• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Damn all of those business using tax payer money to keep themselves afloat.
If they were healthy and producing good wanted product at a reasonable cost, they shouldn't need the government to bail them out.
Dang....government never gave me any money
to stay afloat. I just pay a lot of taxes.
I must be doing something wrong.
There's only one solution....all those businesses
& corporations should shut down permanently.
That would eliminate their burden on government.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
octupus-1st.jpg
Squeeze harder!
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I've never considered how much they make.

We could use better administration.

Well they are politicians, not economists.

Just because they are good at getting people to vote for them mean they are good at anything else.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Dang....government never gave me any money
to stay afloat. I just pay a lot of taxes.
I must be doing something wrong.
There's only one solution....all those businesses
& corporations should shut down permanently.
That would eliminate their burden on government.

Or maybe just become innovative and figure out how to become solvent again.

The only way the US seems solvent atm is by printing more money.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says (msn.com)







I think we knew this would come eventually. 30-40 years of fiscal irresponsibility has definitely had its effects.

Eventually, we'll have to either cut spending or raise revenue - or a combination of the two.

One way of cutting spending is by reducing the prices of things our government spends money on, particularly in the areas of healthcare and defense.

There might be inventive ways of raising revenue. Since the U.S. government seems to love capitalism so much, then perhaps selling advertising space on public buildings and other properties might be just the thing. They could even have sponsors for press conferences and sessions of Congress.

Reporter: And what's the President's plan for the Middle East?
Psaki: I'll answer that in a moment, after a brief word from our sponsors. Friends, whenever I get irregularity, I take Ex-Lax, but I always make sure to never squeeze the Charmin.

Things like that, they could probably do.

What other ways of cutting spending and/or raising revenues are there?

Don't we got through this every year or two?

Everything will shut down/fail/go broke then at the last second our government saves everything?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I approve prosecution for fraud.
But the existence of it doesn't mean government
should take over the means of production for defense.
Hmmm....that would mean even more fraud.
I'm not in favor of government ownership but of doing the impossible as President Eisenhower said many years ago when he warned of the military-industrial complex.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
As long as you voters continue voting for politicians who
wage these useless wars, they'll continue waging them.
Or do you argue that voting is irrelevant? Everyone
might as well stay home in November because the
result is dictated by some secret cabal, eh.
Seems to me that's one of the problems of the US two-party system: there are basically only 2 ways to see every problem, and there are lots of problems. You may wish to vote against war, but be forced to vote for the party that shackles women in their homes until they give birth, whether they wish to or not.

We had 6 parties in our election on Monday -- and none of them won a majority. So somehow or other, they're going to have to make it work, which means a lot of give-and-take. The party with the most seats gets to govern, yes, but only with the support of other parties. The governing party, of course, hates it. I love it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not in favor of government ownership but of doing the impossible as President Eisenhower said many years ago when he warned of the military-industrial complex.
And you believe that manipulative crooked politician?
Just which Prez do you think approved that coup in
Iran...the one leading up to so much of our trouble
today. Which Prez started our involvement in
Vietnam? Which Prez was part of that very same
MIC he used as a whipping boy to stir up fear?

Let me issue a warning....
Be careful whom you elect...politicians are far more
dangerous than your boogeymen, eg, the MIC, the
patriarchy, the oligarchy, the wealthy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Seems to me that's one of the problems of the US two-party system: there are basically only 2 ways to see every problem, and there are lots of problems. You may wish to vote against war, but be forced to vote for the party that shackles women in their homes until they give birth, whether they wish to or not.

We had 6 parties in our election on Monday -- and none of them won a majority. So somehow or other, they're going to have to make it work, which means a lot of give-and-take. The party with the most seats gets to govern, yes, but only with the support of other parties. The governing party, of course, hates it. I love it.
Set aside 3rd parties for a moment. In the primaries,
there are hawks & doves. Even those faux peaceniks,
the Democrats, still prefer hawks. They have power &
the choices. They generally choose war.

I like though that Biden isn't working out as his record
would suggest. For a guy who cheerled for war, he
sure ended this one quickly. This pleases me.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Dang....government never gave me any money
to stay afloat. I just pay a lot of taxes.
I must be doing something wrong.
Are you "too big to fail"?
Did you bribe your congressman and senator?

No? See, that's what you're doing "wrong".
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's what happens when you leave to private enterprise what should be the task of the state.
I've seen public housing run by government.
Ugh. Private housing is better & cheaper
(particularly when factoring in high property
taxes we pay...unlike government housing).
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I've seen public housing run by government.
Ugh. Private housing is better & cheaper
(particularly when factoring in high property
taxes we pay...unlike government housing).
I've seen public housing, I lived in a city owned house as a student. Private housing is better but it isn't cheaper. German public bodies used to own low rent housing but right wing administrations sold them (even those which were profitable, heck, most of them were). The competition kept rent reasonable but now our cities try to fight gentrification with (even more) rent control.
Providing housing for low or no income citizens is a social task, it should be done by society and it only works when done by society.
You can see what happens when the state gives up its duties when you look at the prison industrial complex in the US.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've seen public housing, I lived in a city owned house as a student. Private housing is better but it isn't cheaper. German public bodies used to own low rent housing but right wing administrations sold them (even those which were profitable, heck, most of them were). The competition kept rent reasonable but now our cities try to fight gentrification with (even more) rent control.
Providing housing for low or no income citizens is a social task, it should be done by society and it only works when done by society.
You can see what happens when the state gives up its duties when you look at the prison industrial complex in the US.
Public housing isn't cheaper when property taxes are figured in.
Government doesn't pay taxes, so such housing doesn't support
schools & other services. We pay taxes that support the system.
Our maintenance is more efficient (non-union). Our management
is cheaper (no government lifers).
If you want to provide housing for the poor, just subsidize them.
The UBI would address this wonderfully & efficiently.

Also, government housing lacks legal protections that private
housing offers. For example, students in university housing
here (state owned & run) can be evicted with no due process.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says (msn.com)







I think we knew this would come eventually. 30-40 years of fiscal irresponsibility has definitely had its effects.

Eventually, we'll have to either cut spending or raise revenue - or a combination of the two.

One way of cutting spending is by reducing the prices of things our government spends money on, particularly in the areas of healthcare and defense.

There might be inventive ways of raising revenue. Since the U.S. government seems to love capitalism so much, then perhaps selling advertising space on public buildings and other properties might be just the thing. They could even have sponsors for press conferences and sessions of Congress.

Reporter: And what's the President's plan for the Middle East?
Psaki: I'll answer that in a moment, after a brief word from our sponsors. Friends, whenever I get irregularity, I take Ex-Lax, but I always make sure to never squeeze the Charmin.

Things like that, they could probably do.

What other ways of cutting spending and/or raising revenues are there?
Clearly this is exclusively Biden's fault!
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Public housing isn't cheaper when property taxes are figured in.
Which is a function of the property tax. Property tax is so low that it is almost non existent here. And why should those who have no income pay taxes from that anyway?
Our maintenance is more efficient (non-union). Our management
is cheaper (no government lifers).
There are no government lifers in the management of housing companies.
If you want to provide housing for the poor, just subsidize them.
The UBI would address this wonderfully & efficiently.
Nope. When you have to subsidize, you still have to pay market prizes. And the private market loves to squeeze money out of the system. It is simply cheaper for a city to own houses than to pay market prices, especially when the market isn't caped and the rent is going through the roof.
(That is why you own a house instead of renting, isn't it?)
Also, government housing lacks legal protections that private
housing offers. For example, students in university housing
here (state owned & run) can be evicted with no due process.
Which is a failure of the legal system, not the economic. (And it doesn't apply here. Legal protection is equal on paper and better in praxis,)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Which is a function of the property tax. Property tax is so low that it is almost non existent here. And why should those who have no income pay taxes from that anyway?
Where is "here" that you don't have property taxes?
Housing always costs. Public housing isn't made a better
deal by paying no property taxes. The burden is simply
passed on to other taxpayers.
There are no government lifers in the management of housing companies.
Not the one I owned or any others I know of.
Nope. When you have to subsidize, you still have to pay market prizes. And the private market loves to squeeze money out of the system. It is simply cheaper for a city to own houses than to pay market prices, especially when the market isn't caped and the rent is going through the roof.
(That is why you own a house instead of renting, isn't it?)
Private markets also have competition limiting prices.
I'd love to charge more rent, but the market limits me.

I'm not a fan of widespread home ownership. Unlike me
(needing large specialized outbuildings for things), most
could live in rented apartments for a lower cost, greater
employment flexibility, & less resource usage (energy,
land, infrastructure).
I've advised my own kids to not buy homes.
Which is a failure of the legal system, not the economic. (And it doesn't apply here. Legal protection is equal on paper and better in praxis,)
Government always grants itself greater power over us
than they allow industry. This won't ever change.
 
Top