• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
StillBallin75 said:
It's somewhat significant, but not HUGE deal in the big scheme of things, IMHO. . . .At the most, this raises interest rates slightly.
Click to expand...
And so the talking points from the democrat party claim. The Marxist president Obama got what he wanted. He needed for the next fight to occur after the election. Speaker Boehner should have walked away. Instead he gave the Marxist president Obama the election. Now it is the Marxist president's election to lose. This was sheer idiocy.
 
apdst said:
The smart folks on the GOP side are the ones that realize that the government isn't going to fix the economy.
Click to expand...

The smart folks on the GOP are pols who know they can continue running up the debt to doll out subsidies for their corporate buddies while wasting more billion$ on military toys, because their voting bloc is a bunch of gullible individuals educated solely by FoxNews and Limbaugh, and they know that one of those individuals is born every 60 seconds*

* - very likely the motivation for the GOP's anti-abortion agenda

apdst said:
The same folks that understand that massive government spending didn't work for Roosevelt
Click to expand...

"Even so, Mr. Bush ran up the biggest increase in the National Debt of any American president. The Debt was $5.727-trillion on his first day in the White House. And on the day he left, it was $10.626-trillion. That means the Debt increased by $4.899-trillion on his watch."

Bush Just Escapes Being $5-Trillion Man - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...

One of these days, GOP voters are gonna have to turn off their TV and open a journal. But then. . .

AMERICAblog News: CBS: Palin can't name one single newspaper or magazine that she has EVER read in her life
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Spinning? Who is spinning anything? What I said was the straight up facts.
Click to expand...

You have a problem with this statement which it can not be denied:

"BOTH parties AGREED and SIGNED the BILL. Again... it took TWO to tango".
 
LibLoather said:
I agree, the 47% of the work force that pays no federal income taxes need to pay their fair share. Moreover, the earned income tax credit needs to be eliminated.
Click to expand...

The richest corporations/businesses in the US pay a must lower percent of their total income as taxes than the working class, due to the effect of subsidies.

You should look up the word "subsidies." Just because FOXNews never mentioned it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
Red Crow said:
You have a problem with this statement which it can not be denied:

"BOTH parties AGREED and SIGNED the BILL. Again... it took TWO to tango".
Click to expand...

Which party made a big deal of extending the debt ceiling in the first place? It was raised seven times under bush and eighteen times under reagan.
 
solletica said:
The richest corporations/businesses in the US pay a must lower percent of their total income as taxes than the working class, due to the effect of subsidies.

You should look up the word "subsidies." Just because FOXNews never mentioned it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

It's common for people to ignore the fact that welfare for the rich is a large part of the spending problem. instead, they remain outraged that the poor get food stamps and unemployment.
 
Private Hudson said:
As long as the right wing extremists and the Tea Party continue to hijack the political process, this country will be a joke. Great ideas you stupid Republicans.
Click to expand...
Do you prefer one party rule? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had their way, completely. They went bankrupt. Under the one party democrat rule we have gone a very long way toward bankruptcy. That is the way it is.
Private Hudson said:
Let's not spend any money to fix anything.
Click to expand...
Two trillion dollars is not enough? Awesome.
Private Hudson said:
Let's destroy the government that we're now working for.
Click to expand...
Here you have accidently swerved into the truth. We are slaves to the state. Nothing more. I suppose the question we have before us is to decide between the path that Marx showed the democrats or the path that Madison offered to the nation.
Private Hudson said:
Let's fire teachers, police and fire for the sake of giving the wealthy a few extra bucks. Let's cut the individual income taxes of the wealthy (went down from 32 % in 1990 to 16 % in 2011).
Click to expand...
Do you believe that federal taxes pay for state-level public sector union jobs? Under the stimulus you are right, of course. That transfer of wealth was designed to protect public sector union jobs and was a payback to public sector union thugs for helping the Marxist president Obama get elected.
Private Hudson said:
Let us watch the roads crumble because we laid off everyone in Public Works.
Click to expand...
So we are back to the transfer of private wealth to public sector unions and private sector unions as well? Awesome. Great idea Comrade.
Private Hudson said:
So glad we're spending no money to fix things or stimulate the economy in this country, but the stupid Republicans had no problems spending billions to fight a war in Iraq against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The Republicans have disgraced this country and they should all be impeached and go to prison.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that all wars we fight must be against nations that had something to do with the Islamic war on the US and the western world?
 
Private Hudson said:
No, it's spending AND earning!

You cannot just cut the spendings and hope that the economy will grow, you have to do both.
Click to expand...
The government earns nothing. It takes.
Part of the solution could be the federal government selling off its massive land holdings. That ought to bring in a few trillion dollars.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Increased revenues would have gone further towards balancing the budget, is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
To increase revenues we need to cut tax rates for those people paying taxes. We also must widen the taxpaying base so that everyone pays.

i like the idea of allowing only those people who pay taxes to vote. If you want to vote at the federal level, for the president, senators and your representatives than show that you paid taxes. If you got more back than you paid through the wealth redistribution schemes like the earned income tax credit, then no vote for you. Only the revenue providers should be allowed to vote for their representatives. Tax consumers should not be allowed to vote.
 
solletica said:
Here's what will happen as US debt continually gets downgraded. It means the US will no longer be able to borrow any money. If the US can't borrow any money, it'll have to raise taxes to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the right answer is to lower the debt ceiling.

We could begin with a 1% immediate reduction. We do not need to borrow 14 trillion dollars. Let's begin retiring the debt. Let's retake control of the entitlement programs. Let's decide how much we can spend each year, then spend that much and no more. Let's slash social security. The greedy geezers have taken vast amounts of their children's wealth away from them. It is time to reign in the tyranny from the old. We must rein in their historic greed.

Next we need to get the government completely out of health care. Let's eliminate medicare and medicaid. Let's repeal Obamacare. Completely. Let get rid of the extra-constitutional departments that run those monsters. Completely. That should cut the size of government in half.

Let's sell of most of the Federal lands. That should bring in some revenues.
 
Misterveritis said:
The government earns nothing. It takes.
Part of the solution could be the federal government selling off its massive land holdings. That ought to bring in a few trillion dollars.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that. Also, government continues to grow. The process is almost endless.
 
solletica said:
Deficit spending is the Prime Directive of the GOP. What good are Repubs if they can't start a another war or buy more useless military toys on the backs of future middle class generations?
Click to expand...
Do you dislike all Constitutional requirements? Defense is one of the few federal government requirements.
 
Private Hudson said:
Good joke, Pal! :lamo

But you forgot to mention that the Republicans left the house with a desolate economy and a catastrophic financial market in 2009.

This deficit is primarily a direct result of the weak economy (tax income) and that is not the fault of Obama!

U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG


585px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png
Click to expand...

Let's see, who was in charge of Congress in 2009?
 
Thunder said:
Cut spending by $3 trillion & raise revenue by $1 trillion. Pass it with bipartisanship and S&P's would have been happy.
Click to expand...
I could agree to this as long as the spending cuts were immediate and all of the tax increases are scheduled for the out years.
 
RiverDad said:
How much is enough? The US already has the most progressive tax system in the OECD?

Barack Obama's admission that his policies would "spread the wealth around" has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the "middle class."

But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.​
Click to expand...

Radical Karl (Marx) wrote that a steeply progressive income tax was an essential tool to the destruction of capital and to help bring about the revolution. Does anyone doubt that Radical Karl's philosophy is at the core of president Obama's political philosophy? And, for that matter, at the core of the democratic party leaderships' political philosophy?

Can anyone else see that many of the stalwart posters here believe exactly the same thing?
 
donc said:
Which party made a big deal of extending the debt ceiling in the first place? It was raised seven times under bush and eighteen times under reagan.
Click to expand...

Which party didn't make a "BIG DEAL" for spending 4.1 trillion in 2 1/2 years while raising our debt????
 
Misterveritis said:
Radical Karl (Marx) wrote that a steeply progressive income tax was an essential tool to the destruction of capital and to help bring about the revolution. Does anyone doubt that Radical Karl's philosophy is at the core of president Obama's political philosophy? And, for that matter, at the core of the democratic party leaderships' political philosophy?

Can anyone else see that many of the stalwart posters here believe exactly the same thing?
Click to expand...

The destruction of capital would end societal progression. Rather than creating a utopia, it would result in the stagnation and regression of progress. On the other hand, the accumulation of wealth in too few hands will create an aristocracy which will also end in revolution and chaos. Balance is obviously a concept that people simply can't wrap their minds around. I support a flat tax, the end of corporate personhood, and a small government.
 
Misterveritis said:
Radical Karl (Marx) wrote that a steeply progressive income tax was an essential tool to the destruction of capital and to help bring about the revolution. Does anyone doubt that Radical Karl's philosophy is at the core of president Obama's political philosophy? And, for that matter, at the core of the democratic party leaderships' political philosophy?

Can anyone else see that many of the stalwart posters here believe exactly the same thing?
Click to expand...

Economic history is lacking a bit eh?

Progressive taxation was originally discussed by Adam Smith.

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
The best source to explain the downgrade is the organization that did the downgrade:

[...]Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that last one sort of confused me as to what S&P is thinking? Those "Bush tax cuts" automatically end unless Congress and the Administration pass legislation to extend them.

The Republicans cannot do that on their own. Just like they couldn't do it on their own in 2010. The Democrats and Obama would have to sign off, too. Just like they did in 2010.

So it is a little puzzling how this tax cut extension topic is now just a GOP thingy....?
 
Cole said:
Yeah, that last one sort of confused me as to what S&P is thinking? Those "Bush tax cuts" automatically end unless Congress and the Administration pass legislation to extend them.

The Republicans cannot do that on their own. Just like they couldn't do it on their own in 2010. The Democrats and Obama would have to sign off, too. Just like they did in 2010.

So it is a little puzzling how this tax cut extension topic is now just a GOP thingy....?
Click to expand...

I think you have to read it in conjunction with the other quotes. I would guess they are assuming that the republicans will, once again, find some way to hold the country hostage in order to force an extension -- just as they did with the top tax cuts last time around.
 
washunut said:
Seems like the U.S. and much of the developed world is in a real trickbox right now. We are so dependent on government spending that the short term will mean contraction if we reduce spending. If we do not reduce spending, interest expense will be the single biggest expense, not sustainable. Not an easy answer to work our way out of this without the economy cratering.
Click to expand...
I like the penny plan. Make real cuts across the board of just 1%. But make them real. Make them this year. And cut the budget one percent each year until the problem is solved. We must eliminate entitlement spending. There should be no entitlements whatsoever. Every year, as part of the budget process we should determine what we are likely to bring in. That number should probably be based on a five year moving average. Then let's prioritize our spending. For every program. Every one of them. At some place in the budget there will be a cut line. Below that line eliminate the programs.

And I am going to join my local TEA Party.
 
Got a question... anybody!!!!

Will this downgrade that happened for the first time in American history, will it put a nail in the coffin for Obama in 2012??? Anybody???
 
AdamT said:
There was absolutely no reason to create this artificial deadline on deficit reduction talks. Discussions have been going on for months and should have gone on for as long as necessary to achieve a sensible compromise.
Click to expand...
LOL. You give the reason in the second half of your statement. Leverage. Otherwise those who want more spending behave like the North Koreans and just talk and talk and talk...

Awesome. The Republicans should have just walked away.
 
Misterveritis said:
Radical Karl (Marx) wrote that a steeply progressive income tax was an essential tool to the destruction of capital and to help bring about the revolution. Does anyone doubt that Radical Karl's philosophy is at the core of president Obama's political philosophy? And, for that matter, at the core of the democratic party leaderships' political philosophy?

Can anyone else see that many of the stalwart posters here believe exactly the same thing?
Click to expand...

It's as plain as day. Here is illustrative proof. Obama would rather give up tax revenue to the US Treasury if it meant he couldn't punish the successful. In other words, he's more interested in punishing success than he is in maximizing tax revenue.

From the 2008 Democratic Primary Debates:

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. ​

Here is an article which speaks to the attitude of the Congressional Democratic leadership:

Mr. Cantor argued that some large portion of the income that flows through the top bracket comes from "pass-through entities"—that is, businesses—and "to me, that strikes at the core of what I believe should be the policy, and that is to provide incentives for entrepreneurs to grow."

By contrast, he says, "Never was there ever an underlying economic argument" from Democrats. "It was all about social justice. Honestly, one of them said to me, 'Some people just make too much money.'"​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom