.
No kidding. Is it then any wonder why the US economy is in the shitter? You may sell "brand names" and "technology", but it sure isn't manufactured there. "Expertise" is also debatable as university there is very expensive and isn't properly subsidized like it is in other Western countries, not to mention the increasing anti-intellectualism that pervades the culture and the political system (but that's a story for another topic).

>>30
No one is saying we need to shut down the entire government as you seem to be implying.
I didn't imply that at all you lumbering fuckwit. Keep arguing against an imaginary position though. It makes you look real smart in front of strangers on the internet.

>refused to compromise
>refused to back off demands
>come out and take credit for blue-dog democrats saying "enough of this shit" and working out a deal both parties can live with


>Obama

We need reaction images back

>>37
We need reaction images back
No, we don't. Less of that, please.

A key problem with this whole debate is that the majority of people, on all ends of the political spectrum, are unwilling to even CONSIDER raising taxes, and radical republicans in particular use any notion of raising taxes to cry 'Socialism!' and 'Wealth Re-distribution!'.

The answer is really simple.

As our history proves, Super inflation and/or colonization are the only solutions for massive national debts.

Although US may set up the new war, we normally don't have the 2nd option. So it means we will have really bad inflation in the near future, which eliminates all national debt and saving money, and reset everything to zero, just like right after WW2.

Unless everyone wishes to pay double of tax, this is the most realistic solution.

>this thread

>mon visage

I want my imageboard back.

How is it the Tea Party's fault when they(along with half of the democrats) voted against the bill in the house? 

What I'd do if I were in power:

>Tell US Citizens that your government fucked up, and will not be able to keep our promises.
>Tell Foreign Debtholders that we intend to honor our debts.
>Allow people to opt for untaxable federal land of their choice instead of SS checks
>Change Medicare to subsidize costs, not pay fully.
>Get out of the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, lower troop count in Japan and SoKo
>Tax Reform, either through fixing the Tax Code or instituting the Fair Tax.

>>42
That just proves they caused this mess! Their demands were absurd and they made a compromise damn near impossible. The fact that they still voted against the shitty compromise (that, just to remind you, neither side likes) only reinforces my point.

>>43
The Tea Party stood true to what they believed in. They wanted to deal with the deficit. The Republicans and Democrats created the deficit. These parties ruined the system and make a mockery of what was once a proud nation.

What mess are you talking about? It'll get a lot worse before it gets better.

What mess are you talking about?
The "standoff" that's been dominating the news for the past few weeks. The shitty last minute deal that was reached where nobody got what they want. The US Treasury almost losing its AAA credit rating. The stock markets' shitty performances. The rest of the world laughing their asses off at our government's incompetence.

The Tea Party stood true to what they believed in.
What exactly is your point here? That they are incapable of compromise? If both parties always "stood true to what they believed in" nothing would ever get done in government.

>>43
>>45

If you're trying to fix the economy, and you think someone else's proposals will be worse for the economy, of course you wouldn't compromise.  And the final deal at the 11th hour was absolute shit.  Cutting $7 Billion in the first year, and a trillion in 10 years?  That's a joke, and is just kicking the can down the road.

>>30
It turns out that economy on a national scale doesn't actually work the same way as balancing your checkbook at home.  Run your checkbook like a country, and you go bankrupt.  Run your country like a checkbook, and the economy withers on the vine.

If you're trying to fix the economy, and you think someone else's proposals will be worse for the economy, of course you wouldn't compromise.
Even if you're in the minority? Even if neither plan gets implemented if there is no compromise? Fuck off!

>>47
Works for China.

This thread makes me happy to be an Free market Anti-Statist.

Let me get this right. Cutting taxes and spending in GOVERNMENT stops Economic growth? Are you REALLY saying Government is the reason for economic growth? Holy shit.

>>51
Yeah, they don't get that idea. The idea that the private sector plays any role whatsoever in our economy is pretty alien to them. No wonder they don't mind trying to destroy every company they can. We can all work on the new government plantations. I hear the new union run task masters will only whip us half as often as some claim.

Can't wait to get me FREE Obamacare and die a slow painful death waiting for my welfare checks.

>>51
Pretty much.  This isn't about balancing your checkbook two ways.  Balancing the economy involves THREE columns.  You have the private sector, government spending, and reserves (replenished through taxation).  To get economic growth, you need a positive balance from trade + reserves - government (negative for the government account, because a government surplus takes money from the private sector).  Currently, the U.S. is running a huge trade deficit, so that's a big minus in the private sector's account.  Cash reserves are pretty low too - mostly as a result of this retarded debt ceiling we have (seriously - who gets to decide their own credit limit?).  So you need a substantial deficit in government to offset the other two - or, in other words, you need to be getting more out of government than you're putting in.

Unfortunately, the government takes in more than it gives back while refusing to curb waste and unnecessary spending. Entitlements will bankrupt the government regardless. The trade deficit can't be fixed without igniting trade wars.

Your theory might have worked if we didn't have trillions of debt piling up. It's a bit late to find a bigger cliff to jump off. If spending was kept under control in the first place, we'd be in a better position in order to deal with the failing economy.

We raised the limit just in time for it all to fall apart anyway.

>>54
>the government takes in more than it gives back
No.  That would be a surplus.

>>51
Are you REALLY saying Government is the reason for economic growth?

I know this may be a difficult concept for you but there is more than one reason for economic growth.

>>47
Why? That's a nice soundbite but why is it true?

>>57
>>57


becuase you have a finate time to pay back your debts, i.e. before you die, but the nation is not limited by 70 years, it can keep rolling over its debt as long as other countrys are willing to loan it that money, so barrowing more money is not as big a deal as between human beings, the scale of time is so much larger.

if our national debt increases, this does not necescarrily lead to a increase in intrest rates, and in fact, has not generally in the 20th century.

>>57
>>57


allso, the thing is, lots of the debt is in the form of bonds, so it is owned by americans, a body withen the lender, some but not all of it, is in forign banks, but a lot of the debt is still fluid inside the usa.

>>57
A personal surplus means you build your reserves, or put cash into savings, or you get a treat.  This releases money to be spent again (your boss spent it on your salary).  A government surplus means the government is taking your money but not doing anything with it - so why is it taking it?  A surplus makes sense in good times, because you build reserves that will help carry the country through the bad times, but a surplus is bad times means the government is taking in money that it could be spending (to be spent again by the recipients) or releasing in the form of tax cuts.

nigger president = bad idea

>>58
Keynesian economics sounds nice until you go bankrupt. See EU and America as an example.

We simply needs to control spending, balance the budget, pay off debts and somehow fix the trade deficit.

>>63
You've got that ass-backwards.  You need the balance of trade in order before you start balancing the budget, otherwise you end up running out of cash and actually defaulting.

>>64
Trade is unbalanced because one country is spending more money than it earns, the US is spending more than it earns because the government is borrowing by the trillion, a trillion here, a trillion there, Obama is like a kid maxing out daddy's credit card, government agencies then pay people and businesses with this money and imports rise.

>>65
Almost ALL of "Obama's spending" is really cost associated with policy mandated by Bush.  Quit spreading bullshit from your echo chamber.

>>65 Ever heard of the fucking New Deal? And what happened when they tried to reduce the deficit during a depression? Ever heard of Ronald Reagan? And how he spent like a drunken sailor to get us out of a minor recession? And left the country with its largest peace-time deficit in history?

At the rate our country can borrow, it costs a lot more money (even in the short term) to cut spending than it does to invest in our country. Hoover tried austerity when the stock market collapsed and he ended up making the depression astronomically worse.

Debt isn't that bad. Our's especially. But if you really did care about it, any economics professor/economist/turd with a brain and an economics textbook will tell you that creating jobs is the only fool-proof way to get out of it, and that's what every business channel is now covering.

>>67
Your revisionist history is taken out of context, nigger.

There is a point where even a nation can finally break into due to it's out of control spending. I'm sorry, but you're fucking too stupid to see what most Americans and most economists can see. You can't spend your way out of this one. It's broke and you're digging a bigger hole.

|Debt isn't that bad.

You lost the argument with that simple statement. You really don't get it. You never will. You're brainwashed by ideological garbage. So fuck you. Scream like a monkey.

>>67
I guess you ignored the role Democrats played in Reagan's presidency and how we got that debt. Funny how according to you that no Democrat has ever spent a single penny...ever in the history of this nation. Reagan admitted we needed a balanced budget amendment. Corrupt Democrats blocked it, as always, when he tried to do it. We wouldn't have these problems right now if he won.

So when do we draw the line? At 18 trillion?  At 100 trillion? At 5000 trillion? Basic math say this shit isn't working.

Get over yourself. You lost the narrative. Everyone understands that our spending is out of control and we will eventually go bankrupt or worse. Just look at California, it's fate speaks for itself.

>>66
I said "spending more than it earns", not "spending". If Obama increases taxation then the US will be spending what it earns.
>>67
The situations you describe were more complex than that, you can't claim you spent your way out of recession when the economy would have recovered naturally anyway and you can't claim laissez faire policies deepened the depression when a minute earlier you were signing protectionism acts, also it could be argued that since the recession is lasting so long that short term measures like loans are no longer applicable. We need to look into greater detail into this.

>>40
|everyone wishes to pay double of tax

No no, you don't understand. Sixty years ago the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Today it's in the 30s, and most super rich pay less than that because the capital gains tax is only 15%. The wealthiest people in this country pay far less as a percentage of their income than the middle class does. The wealthiest people in this country also control an overwhelming majority of this nation's wealth and income.

In the past decade we've cut taxes on the rich some more and started two wars. Add in a global economic disaster and that's why we've got the issues that we have today. The most obvious solution is to set the tax rate back to what it was sixty years ago, but that is not even on the table because all congresspeople, senators, and the president are rich as fuck and you won't find many politicians willing to vote against their own personal interests. It is not necessary for the vast majority of americans to pay a single penny more on taxes.

>>68
Nurr... most economists? I call bullshit. There are plenty of economists who think our last big stimulus would have worked if it were bigger. And plenty more who think sharp cuts in spending right now are stupid idea.

>>65
No, trade is imbalanced because your imports are cheaper than domestic production, and your exports are expensive as fuck.  Unless you end up exporting more than you import, a federal balanced budget is a recipe for disaster because the private sector will haemorrhage value.

>>71
The wealthiest fifth generate a higher share of taxes than their share of income, but considerably lower than their share of the wealth.  Arguably, the tax system should be set up to raise in proportion to wealth, since the poor generate a higher share of income than their share of wealth.

Actually, the debt by itself is becoming a massive problem. The US will eventually see that entitlements, by themselves, will  consume all tax revenue in a matter of decades and leave nothing for the actual government.

Stimulus is nice as long as you want fake solutions that add to the deficit. You need to eventually get back the money you invested. Otherwise, you just made things a lot worse in the long run.

|plenty of economists who think our last big stimulus would have worked if it were bigger.

The same people who think we can we can spend our way out of debt? How about paying it off instead. It's really that simple.

Keynesian economics is somewhat of an outdated idea. The fundamental idea is to dig a deep hole and keep digging forever. Needless to say, it's a very bad idea. It's like a pyramid scheme where the government can keep printing money forever. 

People who think that building up trillions of dollars is a good thing are retarded. This is why Keynesian fags are taking a beating.

>>75
So...our economic policy from the New Deal up until the stagflation of the 70s was a very bad idea? Do you think monetarism or some other policy would have solved it all? Those aren't rhetorical questions, I really want to know what you think.

>>74
Man, you would have LOVED Hoover.

>>70
Finally, a monetarist that actually knows what he's talking about.

But onto your point, the economy WOULD have recovered naturally from the great depression (according to the business cycle), but at a much slower rate than which it did.

|you can't claim laissez faire policies deepened the depression when a minute earlier you were signing protectionism acts

I'm talking about BEFORE FDR took office, man. Deregulation and inconsistencies in following Keynesian policy is the reason why problems arise with Keynesian economics as a whole. That's one of its core beliefs. You can't half-ass it.

>>69
|according to you that no Democrat has ever spent a single penny...ever in the history of this nation.
That is the exact opposite of what I believe. A balanced budget amendment wouldn't work because if there's ever a time when we need to spend a penny more than we have (natural disaster, war, etc.), we're fucked. States DO have balanced budget, but they borrow billions from the federal government when they have problems. Who would the federal government borrow from if we couldn't have debt? This is why the 14th amendment exists.

>>68
|most economists
I laughed so hard at that there were dogs outside barking. Do a little research, my friend, and you will find that most economists claimed it didn't go far enough.

|You lost the argument with that simple statement. You really don't get it. You never will. You're brainwashed by ideological garbage. So fuck you. Scream like a monkey.

That is a textbook definition of someone losing an argument, my friend. But I'll answer your hatred regardless. If debt didn't exist, loans and interest wouldn't exist, and I honestly don't know a single modern economic policy that doesn't integrate those.

Keynesian policy is still a death spiral in our present condition.

I like the way you pretend it's an argument about whether or not debt can exist rather than how much debt can exist before it becomes detrimental problem by itself to your economy.

Faggot, we know what debt CAN exist you stupid fuck. The argument is about whether or not you are digging a deeper hole or digging your way out of that hole. Thus far, you only repeat the fact that you think massive unpayable debts is the most wonderful thing ever. You seem to believe this is about credit or loans. It's not. It's about spending what you can afford within a budget that is reasonable.

You realize that you CAN spend more than you can afford. You do realize the interest on those debts will FUCK you as the debts grow. Bailouts, welfare and bankruptcy is a retarded business model even when you call it 'investing.'


The Keynesian Deathspiral only works in your head. Paying off your debts and avoiding deficit spending actually works for everyone in the real world.

“Excuse me, Mr. Nick!” It was Pearl Fey. She looked very small behind the tall oak defendant’s stand.Phoenix heard Franziska von Karma, the prosecutor, babbling something about her perfection, and decided that he could spare his attention. “What is it, Pearls?” He whispered out of the corner of his mouth. The girl stared up at him with her large brown eyes. Her silky brown hair was braided into two circles behind her head that bounced up and down when she was surprised or excited. And to top it off she wore the standard light purple channeler’s robe with a pink sash, only in miniature. “Mr. Nick, I have to go potty, bad!” “I’m sorry, Pearls, but you’ll have to hold it a little longer. The judge doesn’t look ready to call a recess yet.” “Oh…” “Don’t worry, we’ll get you to a bathroom. Just hang in there, okay?” “Okay!” said Pearl, breaking into a grin. Phoenix couldn’t help but smile back. He didn’t like kids, but Pearl never caused any trouble. “Mr. Wright! I would advise you to pay attention to your own client’s trial!” “Y-yes, your honor!” Phoenix stammered. The judge continued. “Ms. Von Karma was just about to call the next witness to the stand…” It was Lotta Hart, the nosy photographer who almost always managed to show up in time to witness the crime scene. They began the cross examination. Phoenix listened carefully to the entire testimony, and Pearl waited patiently. He kept reviewing all the evidence, looking frantically for contradictions, but the story seemed airtight. He could tell the judge was getting impatient, and his window of opportunity was closing. This looked like it could be the end… “Need some help?” A familiar voice came from right next to him, and Phoenix glanced over in astonishment. “Pearls? What…” His heart almost stopped. There stood Mia Fey, his dead mentor. He’d always had something of a crush on her, and now she looked more beautiful than ever before. Now, her hair was brown, and braided up in the back just like Pearl’s. He realized that the young spirit medium must be channeling Mia. “Hmmm…these clothes are a little small though.” Phoenix blushed as he realized just how short the eight-year-old’s skirt was on the fully grown Mia. It barely covered her crotch! And now Mia, who had always had a large bust, was quite literally almost popping out of the minuscule channeling robes. She must have noticed Phoenix staring. “Get it together, Phoenix! You’ve got a case to win!” He nodded and turned back to the witness stand. Mia continued. “Now, start trying to press the witness for-urk!” She suddenly felt an intense pressure in her abdomen. That little girl was working on quite a load! “Are you okay, Mia?” “Y-yeah…I’m fine…” she reassured him, although she was beginning to sweat. I’m not sure how much longer I can hold it. “Ms. Hart, isn’t it true you took more than one photo of the crime scene?” “Well, yeah! You reckon I’d let a story this big go by with just one pitcher to show for it?” “Would you mind presenting those additional pictures to the court?” “The prosecution has deemed the additional photograph to be irrelevant.” Phoenix pointed in his trademark gesture. “I think that’s for the people of this court to decide!” “I’m sorry, Ms. Von Karma, but I must agree with the defense on this – YOW!” Franziska cracked her whip viciously at the old man. “Very well! If you wish to waste this court’s time, I will present the other photo.” “Hmmm… what could this mean…?” Phoenix pored over the newly submitted picture for any discrepancies. “T-there, a contradiction! Think about the evidence you have and compare it to the picture you just got!” counseled Mia in a rather strained tone of voice. At that very moment she was forcing back an intense urge to use the bathroom by any means necessary. I’ve got to focus on the trial…she chided herself. But she could feel her concentration slipping. As her protégé raised an objection, she gripped the defendant’s stand with white knuckles. She shifted nervously in her uncomfortably tight clothing. She couldn’t really blame Phoenix for staring, after all, she was sporting some truly eye popping cleavage. “Are you really alright, chief? You don’t look so good.” Phoenix asked. He seemed genuinely concerned, as Mia’s face had blanched and she was now sweating noticeably. The air around her was beginning to waver and bend almost imperceptibly. “Don’t worry about me, you need to think of the client!” Ugh...this is the worst I’ve ever had to go in my whole life. I can feel my connection to Pearl waning… Mia quickly began to understand the bottom line: if she didn’t find relief soon, she would go back to the spirit world and leave Phoenix on his own. As the fight between Phoenix and Franziska dragged on, Mia’s eyes widened in desperation. An airy fart squeezed itself out of her, and the very tip of a hard turd emerged from between her cheeks. She needed a toilet, now. Her lips parted as an almost inaudible moan escaped them. She clutched her backside tightly and hopped up and down to distract herself. She stopped and doubled over as she farted again, louder. The sheer volume of feces inside her astounded Mia. She fought hard to hold it in, but it was a losing battle. The whole room started to narrow to tunnel vision, and the sound of Phoenix and Franziska arguing at the top of their lungs faded to a dull roar. This is it…she thought. It’s now or never. She relaxed her sphincter, and a large volume of gas escaped her. “Ohhh…” She ceased to perceive anything else in the room, except the blissful release she was feeling. She gave her body a push to help things along, and just like that she was defecating. Her eyes were closed, and beneath her slightly upturned nose her mouth was formed into an ‘O’ of pure bliss. The enormous turd that had been bothering her slid smoothly out of her rectum and rested against her panties for a moment, before another push from Mia caused them to bulge out easily with a soft crackle. The poop kept coming and began to pile into a mound. Even though everyone in the courtroom was watching Mia awkwardly, all she could feel was the warm, gooey sensation on her behind. If I had known how much pleasure you get from soiling yourself, I would have done this while I was alive! When that piece was finished, she could feel more lining up for exit. This one was wider, so she spread her legs and bent over the stand, revealing more cleavage. Her brow furrowed and she bit her lower lip out of exertion. Oh, my, this one is huge! What on earth did that little girl eat? She was so lost in concentration that Mia’s bladder released, causing a fountain of urine to cascade from between her legs. A puddle formed underneath her, splashing onto the floor. As she strained, Mia released a big fart into Pearl’s loaded panties. “Nnnnngh!” With the noise she was making, everyone in the courtroom was looking at her. “What’s going on?” “Mommy, is the lady going poo-poo?” If there was any doubt before, it was now clear that Mia was going poo-poo, as she began to push in earnest on the big lump of excrement inside her. Mia’s anus began to widen further and further, and gradually, her bowel movement began to slide out with a soft, crackling. “Nnnh…nnh…oh!” Her sphincter was stretched to its limit.Finally, the widest part passed through and began to slide easily into her heavy panties. “Ahhhhhhh…” Mia as the football shaped BM smushed at last into Pearl’s undies, which were adorned with bumblebees and flowers. The panties sagged considerably beneath her short skirt, revealing the crack of her bum, which was smeared brown. Mia stood up. Every man, woman and child in the court room was staring at her open mouthed after witnessing her display. Mia barely noticed. That was the thing about being a spirit, she thought. You don’t have to worry about the opinions of others. After a moment of silence, Mia cleared her throat. “If the court is ready, may we continue with the…oh! Ungh…mmmph…” She closed one of her eyes and grimaced. She pushed on her tummy with a slender hand and finally voided the last of her bowels. A thin log slithered out of her  and rested on top of the enormous pile in her panties. “Hang on…there’s more…” After an audible fart she grunted again, releasing a mushy mass of hot slop that coated her production. She nodded. “Your honor…?” “Well, I must say that in all my years I have never seen someone take a case so seriously."

Stocks began to fall sharply in October 1929. But the US government did not take effective measures. Its idea was laissez-faire. Austerity measures may be worse than  doing nothing. The US economy continued to contract rapidly until 1933.

The Roosevelt administration increased spending greatly, and carried out good policies. So the US economy recovered from the Great Depression. The Second World War removed tariff barriers, and the US economy grew remarkably.

Many people learned from the Great Depression, so many countries increased spending in the end of 2008. The international community has been trying to increase trade.

When the economy is in good condition, the government can reduce spending. But the US economy is not in very good condition. Spending cuts do not reduce the national debt. If the economy slows, revenues decrease. When the econmy grows and revenues increase, the national debt decrease. What is important is to grow the economy, not to reduce spending.

The GOP showed they can destroy the US economy by preventing the government from raising its debt ceiling. So stocks fell.
But the government can do many things. It should think out ways to increase revenues and spending. Even if spenging cuts lower the rate of growth, the economy can grow. Military spending is not productive. When the government reduces the defense budget, the economy will not be damaged.

When stocks fall, people's assets depreciate. So the economy is damaged. Obama should not surrender to the GOP.

The ECB has started to buy large quantities of government bonds. If government bond yields are sufficiently lowered, the debt crisis will be over.

>>81
Your liberal narrative lacks substance. Stocks are falling because our economy is sinking. There isn't going to be any real growth no matter what we do if we ignore the deficit and trade deficit, not to mention the fact we are spend beyond our means to repay. Buying your way out of debt sounds nice on paper. Too bad for you that America noticed that scam. 

War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Spending is saving.

Welcome to negro ideology.

>>82
Your liberal narrative lacks substance.
Are you suggesting yours doesn't?
Welcome to negro ideology.
Ah, lacking substance confirmed.

>>80
>The Roosevelt administration increased spending greatly, and carried out good policies. So the US economy recovered from the Great Depression...
By the end of the 1940s, after WWII.

>>84
>thinks new deal ended the great depression
/facepalm

>>58
>>59
>>60
This doesn't make sense, individuals take out loans to make purchases like homes because they are unwilling to wait and save to do so, by saying the state is more like a business than an individual you are suggesting that they should not take out loans unless it is making capital investments that result in returns greater than the interest, such as roads and schools. The government's shareholders are also it's customers, so it's pointless to compete with private businesses for domestic capital reserves when it is more efficient to replace the burden caused by competition for capital with simple honest taxation which reflects the true cost of government spending.

>>86
Not really.  The government's shareholders are the *taxpayers.*  The government's customers are the *welfare recipients and beneficiaries of 'Affirmative Action.'*  These are two very, very different groups, and have been for generations.

>>83
Fact #1: Debt is never a good thing. It is a necessary evil, but not good for you. This is true at the personal, business and government level.

Fact #2: The more debt you have, the more interest you will have to pay each month. This payment on maintaining the interest of your debt saps resources that could have been used for better things.

Fact #3: If you can't afford to even maintain your interest payments, you fucked up. You didn't maintain a healthly budget. You didn't live within you means. You will go bankrupt. Your government will print more money and hyperinflation will fuck your nation hard.

Fact #4: There is no law or rule that says you can't have a balanced budget or a surplus. You may always owe money, but there is no rule that says you must let it accumulate for no fucking reason.

Truth: Live withing your means. Use an actual budget. There will be ups and downs, savings is a must. Invest wisely, without making huge risks. Deficit spending is for people planning on failing.

>>83
Keynesian economics definition: 80 year old economic theory often used by 12 year olds to justify buying toys you can't afford.  

Rule #1: Stimulate the economy by throwing money at your problems. Ignore the fact you might not get that money back in the long run.

Rule #2: Pretend that stimulus somehow permanently stimulates things. It doesn't in any way shape, form or fashion. It's temporary.

Rule #3: Pretend that debt doesn't cost you anything. Pretend that a massive deficit has no effect on economy.

Rule #4: If things get better, take credit even if it was going to get better anyway. If things get worse, claim you should have thrown more money at the problem.  

Rule #5: Keynesian economics uses a black box theory. Numbers don't mean anything. Apparently, the more you owe, the better you are somehow because all numbers are imaginary or something. The more you spend, the better things are because the results are ignored. Numbers don't exist, I assume under this theory. 

Truth: In short, if things are good in your economy, spend until you are broke. If your economy is bad, spend more money. If you don't get better, you didn't spend enough. Therefore, you can only go into infinite debt forever.

Negro ideology 101

>>88
Debt is never a good thing. It is a necessary evil, but not good for you. This is true at the personal, business and government level.
Anybody in their right mind wouldn't argue that "debt is a good thing". If they truly gave a shit, though, there would be non-stop diplomatic talks with Mainland China, Japan and the UK (the three largest debtors) asking these countries to forgo some (if not all) the debt the US has. I see nothing of the sort happening.
Fact #2:
Same above.
Fact #3: If you can't afford to even maintain your interest payments, you fucked up. You didn't maintain a healthly budget. You didn't live within you means. You will go bankrupt. Your government will print more money and hyperinflation will fuck your nation hard.Fact #4: There is no law or rule that says you can't have a balanced budget or a surplus. You may always owe money, but there is no rule that says you must let it accumulate for no fucking reason.I don't know of a single nation on Earth that truly lives within its means (meaning absolutely no debt at all), but sure, the US could do to going an approach of such. Defense spending is what saps up most spending, and both parties seem intent on never cutting that, ever (the small little puny cuts don't even remotely go far enough).

A lot of what it has to do with is the fact that the US barely has a manufacturing sector anymore. Spending and World War II during the FDR years were just catalysts (not the real reason) that got the US out of the Great Depression, the fact that the US had an actual manufacturing sector is what got it out of the Depression. Until people get the idea that you need a manufacturing base to survive economically through their thick skulls, you're doomed to failure.

>>89
I know this may be difficult for you to get, but there are many ways (state and non-state) to stimulate an economy. Hand waving about Keynesianism (Keynes was a douche anyway) isn't going to get you anywhere.

I meant "three largest creditors", not "debtors".

>>88
>>89

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED
Master Troll

Convice five people you're right using a strawman argument on /newpol/.

>>90
Why would anyone or country forgive a debt? That's retarded.
Also: Japan and UK have far more debt then the USA anyways.

>>91
>stimulating
loool still harping on these magical economic means with which tyranny and government intervention turn into positive things?

>>94
Why would anyone or country forgive a debt?
It's called negotiation, there's no rule that states the debt in and of itself is non-negotiable. Individuals and state governments have done this plenty of times in the past, there's no reason why the Federal government cannot do the same.

>>94
tyranny
You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means.

>>88
Fact #1: Myth.  Debt is not bad, bad debt is bad.
Fact #2: Disingenuous.  You could have used the money you're using to pay interest on other things, but the reason you're paying interest is that you already spent said money on said other things before you had it.
Fact #3: True, but hyperbolic.  The US was nowhere near being unable to afford to pay its interest, other than through its own stupidity in having a debt ceiling.
Fact #4: Gee, I don't know, does "the economy will be permanently and irreperably fucked if you do" count?
Truth: It turns out that country-level economics do not work the same way as balancing your checkbook.

>>97
Liberals will continue to live in a fantasy land of delusions.
>It turns out that country-level economics do not work the same way as balancing your checkbook.
lol, dumbest shit in the fucking world.

>>95
Why would anyone forgive someone elses debt? Certainly there is no point to do it to a out of control tyrannical government which is in debt due to socialist spending.

>>96
think you don't.

Businesses only take out loans if they believe the yield from the investments will exceed the interest, interest rates therefore reflect the supply and demand for capital. A business that can gain higher returns on an investment than another business will take loans with higher interest rates, so in a free market the capital will go towards the more profitable business.

State banks also have a profit motive, in theory the profit motive of the voters in the state that controls it, in reality of course this process is riddled with corruption not to mention inefficiency. State banks are at a motivational and practical disadvantage to private banks, they cannot compete and minus their ability to print money and use taxpayer money they are among the least profitable financial institutions gram per gram, taxpayers have to pick up the cost of the interest payments on the money they borrow and the money lost on poor investments. It is in their best interest to maintain a surplus to ensure that they are not paying extra tax to pay interest to foreign banks and corporations, if there is a disaster they can deplete the surplus, nothing of value will be lost.

For instance in total the government forked out 12.5 billion to save Chrysler and received 10.9 billion in return, if they had invested 12.5 billion in Goldman Sachs then they would have received 23 billion in June 2011 or $100 from every adult. The government might as well have reached into your pocket and took the money, not just from able bodied young adults but single mothers, the disabled and the elderly, muggers usually get less each robbery.

>>98
If you seriously think that the govt budget should be run like a personal checking account then you have no idea how government works.

>>100
He doesn't!

>It turns out that country-level economics do not work the same way as balancing your checkbook.

This is why we have 14+ trillion dollars in debt. It's same thing in the end, dumbass.

>>102
The amount of debt isn't important, because it can't be called in.  If you lend the government money via a 30-year bond, you're stuck with it for 30 years - you want the money sooner, you have to get someone else to buy you out.

>The amount of debt isn't important,

Sure....

You can not keep borrowing forever at levels of debt that not only obviously can not be paid back, but upon which the interest payments will eventually themselves be unpayable.

>>105
But defaulting on the debt isn't any fucking better. Some debt should be written off so interest payments don't get out of hand. Defaulting is not a viable alternative.

>>105
Evidently, as we've seen, it very fucking obviously can be paid back.

>>107
Let us know when that 14 trillion magically disappears. Somehow, I have a feeling we're be getting use to 20 trillion and then 30 trillion debt.

>>108
Actually, if you add up entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it adds up to something like $100 Trillion. The US is in the hole much deeper than people realize.

>>108
It will "magically disappear" when it comes due for repayment.  As things stand, the US is having no problems making its repayments, and isn't likely to have any such problems as long as Congress doesn't repeat the childish behaviour of the last four months.

ITT: people who don't understand how national debt works AT ALL.

>>111
This.  The national debt is not like your credit card.  You can't pay it off early, and the creditors can't come knocking on a live bond.

>>110, fiscal responsibility is not "childish".

The real childishness here is where you believe the government can borrow trillions forever, without consequence. You clearly feel that the government is magic money machine.

>>113
fiscal responsibility is not "childish".
No, but utterly refusing to increase revenue and trying to set the president up for failure is.

>>114
The President set himself up when he decided to ignore the deficit and refuses to address the spending that created it.

You can't increase revenue every time you run out of other people's money. Spending is the problem.

refuses to address the spending that created it.
That's just blatantly false.

You can't increase revenue every time you run out of other people's money. Spending is the problem.
Nice false dichotomy, dipshit. The dems' plan was to do both reduce spending and increase revenue and surprise! the Tea Party loons rejected it since they'd rather the country default than the president succeed.

>>116
>That's just blatantly false.

Reality says otherwise. Don't be a hater because it's a fact that your tax and spend monkey is an impotent little girl now. 

>loons rejected it since they'd rather the country default

You mean just like the WH and Dem controlled Senate threatened to do? Nice double standard. Dems had no actual plan to reduce anything until the Tea Party forced them to at gun point.

Obama tried your game and lost. He stood on the hill and declared he wouldn't move an inch. The Tea Party whipped out their dicks and asked him now many inches he wanted.

You can declare the world to be flat if you so desire, but your obvious biased OPINIONS won't win any elections. Ignore democracy at your own peril. :)

>>116
Spending is constantly increased by every administration. Even during the Clinton administration, despite balancing the budget, both democrat and republican parties managed to increase spending on an average of 14% each.

You're a loon yourself if you believe the Tea Party is purposely organizing to stop democrats from initiating any plan (that never existed or is refused to be brought on the table) just to spite Obama's efforts. It sounds like a scapegoat for their problems.

If the democrats were serious and wanted to work with republicans, they would at least propose REAL major spending cuts.

>>117
>>118
Prominent tea partiers have said flat out that their top priority is getting Obama out of office. I'd dig up a source but you're more interested in dick metaphors.

And my bad, it was Boehner that rejected Obama's deal even though it had more in cuts than he originally asked for. The Tea Partiers rejected even Boehner's plan and then passed a bullshit political stunt bill that had no chance of passing the Senate. Even Republicans didn't like it.

Here's where everyone stood on the issue:

Obama - moderate, slightly left leaning
>was ok with making sharp cuts in spending that could hurt our economic recovery if they were accompanied by tax increases on the wealthy

Boehner - right wing
>wanted spending cuts only, tax increases (or even just closing loopholes) were completely off the table

Tea Partiers - extreme right wing
>wanted a fuckton of spending cuts, more than any rational person

>>113
>>115
>>117
Seems like more people that don't understand that balancing the national economy does not work on the same principles as balancing your checkbook.  The accounting is entirely different.  For example, personal accounting has no externalities - money comes in, money goes out.  The national budget does not work in the same way, not least because personal debt is less rigid.

>>116
>3 trillion dollars isn't real

>Prominent tea partiers have said flat out that their top priority is getting Obama out of office.

Why would that be a a problem? They would have to in order to stay true to their ideals.

>Tea Partiers - extreme right wing

Yeah, not that it actually means anything. It's just a tag that all Dems were told stutter as often as they can, now that racism and class warfare isn't working out.

>>120
>Seems like more people that don't understand that balancing the national economy does not

Wrong. It does. It's the same thing in the end. It seems to me you really need that debt thing to go away for your ideology to make sense. So you try to wish it away.

Your logic is too twisted. You're trying to turn the idea of a deficit into an abstract idea.

Ask yourself, if Obama openly stated your ideas in the next election, would he win? The Tea Party would have a hell of a day.

>>124
>Wrong. It does. It's the same thing in the end.
I don't think that worked.  Try saying it again, and maybe this time it'll come true, right?

If you want to completely and utterly fuck over the private sector, sure, go ahead and cut spending and balance the budget.  But there's a value transfer involved there, and it's got to come from somewhere - it sure as hell isn't going to magically appear from the balance of trade.

>>121
So he's supposed to cut more than Boehner demanded him to?

>>122
Because the only logical next step in that plan is to sabotage him which is clearly bad for everyone. Unless you're a dipshit anarchist and you actually want the government to fail.

>>126
>Unless you're a dipshit anarchist and you actually want the government to fail.
Congratulations, you've figured out the Tea Party agenda.

>>126

no, I was insulting the poster the '>' meant 'implying', as in he was implying 3 trillion dollars isn't real deficit reduction, which is ridiculous.

>>128
Ah yes. Poe's Law at work here!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

Roosevelt increased spending, and grew the economy greatly. America's per cpita real GDP in 1944 was much higher than that in 1928. Clinton increased taxes on the rich and large companies, and grew the economy greatly. He reduced the national debt.

Increasing spending does not necessarily grow the economy. Bush increased spending. But the US economy stagnated, because he spent much money on unproductive fields. Good spending can grow the economy. But bad spending creates fake economic growth, and hurts the economy in the long run. Wasting money lowers the living standard of the people.

When the economy grows and revenues increase, the national debt decreases. I hope the government slashes the defense budget, increases taxes on the rich and large companies, and spends much money on productive fields.

Austerity measures lower the rate of economic growth. Look at the EU. Their economies look stagnant. Austerity measures have been torturing Greeks.

The ECB has started to buy large quantities of government bonds, but Greek government bond yields have not fallen. There is good reason for the plunge in stock prices.

And the fear that the GOP may slow the pace of recovery is one of the causes of the plunge. If Greece defaults, the world economy will be badly damaged. The ECB and EFSF have to promise they will not let Greece default.

If the Fed does not buy Treasuries, the US will go bankrupt. If the ECB had saved Greece, the world economy would not have been greatly damaged in May 2010. The ECB destroyed the world economy. It can resolve the problem easily.

>And the fear that the GOP may slow the pace of recovery is one of the causes of the plunge.

Implying there wasn't reasons for that to occur independently anyway. It's nice to see that people's feelings are now the real problem instead of genuine economic problems.

You're looking for scapegoats on Obama's behalf. Nice try.

>>131
>When the economy grows and revenues increase, the national debt decreases. I hope the government slashes the defense budget, increases taxes on the rich and large companies, and spends much money on productive fields.

Yes. We need to hit 100 trillion in debt for the achievement in WoW, increase taxes on corporations until they leave for china and buy expensive toys we can't afford and won't pay off.

Could you relay this to George Soros's and Moveon.org's shills so we can make sure our brown-shirts can demonize and persecute anyone who disagrees with us.

>>133
Economic problems are usually a result of people's feelings. Lack of consumer confidence, for example. And S&P did cite congress's unwillingness to raise revenue as a major reason for the downgrade in the US credit rating which in turn fucked markets all to shit.

persecute
I find it fucking hilarious when conservatives play the victim card.

>I find it fucking hilarious when conservatives play the victim card.

Because they are learning from libfags?

>>135
I'm sure that they explicitly stated that the Tea party or not having higher taxes is somehow causing global warming or economic problems or something like that.

Somehow, I'm unconvinced by your rather weak point.

You'd offer a loan to the US government but you'd never buy shares in it if it were a business.

lol, blaming the tea party for the federal reserve.

Must be a left wanger.

>>136
Because they accuse liberals of it all the time, yes. And the idea that conservatives are persecuted is laughable.

>>137
>>139
Strawman. Fuck off.

>>140
>Because they accuse liberals of it all the time, yes.

Technically, liberals do obsessively attack the right 24/7 every chance they get. Pretending they don't abuse every resource to do so, makes you retardedly laughable.   

>Strawman. Fuck off.

Make me, pussy. First Amendment isn't dead yet.

INTERNET TOUGHGUY DETECTED!

Typical conservative. Words failed you so you resort to confrontation.

Confrontation? Lol!

Nice caps, your impotence is delicious. Like I said, make me pussy. :)

I don't need to be a tough guy when I know you're all bark and no spine. You're a typical fascist who can't finish what he starts and cries foul when he can't win. Poor Nazi.

Being confrontational and acting like you didn't start something makes you childish.

Calling someone a tough guy when you realize he's asking you to put your money where your mouth is makes you a cowardly little shit.

Putting these together and you have the typical libfag mentality of someone who wants to attack and shit on other people's opinions while preaching your own opinions as the absolute truth.

all bark and no spine
a cowardly little shit

Seriously? I'm a coward because I won't "make" someone shut up on the internet? You niggers best be trollin.