I know one thing... I'm voting for everybody who has nothing to do with wallstreet this year... oh wait... there is nobody like that. Looks like I'll vote for... hum.. the one who is the poorest.. oh wait... none of them are poor... Well would you look at that. Looks like a voter's stuck between voting for a rich money hungery poltician, and voting for a rich, money hungery poltician... eh.. I'll take... the first one.

I love the house... some of then are absolute retards, and there are some who are amazingly smart, but just simply are poor and look to find corrupt ways to get money so they can actually run for some bigger, meaningful position. Thing is once they get that meaningful position, they've done went and forgot why they wanted the money in the first place and become what they've sworn to get rid of...

BS there was never any chance of default even if all of congress 'lobbied for it'. We managed to raise the debt ceiling, borrow even more as a percentage of GDP and cut virtually no spending. And to top it all off, it didn't even manage it's one realistic goal: to prevent downgrade. While both parties had a part in this disaster, Obama can try to blame this on whoever he wants. But he is President and the buck has always stopped at the oval office.

Quote from flymike91 :

BS there was never any chance of default even if all of congress 'lobbied for it'.

You can revise your history all you want, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14fiscal.html

Quote :

For months, the Republican leaders have emphatically pledged that there will be no increase in the federal debt ceiling absent huge cuts in government spending and fundamental changes in popular social programs, all without the whiff of a tax increase.

Now, with negotiations stalled and a potential default by the United States government just over the horizon, they are being held to those promises by their own rank-and-file, leaving them in a bind that is defying easy resolution and putting them at risk of being blamed if things end badly.

Behind closed doors and by phone, they groped for a solution and struggled to assert some kind of control over the situation as rank-and-file Republican members, especially in the House, grew more confrontational.

Panic had not yet set in, but the worry and tension were evident as seasoned lawmakers of both parties whose experience told them that Congress always finds a white-knuckle way to avert disaster wondered if this was going to be the time when it did not.

“Our problem is, we made a big deal about this for three months,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

“How many Republicans have been on TV saying, ‘I am not going to raise the debt limit,’ ” said Mr. Graham, including himself in the mix of those who did so. “We have no one to blame but ourselves.”

I'll agree that this whole debacle went out of control, someone should have ended government's massive overspending somewhere around the second failed stimulus. Some republicans wanted to keep the promises they made to the people who voted for them. There is no economic school of thought that advises tax increases on anyone during a recession. I still think the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling would have been short-term and would have effectively taken away Obama's power to push unpopular spending bills through congress.

Obama's debt commission recommended a budget that would cut 4.4 trillion in ten years, but he ignored their findings and advice because they don't match his political agenda of big government. Instead he decides to cut 1.1 trillion which is a drop in the bucket. Look at the current economic climate: people are terrified of the economic future. They wonder if their houses are going to be worth even less next year. Businesses won't hire because they cannot make sense of turbulent markets. Corporations are sitting on massive profits made mostly overseas waiting until it's safe to invest. Obama promises hope, as long as you reelect him. What platform could he possibly stand on for reelection? His resounding success as a campaigner?

I realize you're a bleeding-heart, but would you agree that government spending should be at a fraction of current levels? Would you agree that it promises too much money that it doesn't have to too many people? Would you agree that we need an amendment to the constitution that requires a balanced budget? How do you feel about congressional term limits? These are reasonable things not affiliated with a political agenda, but with common sense!

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

You can revise your history all you want, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14fiscal.html

Anything that starts with a quote from Ben Bernanke is not worth the electronic paper it's written on. The guy has been wrong at every single turn.

And the NY Times is hardly a Bastille of impartiality.

Quote from flymike91 :

I realize you're a bleeding-heart, but would you agree that government spending should be at a fraction of current levels? Would you agree that it promises too much money that it doesn't have to too many people? Would you agree that we need an amendment to the constitution that requires a balanced budget? How do you feel about congressional term limits? These are reasonable things not affiliated with a political agenda, but with common sense!

I agree we should cut government spending. I don't think anyone would argue that there couldn't be more efficient use of funds in most government departments and programs. Do I think the government needs to be drastically smaller than it is now? No. I just think it needs to be more efficient. As for major programs, I suggest we start with scaling back the funding for the military-industrial complex, not the social programs or education funding that those on the right seem to want to target. I also think we need to close tax loopholes for corporations and raise taxes on the richest 1%. Those are mainstream views in America today, held by both registered Democrats and Republicans (per every poll run in the past year), not strictly bleeding-heart liberal views.

I don't agree that we need a balanced budget amendment. I think it sounds good as a political buzzword but it's unworkable in reality for a country and economy the size of the US.

Congressional term limits I could get onboard with--we impose them on the presidency, so why not the Congress? But I think the "throw 'em all out and start fresh" attitude that's taken hold with TP'ers and others is pretty foolhardy (as the actions of this new crop of TP congressmen has shown.) While long-term exposure to Washington can breed corruption, it also results in good experience of how politics gets done. The ability to get things done in Washington is a skill, just like any other, and it can only be learned over time. A long-serving Senator like (and you're going to get a hernia reading this) Ted Kennedy would not have been able to accomplish the sort of groundbreaking legislation he did with term limits in place.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling... had a bit of rather strong Belgian beer earlier and I'm enjoying myself.

Quote from Intrepid :

Anything that starts with a quote from Ben Bernanke is not worth the electronic paper it's written on. The guy has been wrong at every single turn.

And the NY Times is hardly a Bastille of impartiality.

Way to miss the point, and lol @ "Bastille".

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I agree we should cut government spending. I don't think anyone would argue that there couldn't be more efficient use of funds in most government departments and programs. Do I think the government needs to be drastically smaller than it is now? No. I just think it needs to be more efficient. As for major programs, I suggest we start with scaling back the funding for the military-industrial complex, not the social programs or education funding that those on the right seem to want to target.

The reality is the USA needs a drastic cutting back of state and spending. Higher taxes on the rich 1% probably won't see a sustainable increase in revenues as they seek to avoid it, or just don't earn as much. Or if they do pay the extra the consequences are less jobs and investment by the people paying the extra tax. Taxing the top 1% is just a political game vote winner, not a real solution to any problems.

It won't be pretty, and times will be extremely tough, but it's the only way out of this mess.

The taxes aren't the whole solution, just a component of it.

I would argue you need less taxes. It's the best way to stimulate growth and productivity aka getting the hell out of the way. Higher taxes punish those who create wealth and jobs. The two very things the USA needs.

But really you need to default first, you're bankrupt. The UK only just about stemmed off a default with the tiniest of cuts programs, but where not far behind.

I think a great thing to do would be to audit everyone who receives government money to make sure they're doing with it what they said they would. This applies from the top to the bottom: from the UN, NATO, IMF etc. to corporations and agricultural monopolies that get tax breaks or even subsidies for no reason to private citizens who are getting welfare money they are not eligible for. All politicians talk about is eliminating government waste, but when a lobbyist comes into their office its like they're addicted to saying yes. A two second internet search will describe the most ridiculous things that the gov. has paid for, so I don't see the need to describe it here.

As for defense spending I would be happy to see defense spending actually be used for defending the country. There is no reason for troops to be anywhere but here, protecting the borders. The money saved by not getting involved in other people's shit would be tremendous and it could all be used for intelligence gathering, counter-terror and espionage to make sure Americans don't get killed. I don't really care if North Korea nukes South Korea or if China invades Taiwan or if everyone in the Middle East and Africa kills each other until there's no one left it's not our problem. Considering everyone hates America they would appreciate not receiving any foreign aid or IMF payments or NATO participation or even UN participation for that matter. I cannot find an example after 1960 of when being involved in any of these organizations has benefited us to the point where we would be ruined without it.

Also don't forget the massive tax rise which came in the form of a large dose of money printing That didn't work out so well did it?

I've always said that we should get rid of all of the loopholds for tax breaks and make taxes sit on an even playing field around what it is for the middle class tax payer. An even % of earnings would be your taxes. No refunds or anything so that people just simply can't avoid their taxes by donating to "non-profit" organizations and such.

I'm sure this would increase our tax revenue, and then I would impose terrifs on China and India, and places like that that can manufacture goods quickly and cheaply so that it would actually give manufacturers a reason to stay here in America, or even other nation's goods might be competitive and we would be able to help out our European counterparts with their debt situation too, but I don't see anything like this happening soon.

Protectionism is a road to ruin.

The bill that was just passed increases spending by 7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. They sell this as a 1 trillion "cut" because they had planned on increasing it by 8 trillion. Does the major news media make this known to the public? Of course not. What is worse is that these projected numbers are based on optimistic guesses as to the amount of GDP growth and the hope that the interest rates will stay as low as they are now. Fat chance. Ask Greece and Italy how that worked for them.

And raising tax RATES is not the same thing as raising REVENUE. People and businesses get rich because they know how to adapt their investments. Money goes to countries over seas or is invested in tax free bonds and there goes the additional revenue that the government thought they were going to get, along with the jobs that those investments would have created if they had been made based on making real profits rather than reducing taxes.

This lady has the right idea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com ... ed-to-face-the-truth.html

In other news my Avatar has hit a record high of $1700 per ounce today

Oh how stupid and naive Intrepid is

Quote from Intrepid :

Protectionism is a road to ruin.

Prices would rise, but at the same time it would (in theory) protect or create jobs. I don't think our economy is in a place to do my plan anyways with the debt as bad as it is, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to try in a time of economic prosparity.

Apple > than the US Maybe they'll buy us out

Quote from Intrepid :

In other news my Avatar has hit a record high of $1700 per ounce today

Oh how stupid and naive Intrepid is

hate to burst your bubble... well actually i dont... but apart from having a use in manufacturing electronics gold is pretty much utterly worthless and the price is as inflated as everything else

Quote from Shotglass :

hate to burst your bubble... well actually i dont... but apart from having a use in manufacturing electronics gold is pretty much utterly worthless and the price is as inflated as everything else

hate to burst your bubble... well actually I don't... but fiat money, fiat currency, has no inherent value in itself apart from the faith people place in it and has a history of leading to complete and utter disaster.. because currency is debt, but gold IS money.. So keep digging that hole

And by the way my faith in the utterly worthless piece of metal has done me very well.... how's your faith in fiat currency going? because those pieces of paper in your pocket are losing value every second of every day. Had I put faith in currency I would be down quite a few pennies now. So-called experts said the same AS YOU when I bought it (worthless)... oh HOW WRONG they were and you are.

The inherent value in gold is that it can't be printed by governments and that's why it's historically more trusted that paper money. .It's also shiny and there isn't a lot of it. Gold has a long way to go before it's bubble is burst. It's still way of historical highs when you factor in inflation. I'll stick on the side of real money... and I'd suggest you do the same.

Quote from Intrepid :

a Bastille of impartiality

That has to be one of the finest examples of cliched vocabulary meets sciolism on this forum to date.

Quote from Intrepid :

hate to burst your bubble... well actually I don't... but fiat money, fiat currency, has no inherent value in itself apart from the faith people place in it and has a history of leading to complete and utter disaster.. because currency is debt, but gold IS money.. So keep digging that hole

And by the way my faith in the utterly worthless piece of metal has done me very well.... how's your faith in fiat currency going? because those pieces of paper in your pocket are losing value every second of every day. Had I put faith in currency I would be down quite a few pennies now. So-called experts said the same AS YOU when I bought it (worthless)... oh HOW WRONG they were and you are.

The inherent value in gold is that it can't be printed by governments and that's why it's historically more trusted that paper money. .It's also shiny and there isn't a lot of it. Gold has a long way to go before it's bubble is burst. It's still way of historical highs when you factor in inflation. I'll stick on the side of real money... and I'd suggest you do the same.

Thing with gold is that (as you said) there's a finite ammount of it. So as the world's population raises it should become increasingly more valuable. Plus, the fact that people are investing in it now means that it'll be harder to aquire since people are holding it back. I wouldn't put my money in it quite yet because if everything dies (like the Great Depression) it'll be pretty much worthless to because people won't have the money or desire for it since they will be more concerned about putting food on the table and such. Then again... money would pretty much be worthless too if another great depression hit.

Quote from Cornys :

Thing with gold is that (as you said) there's a finite ammount of it. So as the world's population raises it should become increasingly more valuable. Plus, the fact that people are investing in it now means that it'll be harder to aquire since people are holding it back. I wouldn't put my money in it quite yet because if everything dies (like the Great Depression) it'll be pretty much worthless to because people won't have the money or desire for it since they will be more concerned about putting food on the table and such. Then again... money would pretty much be worthless too if another great depression hit.

Certainly in the hyper-inflationary period of Germany in the 20s saw people go to gold/silver to exchange value for goods. The price of gold went sky high.

I see gold as a way to protect your wealth over a period of time, especially when inflation is a real issue, which it will be for a number of years. As an investment there are always risks involved, but gold isn't anywhere near a bubble yet. The current price is a testament to that. It will reach there one day, but not yet.

And there doesn't have a to be a definite rationale as to why something is valued. Many things 'of value' have no real actual purpose. Gold is rare, shiny, and is has been the longest serving tool in the exchange of wealth and goods.

Wtf is going on in this thread, LFS forum is full of bitching...

Anyway...

Dow down another 500...

looks like they all tanked this morning... as soon as the tsx opened it went down huge.