House, Senate leaders meet Sunday on debt talks
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Syria defiantly denies killings, as U.N. council meets
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
26 Comments
Login to comment
-1
sailwind
What Planet is the A.P on? Unemployment went up last Month to 9.2 percent and Obama's economic policies produced a lousy 18,000 jobs in June. His economic policies are abject failures and he will be lucky if he carries his home State of Hawaii in the 2012 election.
0
yanee
Somehow I think the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot yet again by picking the wrong candidate.
1
Serrano
"Both parties are under pressure to resolve the debt crisis"
But between the two parties they created it. How can they be expected to resolve it? Maybe the voters can throw out both parties and elect responsible leaders, ha ha!
0
JohnBecker
@sailwind: The possibility exists that the Republicans will pick a candidate who isn't popular with the Tea Party faction. That could split the Republican vote and hand the election to Obama. Another possibility is that the voters are so disgusted they'll go for the Tea Party and take their chances.
0
Lizz
The only constituency left for Obama are white liberals (20-25% of the electorate) and maybe 70% of the minority vote. There are Tea Party candidates I wouldn't sell my soul for, but I don't think those will be the GOP nominee. Upwards of 90% of Republicans will support a moderate in the end.
0
Jeffrey Duelley
Both Democrats and Republicans will continue their little song and dance, and in the end we will see cuts that kick the can down the road for a few more years.
0
BreitbartVictorious
Today we found out that the job numbers for June were falsified. Instead of 18,000 more jobs created in June (compared with May), the economy actually lost jobs. The Labor Department simply revised downward the number of jobs that existed in this country during May. Fences moved. The usual Obama lies and deceptions...
-1
chewitup
It is nothing short of preposterous to have people complain that the government did not create jobs on one hand, then decry socialism on the other.
You can't have it both ways. America is just not socialist enough to create jobs. So why do I have to listen to this nonsense?
The economy will either pick up or it won't. All the government can do is not kill it. Creation and genuine stimulation are not possible.
And I say again, the only way to pay the debt is to slash spending and I suggest starting with the military. Also, taxes must go up, especially on those holding most of the wealth and financial assets, ie, those who created the situation in the first place.
Anything else is just paying the principal on the debt.
But this is surely an interesting new twist on the concept of empire. Whereas in the past the imperial country would kill you and take your gold, now America convinces you to part with your gold for an IOU on a piece of paper. Many have collected, but I don't think this pyramid scheme can go on forever. And when it falls apart good luck collecting. So much of you money we spent on military tech, so seriously, good luck.
1
SuperLib
It seems smarter to go for the bigger plan and have both sides get beat up a little by their constituents. In the end it will be better for the country overall. The cuts in government services would hurt low/fixed income people and repealing the tax cuts would hurt higher income people. In the end it's a shared burden by everyone and the rich are still rich. Since both sides get whacked the political net result evens out which is probably what Obama is going for. Boehner? My guess is that he's willing to take any risk possible, even a global financial meltdown, for short-term political gain.
0
Madverts
" Boehner? My guess is that he's willing to take any risk possible, even a global financial meltdown, for short-term political gain."
Frightening, isn't it.....
-2
chewitup
Did you mean "hurt" as in pain? Sorry, but going back to old school taxes for the rich causing "pain" must be something I, as one of the poor, just cannot understand. Is it something like having to part with your Porche leaving you with only a Mercedes, a Benz, a Jaguar, a Pantera and a BMW? If so, maybe for the sake of solidarity, I could do something equally painful, such as lop off my left hand with a machete and cauterize the wound with a stone heated in fire. Its about all the pain I could afford on my salary.
0
Madverts
"Its about all the pain I could afford on my salary."
No offence, but that's your own problem. You can't sit there and moan you messed your own life up, ergo the rich must pay in consequence in these hard times. In fact, this often seems to be the run-of-the-mill sentiments held by a lot of socialists where I reside, which sadly boils down to the jealousy of having seen another suceed in life, coupled with the accusers dissatisfaction not having made it in life.
That said, until the US realizes that credit is the cancer that is killing it from within, there is no hope. Fairly applied elevated tax revenue, along with cuts is the answer I can see.
The only thing I don't understand is that Obama kept all those Bush-era tax cuts for the uber-rich. Maybe one of our non-radical Americans can explain this paradox to me....
1
Jeffrey Duelley
I'm disabled and have to rely on Social Security. Why should I be made to take a cut when I'm severely limited to what work I can do?
0
Laguna
Madverts, Obama has had to play the cards that he's been dealt. Let's remember the reason the cuts were designed to "expire" in the first place was that Bush lacked the guts to expose their long-term budgetary effects by making them permanent, instead purposely kicking the can to what he must have been sure would be a Democratic president. With the Republican semi-victory in '10 came storming in the vitriolic Tea Partiers just begging for a fight at a time when the economy was even worse than it is now. A two-year extension, considering the circumstances, was perhaps not ideal but probably smart.
One reason it's smart is because Obama refuses to take the bait. Some knuckle-draggers will never reconcile to his presidency no matter how his actions demonstrate his centrism, but by leaving the rabid right leaping even more desperately as their teeth snap at empty air, he's allowing them to show their true nature: zealots beholden to the corporate system with not an inkling of understanding of how economics works. No one rational would accuse Obama of over-reaching or extremism - the very two crimes his opponents would most like to tar him with - but many would apply those same terms to the freshman House Republicans.
So the Republicans are toast in 2012. Seriously, there is not one in this field who can defeat Obama, and there is not one in the wings able to do so, either. It was Boehner who blinked as Obama displayed great willingness to compromise with his "Grand Compromise," it is Boehner who cannot control his caucus, and it is Boehner who has now placed Republican hopes in the same Biden talks that his no. 2 Cantor stalked away from last month.
We'll see how this plays out; it could end up very badly for everyone involved, but in any case, the Republicans have now painted themselves into a corner that they will be unable to escape from.
0
Madverts
"Madverts, Obama has had to play the cards that he's been dealt."
Agreed. One of the poorest hands ever dealt to an un-coming US president, although having seen Obama's card sublime card-playing skills, notably the bin-Laden strike, I have to say he's the man for the job in the current climate.
"With the Republican semi-victory in '10 came storming in the vitriolic Tea Partiers just begging for a fight at a time when the economy was even worse than it is now. A two-year extension, considering the circumstances, was perhaps not ideal but probably smart."
Smart politically, perhaps but I'm sure it was a tremendous let-down for the voters that wanted change they could believe in.
" but by leaving the rabid right leaping even more desperately as their teeth snap at empty air, he's allowing them to show their true nature"
They do that anyway.....
"We'll see how this plays out; it could end up very badly for everyone involved, but in any case, the Republicans have now painted themselves into a corner that they will be unable to escape from."
They've been doing that for a long time. Screaming "no" from the sidelines on just about every issue raised by team Obama with no real ideas based on sane foundation has kinda become their hallmark. Hence you're probably right, they'll be toast in 2012.
0
TheQuestion
Unfortunetly the U.S is a mixed system. But more to the point jobs are a critical issue in this election cycle because we were promised that the massive bailouts, healthcare reform, and stimulus packages would create jobs, save money, and bring us out of the recession when, in reality, it has only set us on a stable course of decline. Scrap these failing government systems and start privatizing whole departments. The failures of government over the years have proved they have no idea how to provide oversight let alone stimulate.
0
sfjp330
The problem in the U.S. economy is the instability of the banks. Many other banks that are facing serious problems but have not yet qualified to be put on the FDICs list of problem banks. The number of institutions are severely stressed, but does not include all that are still experiencing questionable futures. The actions of Federal Reserve have been aimed at keeping things calm in the banking industry so that the FDIC can close or arrange acquisitions for troubled banks in an “orderly” fashion. This has been one of the reasons that the Fed’s target interest rates have been kept low for such a long time. A large number of the banks have balance sheets that are not in very good shape and there are still quite a few sectors of the economy, housing, commercial real estate, consumer loans, state and local governments, that are experiencing serve financial difficulties themselves. There is no easy solution and this is going to be a 7-10 year problem for the U.S.
-2
chewitup
Where in the hell does that come from? What the hell does it have to with my post?
Equating the loss of welfare with the loss of a very recent tax cut for the rich and calling both "pain" was just plain ridiculous, and that is what my post was about.
What drugs are you on to think that is an indication that my life is messed up? Its not! I am happy with my life.
As for saying that the rich must pay, that is just math. If took everything the poor had, sold it all off and took every penny, I doubt the principal on U.S. debt could be paid for more than a couple years. Meanwhile, Superlib bellyaches that the loss of a tax cut is pain? The rich have to pay because only they have the money to do it. And so many of them got that money by landing us in debt.
If Mr. Johnson maxed out 100 credit cards and defaulted, would you advocate taking away a homeless guy's food stamps to pay them off? And as for Mr. Johnson himself just take his TV set? Not only is it completely wrong morally, it also won't work.
-2
BreitbartVictorious
The country has not had a budget in over two years. Obama has failed to submit the most basic plan of how he will lead the country. Who is leading the republic? Who does Obama serve if he does not serve the people?
0
BreitbartVictorious
"Some knuckle-draggers will never reconcile to his presidency no matter how his actions demonstrate his centrism"
Laguna, who thinks Obama is centrist, obviously missed the news that the Senate rejected Obama's budget by a vote of 97 to O back in May.
Does that make all those Dems in the Senate "knuckle-draggers"?
0
BreitbartVictorious
If it were math you'd be able to provide the proof.
-2
chewitup
Used to be a time when conservatives at least had manners, and would simply ask for the proof. Those days are done obviously. Oh well.
http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm And the wikis on wealth.
Total value of personal wealth in the U.S. in 2009: 55 trillion.
Percentage of said wealth owned by the bottom 40 percent: approx. 0.2 percent as of 2004
Amount of personal wealth owned by the bottom 40 percent: approx.110 billion
Public debt as of 2009: approx 14 trillion.
Interest on public debt in 2009: 383 billion.
So I was wrong. If we sold off the assets of the poor (the bottom 40 percent), we could not even pay 1/3 of the interest for one year! But I am being EXTREMELY generous in calling the bottom 40 percent poor. I am sure many would object and demand they are middle class.
Things look up if we talk about the bottom 60 percent though. In that case they own 15 percent of the wealth, or 8.25 trillion. That could pay the interest for 21 years. If they recover from having all their stuff sold, I guess we could just do it again?
Seriously, this talk of the upper 25 percent or so who own 85 percent of the wealth experiencing pain for losing a tax cut is grounds for being committed.
I don't expect you to say thank you for all this data as you are a modern conservative. But you are welcome anyway.
-1
chewitup
Hilarious that someone would give me a thumbsdown for hard data! Nothing screams about no wanting to face facts more than that!
0
SuperLib
Well it looks like I stand corrected about Boehner:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cantor-boehner-20110712,0,2176610.story
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Hilarious that like so many here you like to go on about the 08 crash being as severe as the Depression yet you post data from '04 and '09 and think people won't notice.
0
chewitup
Never said anything like that. That is wild accusation one.
Wild accusation two. If I did not want people to notice, I would not have put the date in there. Believe me, I leave all the dishonesty to you and would not dream of stepping on your turf.
Now, if you have some data to show that the percentage of wealth for the bottom 40 percent for 2004 is so different than 2009 (which any fool knows is very unlikely and that is why I used it), you are welcome to print it with a source and I will happily plug it in. Or, you can do your own math for the rest of the data concerning 2004 to prove me wrong. Or, you can take what I have freely given, be content and be silent.
Back to top