• 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.
Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL. I understand Marxism quite well, thank you.
The one term Marxist president Obama is not (yet) a dictator. He admires them. He wants their power. He just cannot quite figure out how to swing it.

Fortunately he will be gone soon. Unfortunately his policies, along with those of Reid and Pelosi will continue to damage the nation for years.
 
Misterveritis said:
Perhaps then you will join with me to demand a balanced budget amendment so this cannot happen again.
Click to expand...

Research suggests that a balanced budget will move the fight between liberals and conservatives to regulation

How austerity leads to more regulation - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Now, I suspect you are trying to imply the bribe the population theory, but again, looking at state governments, there are still strong voting patterns for democrats as well as conservatives in that environment, meaning that this is not a strong motivator.
 
AdamT said:
I agree, those are all relevant things to consider. In fact, you would have to be wearing blinders not to recognize historical factors like Ike raising taxes, building the nation's highway system (huge government spending), and cutting military spending. Like Bush never vetoing a bill during the six years Republicans controlled Congress. Like Nixon massively expanding the Great Society programs.
Click to expand...

Ike, Reagan, Bush never had 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans. Next? Still waiting for that liberal compassion to show up here.
 
Conservative said:
Ike, Reagan, Bush never had 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans. Next? Still waiting for that liberal compassion to show up here.
Click to expand...


They also didn't have a pop of 311 million+
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Not only have you bastardized supply side theory to the point of no return, you fail to incorporate consumer debt into your framework.

That alone is evidence that you are just making **** up as you go along piecing partisan talking points together.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between consumer debt and public/intergovt. holding debt? consumer debt is personnally generated. You have no control over what your bureaucrats create. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world
 
donc said:
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:
Click to expand...

Sigh. Why is it that the left always wants those who already pay nearly all of the federal income taxes to pay even more but will instantly leap to the defense of the half of the nation not paying them?

No one has made the argument that people who do not pay federal income taxes don't pay other taxes. That is quite beside the point. And no matter what the tax I bet I pay more dollars.
 
Last edited:
evanescence said:
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.
Click to expand...
So now one-half of income earners are "poor"? If that is the case we need a new definition.

Perhaps now you will join me in calling for the Fair Tax.

Americans For Fair Taxation:
 
Conservative said:
Thank you for that information, so we have growing population and 3 million less jobs. Great job Obama
Click to expand...


Considering pop differences the only accurate way to compare the administrations is by unemployment %, like Reagan's 10% unemployment rate.
 
megaprogman said:
Research suggests that a balanced budget will move the fight between liberals and conservatives to regulation
Click to expand...
I am all for eliminating every extra-constitutional department and repealing all of their regulations. That would take care of that. Perhaps we also need a constitutional amendment that says the Congress must approve by recorded vote all of the regulations they allow or cause to be written by those departments.
 
Misterveritis said:
So now one-half of income earners are "poor"? If that is the case we need a new definition.

Perhaps now you will join me in calling for the Fair Tax.

Americans For Fair Taxation:
Click to expand...

When cost of living increases while wages decrease, more people are considered poor. After my husband was laid off, we were technically in poverty. His current job pays less than what we were getting when he was getting full time hours at his last job. Plenty of people find it increasingly difficult to make it on $50,000 a year which is the cut off point where people are no long liable.
 
mertex said:
The United States had just lost its AAA credit rating from S&P, and they have announced that another downgrade may be coming within the next 12/18 months.

The debt ceiling scenario was the chief source of market angst in the last few months, and the GOP was wrong to use it as leverage to achieve some of the things they were demanding. Now the whole country will feel the negative effects. Will others follow S&P?

United States loses AAA credit rating from S & P
NEW YORK | Fri Aug 5, 2011 8:19pm EDT
Aug 5 (Reuters) - The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

U.S. Treasuries, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, S&P said in a statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months. (Reporting by Walter Brandimarte; Editing by Jan Paschal)

United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P | Reuters
Click to expand...
So What? Since S&P was complicit in the financial meltdown by rating mortgaged backed securities which contained sub prime loans to the tune of $14 Trillion as AAA, what does their rating mean anyway? NADA. The facts are that U.S. Treasury's are the best investment on the planet. In fact they are selling at a record low interest rate.
 
Quote Misterveritis

No one has made the argument that people who do not pay federal income taxes don't pay other taxes.
Click to expand...

I kinda like to clear the straw out of some post, hope you don’t mind.

In your original post you were citing post(#990 ) by Adam, that you found objectionable ???though the nit that you posted had nothing at all to do with the main point of his post, as usual.:roll:


Now you find objectionable my post when I implied that that you cherrypicked when you didn’t post the following paragraph from the same link.


(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.)


Just an ole mans attempt at keeping the post honest. Alas, a losing battle considering the winger contingent that landed in this thread.:2wave:
 
donc said:
I kinda like to clear the straw out of some post, hope you don’t mind.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Go ahead.

donc said:
In your original post you were citing post(#990 ) by Adam, that you found objectionable ???though the nit that you posted had nothing at all to do with the main point of his post, as usual.:roll:
Click to expand...

That would be this exchange:

Adam wrote,
"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"
Click to expand...
I replied,
"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.
Click to expand...

donc said:
Now you find objectionable my post when I implied that that you cherrypicked when you didn’t post the following paragraph from the same link.
(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.)
Just an ole mans attempt at keeping the post honest. Alas, a losing battle considering the winger contingent that landed in this thread.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Let's explore your attempt.

1)Do you agree or disagree that 70 million versus 69 million is insignificant when speaking of income earners who pay no federal income taxes?
2) Do you agree or disagree that federal income taxes are a specific category of taxes that are separate from all other taxes one might be exposed to?
3) Do you agree or disagree that most on the left want the people already paying the federal income tax to pay more. To pay, "their fair share", while at the same time arguing that people who do not pay any federal income tax should not have to because they pay some other taxes?
4) Do you agree or disagree that half of the people are not exempt from, say the payroll tax, or social security taxes, or Medicare taxes?

It is a losing battle because you have chosen the immoral position.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Considering pop differences the only accurate way to compare the administrations is by unemployment %, like Reagan's 10% unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

That is the way liberals always want to judge performance because a lower base looks better. You see, Reagan had a much worse percentage change in the debt than Obama yet Reagan added 1.7 trillion in 8 years and Obama has 4 trillion in less than 3. How does that percentage change work out for you?
 
Conservative said:
That is the way liberals always want to judge performance because a lower base looks better. You see, Reagan had a much worse percentage change in the debt than Obama yet Reagan added 1.7 trillion in 8 years and Obama has 4 trillion in less than 3. How does that percentage change work out for you?
Click to expand...


You can't do percentages?
 
Misterveritis said:
Well there you go:


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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it also says that about 70% of those who didn't pay income tax earn less than $50k/yr. You think the rich folks are going to start a revolution to squeeze a few hundred bucks out of'em? Probably not the 1,000 millionaires who paid no income tax.
 
winston53660 said:
You can't do percentages?
Click to expand...

I can't, Reagan grew the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion and Obama grew the debt from 10.4 to 14.5 trillion, which percentage change is more? By your standards Reagan was terrible yet the taxpayer benefited more from less debt service on 1.7 trillion than on 4.0 trillion
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, it also says that about 70% of those who didn't pay income tax earn less than $50k/yr. You think the rich folks are going to start a revolution to squeeze a few hundred bucks out of'em? Probably not the 1,000 millionaires who paid no income tax.
Click to expand...

You think that earning any income and not paying any Federal Income taxes is their fair share?
 
Conservative said:
You think that earning any income and not paying any Federal Income taxes is their fair share?
Click to expand...

No, I think they could pay a little. Just a little. Ending all of the Bush tax cuts would do the trick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom