• 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.
And yet another misguided right wing zealot that doesn't understand what marxism is, thinks that Obama is a dictator and is completely incapable of seeing the error of his ways.

Ah, the self proclaimed conservative's definition of Marxism: "Anything I dislike"
 
A lot of good information in this op ed piece that liberals will ignored because of the author as they will never read the content. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty that logic and common sense mean nothing?

Media, Left

"The American people might not always understand the economy, but they know when they are being lied to. When it comes to economics, that’s most of the time." Thanks to our state run media...
 
I always find it interesting that the rallying cry for the Tea Party is missing half (it's most important half) of the original battle cry of no taxation...
.. WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
Actually, TEA is for Taxed Enough Already. The TEA Parties know we are poorly represented. That is the whole point of eliminating liberals and replacing them with conservatives. The 2010 elections were the very beginning of a struggle to regain the country. Already we have seen significant changes. In my state we had a sweep of nearly all public offices. The democrat rule has been replaced with republican leadership.

The next election will be as important as the last. The TEA Parties are all about regime change, right here in the US.
 
It's because the rightwingers are hypocrits who claim to be against taxes, but want massive tax increases on the american worker
The new mantra. Om....Om....Om...no. It isn't working.
But I suppose having the half of the American people who do not currently pay any federal income tax pay something would appear to be a massive tax increase. It just seems like the right thing to do to avoid a revolution...
 
The notion that there is some glut of business demand being drown out by regulation is nonsense. Maybe this crowd can put together a valid case of the most labor intensive production and services feeling a pinch from regulation (the largest would be the minimum wage), but this is only a positive reaction in both the short and long term.

From the 1950s through the 2000s, the amount of federal
regulatory activity, as measured by pages in the Federal Register,
has increased more than six-fold. In the 1950s, federal agencies
published an average of just under 11,000 pages in the Federal
Register per year. By contrast, over the past decade federal agencies averaged over 70,000 pages per year. In 2010, the Federal
Register contained well over 80,000 pages.

You don't think that 80,000 regulations has any impact on businesses. Then let's get rid of them. All of them.

Nonsense indeed.
 
Like Obama firing missiles into Pakistan, a country we're not at war with, like almost as many soldiers being killed on Obama's watch as on Bush's watch, like Obama signing tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Yep, he certainly ramped up the existing Bush program of drone attacks in Pakistan. And of course, as a result of his commitment, we killed Osama bin Laden. You just can't ignore these important historical facts.
 
You're wasting your time. All he is going to do is repost the same thing over and over until even he can believe it. People like that are in no way interested in a true meaningful meeting of the minds to correct a downward spiral. He is so full of hate all he wants is for the country to crash and burn so he can sling more propaganda around.
LOL. You do realize that the same could be said of you and yours?
 
Federal revenue in terms of output is at a historic low; levels of this sort come about during the most strenuous of economic conditions (it happened in the 1930's). Can you identify why this is the case?
Let's start with those 80,000 federal regulations...
 
Rightwingers can't handle the facts, like how clinton created 22 million jobs and bush* destroyed jobs and the economy
Here is an alternative view:

1) The economy was out of recession in March of 1991. This is em, er...before Clinton announced in October of that year that he was running for president, and almost two and a half years before President Clinton signed his tax law.
2) In the twelve months leading up to the tax signing (August 1992-July 1993), the economy gained 2,023,000 jobs, which is 168,000 jobs per month. To put things into perspective: in the four years during which Democrats recently controlled Congress, we did not have a twelve-month period where the economy gained 100,000 jobs on a monthly average, let alone 168,000 to meet an economy of fifteen years earlier.
3) In the six months (February-July 1993) leading up to the tax signing, the monthly average job gain was already 208,000, which shows that the economy was growing stronger by the month, well before the bill was signed.
4) The unemployment rate peaked July 1992 -- more than six months before Clinton stepped into the Oval Office, and more than twelve months before Congress voted on the tax bill. In fact, the rate lost almost a full percentage point in the twelve months leading up to the tax signing.
5) The Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a low (of less than 2,400) in October 1990, and then things turned around, which is em...say...three years before your Clinton taxes "gave us" a good economy!
6) From its recession low of minus 2,400, the Dow grew almost 50% to approximately 3,600 before we got to August 1993. This amounts to a 16% annual gain if any Dem had his/her money in an Index fund piggybacked to the Dow.

The Clinton Tax Myth (Clinton raised taxes on the top earners and then gained 22 million jobs?)
 
Clinton raised taxes and created 22 million jobs and a growing economy. bush* cut taxes and destroyed millions of jobs and the economy
I really love fairy tales and other bedtime stories. Please tell us another one.
 
No, they aren't lying -- they, and you, are using 2009 figures instead of the most recent figures from 2010 which put the figure at 45%. 45% of households owe no federal income tax for 2010 - Apr. 17, 2011

Well there you go:

For tax year 2010, roughly 45% of households, or about 69 million, will end up owing nothing in federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even end up getting paid money from the federal government.
69 million. Not 70 million. The article you referenced goes on to say that many will get money rather than pay money. Good plan for getting the nation ready for a civil war or a revolution. Half pay and half get.
 
Didn't bush* inherit an economy that was growing and turn it into an economy that was shrinking and shedding jobs?

Here is an alternative view:

The American people -- for good reason -- did not buy Clinton's talk, as we see that he got only 43 percent of the popular vote, which is less than the poor 45.6% picked up by Michael Dukakis four years earlier. Clinton walked into the White House with a solidly recovered economy and a victorious United States (following the Soviet collapse and Gulf War One), which was the best plate handed over to any U.S. president in recent memory. Indeed, the smorgasbord was better than what Clinton left for his successor, George W. Bush, which included an economy one foot in a recession, a crashing stock market, corporate America cooking the books, and a corroding jobs market (read here all the numbers).

The Clinton Tax Myth (Clinton raised taxes on the top earners and then gained 22 million jobs?)
 
So your answer to the budget problems is to raise taxes on people who can't afford it? :roll:
Just for the sake of moving the argument forward has the left every considered not raising taxes on any just because they could not afford it? Oh wait. If someone earns more than you of course they can afford it.
 
Quote Misterberitis

The article you referenced goes on to say that many will get money rather than pay money.


And it also stated that ….<That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.>which you evidently failed to notice.:roll:

But one thing that the article didn’t note was the workings poor don’t stop paying SS for the entire year, unlike the trust fund pool setters that pay 15% on their dividends.

Any guess who pays the most in overall tax, as a percentage of income?:2wave:
 
Paraphrasing Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" - "It's the population, stupid."

- Having a fast breeding underclass, importing millions upon millions of high school drop-outs, creates the problem you highlight. Commodity labor, aka unskilled labor, can be had all around the world, so price for that labor will find an equilibrium. Too bad for us that the equilibrium is lower than what it takes to earn a living in the US.

The less stable people perceive their environments, the more children they tend to have. It's an actual studied phenomenon. Provide a stable environment, breeding reduces over all.

- The US is one of the highest cost of living societies in the world. The liberal penchant for extreme real estate zoning laws prices a home on a 10,000 SF lot to the value of a home with a 15,000 SF. All of the government mandates on employees come at a cost, which is why California's regulation zealotry is driving businesses from the state.

Liberals claim that their efforts are directed towards creating "the good life" for who doesn't appreciate efforts which force employers into giving Muslims a prayer room to use during the day or forcing employers to prohibit their sales forces from not entertaining clients at nudie bars because this disadvantages female sales reps. There are costs associated with all of these interventionist efforts and these costs increase the feasibility of creating and maintaining jobs.

The heaviest burden is on small businesses. Corporations are big enough to influence government policy in their favor. Reverse corporate personhood.

- As Rumsfeld noted "You go to war with the army you have" well, there's little a president can do about getting rid of the stupid in our society and undoing all of the past liberal intervention, so political choices are more tightly constrained when it comes time to find a political solution.

- Sometimes we all have to sleep in the bed that liberals made for us, whether we like it or not.

I believe that neo conservatism is just as damaging. Both extreme views are being used by the elite to keep average Americans divided and bickering amongst themselves. Great strategy.

The new mantra. Om....Om....Om...no. It isn't working.
But I suppose having the half of the American people who do not currently pay any federal income tax pay something would appear to be a massive tax increase. It just seems like the right thing to do to avoid a revolution...

Rather than simply creating simpler tax codes, you propose the equivalent to squeezing water from a rock. So what kind of revenue can the government raise on the broken backs of the poor? The middle class American is already seeing a significant increase in cost of living. Higher taxes would crush an already weakened economic class.

:lol:

Did you just cite free republic? Seriously?

Some of the sources posted in this thread have been seriously lacking in credibility lately.
 
Not at all. I credit Obama with doing as well as he could given where he started and given the resistence he faces. You simply want to ignore the starting point.
Nice picture. Was it you that claimed the one term Marxist president Obama, really had not control in his first year as the budget has been set by the outgoing Bush?

Things get complicated.
 
The less stable people perceive their environments, the more children they tend to have. It's an actual studied phenomenon. Provide a stable environment, breeding reduces over all.

This is very context specific.

The heaviest burden is on small businesses. Corporations are big enough to influence government policy in their favor. Reverse corporate personhood.

I agree with your observation and I too am dead set opposed to rentseeking arrangements. That's the problem with big government - it's where all the action is and it's often more efficient to deploy resources to corrupt the rules and rulemakers than it is to become more competitive. Your conclusion is something I disagree with.

I believe that neo conservatism is just as damaging.

Damaging, most certainly. Just as damaging, not by a country mile. The neoconservative douches have had most influence in foreign policy and they've screwed us pretty good. Liberal damage to society has been far more pervasive and wide reaching.

Both extreme views are being used by the elite to keep average Americans divided and bickering amongst themselves. Great strategy.

Because there is an overlapping dynamic - Right vs. Left is overlapped by elite versus non-elite. Politicians of the Right and the Left have more in common, as members of the elite, than they do to their respective bases.

Rather than simply creating simpler tax codes, you propose the equivalent to squeezing water from a rock. So what kind of revenue can the government raise on the broken backs of the poor? The middle class American is already seeing a significant increase in cost of living. Higher taxes would crush an already weakened economic class.

If you decrease the cost of living, and hold incomes constant, then this frees up resources which can be taxed and the quality of life does not suffer any diminishment.
 
The government is thoroughly corrupted, and it certainly it doesn't work for average people. And while Americans are bickering about which party to blame, nothing changes. All sides have failed us.
Perhaps then you will join with me to demand a balanced budget amendment so this cannot happen again.
 
Just for the sake of moving the argument forward has the left every considered not raising taxes on any just because they could not afford it? Oh wait. If someone earns more than you of course they can afford it.

A flat tax. And yes, the super wealthy can definitely afford more taxes than middle class and upper middle class Americans.

This is very context specific.



I agree with your observation and I too am dead set opposed to rentseeking arrangements. That's the problem with big government - it's where all the action is and it's often more efficient to deploy resources to corrupt the rules and rulemakers than it is to become more competitive. Your conclusion is something I disagree with.



Damaging, most certainly. Just as damaging, not by a country mile. The neoconservative douches have had most influence in foreign policy and they've screwed us pretty good. Liberal damage to society has been far more pervasive and wide reaching.

Both extreme positions have been equally damaging, imo.



Because there is an overlapping dynamic - Right vs. Left is overlapped by elite versus non-elite. Politicians of the Right and the Left have more in common, as members of the elite, than they do to their respective bases.



If you decrease the cost of living, and hold incomes constant, then this frees up resources which can be taxed and the quality of life does not suffer any diminishment.

How would one decrease costs of living practically?

Perhaps then you will join with me to demand a balanced budget amendment so this cannot happen again.

It would probably be too partisan for my tastes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom