• 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.
TX has a balanced budget requirement so where do you get your information that TX didn't balance the budget and kicked the can down the road? This thread isn't about Perry but I guess anything to divert from the thread topic

It's called Acct 101. States can issue debt.
 
Super. Let's start closing down those extra-constitutional departments and agencies. We can save half of what the government spends and rid ourselves of about two million busybody bureaucrats. Win. Win.

Says the guy posting on the govt created internet with his computer technology initially developed by the govt
 
If that is what you believe that is your right even though you are wrong. We were downgraded because we spent too much and the current debt is almost 100% of GDP. What is your credit score if you max out your Credit cards for that is what Obama and our bureaucrats have done. Revenue grew after the tax cuts thus didn't cause the downgrade

Here's why we were downgraded


Ok, so you're on record for believing that losing 800,000 payroll jobs in a single month where the unemployment rate is 7.8% is better than gaining 117,000 payroll jobs in a month where the unemployment rate is 9.1%. By the way, how many months do you think think country can sustain losing 500,000 to 800,000 payroll jobs per month? Wait, before you answer, here's a clue since that is what happened for 9 months between October, 2008 and June, 2009 ... 6 million payroll jobs were lost and the unemployment rate skyrocketed 44% from 6.6% to 9.5%.

Republican Party Approval Rating at End-of-Bush-Era Low -- Daily Intel
 
Never been turned down for any treatment including cancer treatments TWICE, two years apart so again you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about

So did you pay for it out of your own pocket, or are you just another welfare dependent?

Which hospital were you treated at, and does it take any fed money?

Sounds like the GOPs "welfare for me, but none for thee"
 
Spending is the problem, not tax cuts. People keeping more of what they earn always benefits the family and thus means less need for that govt. "help" liberals want to provide. The wars cost us 140 billion a year over the past 10 years so you are overstating the cost for what reason, I don't know. Only if you justify spending 3.7 trillion dollars a year in govt. spending do we have a revenue problem. By the way, thought Obama ended the wars and closed GITMO thus there hasn't been any expense the last 2 1/2 years. I believe S&P knows that the wars aren't as costly as they were during the Bush years. Adding 4 trillion in the last 2 1/2 years didn't help the credit rating.

Spending is a republican problem. The repubs cant help spending other peoples' money
 
How did the S&P rate the toxic investments that caused the 2008 financial meltdown and the debt situation we are in today? If the toxic investments were rated AAA, answers are in order. Right?
 
Says the guy posting on the govt created internet with his computer technology initially developed by the govt
There is no point having any discussion with you. You are a statist. Statists cannot be reasoned with. Statists must be defeated.
 
Last edited:
How did the S&P rate the toxic investments that caused the 2008 financial meltdown and the debt situation we are in today? If the toxic investments were rated AAA, answers are in order. Right?

Exactly however the question should be asked why question that today and not in 2009. We certainly know that liberals aren't vindictive.
 
Exactly however the question should be asked why question that today and not in 2009. We certainly know that liberals aren't vindictive.

Right, only liberals are vindictive. Well, at least we know you're nto partisan. :roll:

Anyhow, should they be held accountable if they've done wrong?
 
Nice spin, income taxes were to fund the govt. and to get people to pay for the services provided by that govt. Right now 47% are earning income and not paying for those services. That in the liberal world is what you call fair? Still waiting for what that fair share is for the upper income since paying 38% of all income taxes isn't it but zero for millions is?

Tax burden is tax burden.... splitting hairs on the source and use is an academic exercise irrelevant to most tax payers. The "spin" is to continue this misguided notion that somehow a large percentage of the population pay no tax. Moreover, its a "spin" you often partake in yourself as you keep relying on payroll taxes each time you try to tell us that revenues went up after tax cuts. In particular, after the so-called Bush tax cuts, tax revenue did increase, as you often point out, but ONLY because payroll tax receipt increases covered up for decreases in income tax receipts. Sorry, but your party continues to co-mingle these taxes (including using payroll taxes to cover-up/pay for income tax decreases) as it happened early last decade.

Also, has it has been pointed out to you, its nice to speak about non-taxed income, but the design of income taxation is to go after discretionary income, not total income. This is why we have personal exemptions, child credits and standardized deductions. The fact of the matter is that 50% of our population (and increasing) lives hand to mouth, without discretionary income. All in, the wealthiest in the country are not paying their fair share.... their taxes are falling and their wealth increasing.
 

Attachments

  • Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 37
  • Growth in tax revenue.jpg
    Growth in tax revenue.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 37
The fact of the matter is that 50% of our population (and increasing) lives hand to mouth, without discretionary income. All in, the wealthiest in the country are not paying their fair share.... their taxes are falling and their wealth increasing.

Thank you for pointing this out, as it is mostly ignored. The widing gap between the have and the have nots is what caused this growth in numbers. And now we have the wealthy and their, what, supporters complaining, bemouning those who fall on the poorer side of the gap.
 
...and the facts behind the graph: tables from the actual budget. I draw your attention to table 2.1, which shows tax receipts by source..... note that income tax receipts (personal and corporate) dropped 20% between 2000 and 2005, though payroll tax receipts climbed year over year.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
 
The problem for liberals is that the tax rate cuts saw an increase in revenue after fully implemented and liberals cannot explain it. Liberals always ignore human behavior and the benefit to the taxpayer and the economy from those tax cuts. I see no valid point in discussing lost revenue that didn't happen.

I think this has been well explained to you. I'm not sure why I bother to restate as you are so busy robo-posting the same old tired stuff I doubt you have would take the time to ponder it, but to to be succinct: Your wrong!

Income tax receipts did drop by almost 20% after the tax cuts of last decade (see table 2.1 per the link below). The receipts increased because payroll tax receipts increase year over year due to an increasing work force and the cap raising each year. In fact, this is such a predictable increase that payroll tax receipts even increased 2009 over 2008 as the general economy collapsed and income tax receipts were in free fall.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
 
Last edited:
Right, only liberals are vindictive. Well, at least we know you're nto partisan. :roll:

Anyhow, should they be held accountable if they've done wrong?


When do liberals, and Obama ever get held accountable....That is a nice word isn't it, but only when you are speaking of the other guy.....


j-mac
 
When do liberals, and Obama ever get held accountable....That is a nice word isn't it, but only when you are speaking of the other guy.....


j-mac

Well according to you, at least by some of your rhetoric, you make it out like liberals and Obama are dictators, telling you what to do and no one can stop them and they'll never be held accountable.

But then you praise november 2010 as the greatest thing since you first discovered masterbation.

So tell me, if Obama has truly pissed off the entire nation, do you not feel he'll be held accountable by the ballot box next year?
 
I think this has been well explained to you. I'm not sure why I bother to restate as you are so busy robo-posting the same old tired stuff I doubt you have would take the time to ponder it, but to to be succinct: Your wrong!

Income tax receipts did drop by almost 20% after the tax cuts of last decade (see table 2.1 per the link below). The receipts increased because payroll tax receipts increase year over year due to an increasing work force and the cap raising each year. In fact, this is such a predictable increase that payroll tax receipts even increased 2009 over 2008 as the general economy collapsed and income tax receipts were in free fall.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf


I guess the thing that I don't get when it comes to macro economics concepts like the whole tax debate, is that simple logic seems to make sense on the right side of the argument when the conversation is about how an increase in taxation affects the bottom line, and slows a company from expanding, or hiring. And as well on the left side of the argument when discussing deductions that are manipulated for the upper tier of earners to skate from a fair obligation. But this is done by the lower tier as well through entitlements that bleed the system, and allow them to effectively pay nothing as far as income is concerned. Wouldn't it be a safe middle ground then to go back to a fair, or flat system? As a middle income earner in this country, and a tax payer I am sick and tired of carrying both ends.

It makes sense to me to, in light of seeing that the policies and demonization of wealth, and business that has been prevalent this past three years, that this sort of rhetoric and policy isn't working to better, or even tread water at this point. Things are getting worse. Don't we have to stop the madness?

j-mac
 
Well according to you, at least by some of your rhetoric, you make it out like liberals and Obama are dictators, telling you what to do and no one can stop them and they'll never be held accountable.

In some sense that is how they act at times, need I remind you of the infamous Pelosi comment "You'll have to pass the bill, to see what is in the bill"....But, truly no, I don't think that either party when in power takes accountability well, and I say that with full knowledge that I myself deflected arguments on a political partisan basis that in many cases is not the utmost of Independence of thinking on matters. Then again, I don't laud myself as some sort of non partisan free thinker, then post highly partisan talking point pap either. You know where you stand with me don't you, I mean it is right there in my lean. Look, I ain't perfect, but I do, and have always tried to admit when I am wrong on something. But, lately, it seems it is more about deflecting blame than actually fixing things. And that should piss everyone off.

But then you praise november 2010 as the greatest thing since you first discovered masterbation.

Kind of crass, but ok, see, I truly think it was a great victory to arrest the one party control away from demo's in '10. As I am sure when demo's trounced repubs in '06 you probably thought that it was a good thing. Our system seems to becoming more dependent on one party control to get anything done, no matter which party you think is right, and that is destructive. I respect you JB, I think you have some well thought out postings, and are probably a pretty fun guy to have a beer with, however, that is a far cry from having all the answers, and I think I know you pretty well to not ever think that you see yourself that way just as I don't, but that doesn't mean that everything you type is wrong....We have agreed on things in the past, have we not? There is hope friend.

So tell me, if Obama has truly pissed off the entire nation, do you not feel he'll be held accountable by the ballot box next year?

I think he will. The question is, how much damage will be done in the interim? And will it be a true getting back to basics, or just another severe, harsh pendulum swing to the complete other side?

j-mac
 
Tax burden is tax burden.... splitting hairs on the source and use is an academic exercise irrelevant to most tax payers. The "spin" is to continue this misguided notion that somehow a large percentage of the population pay no tax. Moreover, its a "spin" you often partake in yourself as you keep relying on payroll taxes each time you try to tell us that revenues went up after tax cuts. In particular, after the so-called Bush tax cuts, tax revenue did increase, as you often point out, but ONLY because payroll tax receipt increases covered up for decreases in income tax receipts. Sorry, but your party continues to co-mingle these taxes (including using payroll taxes to cover-up/pay for income tax decreases) as it happened early last decade.

Also, has it has been pointed out to you, its nice to speak about non-taxed income, but the design of income taxation is to go after discretionary income, not total income. This is why we have personal exemptions, child credits and standardized deductions. The fact of the matter is that 50% of our population (and increasing) lives hand to mouth, without discretionary income. All in, the wealthiest in the country are not paying their fair share.... their taxes are falling and their wealth increasing.

Let me help you here with actual dollar amounts

Federal Income taxes per year and that has nothing to do with Payroll taxes which are a separate line item

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

If you are so concerned about tax revenue then take the advice given to Warren Buffet, send in a contribution to the govt. Are you sending your Bush tax cut back each month? Interesting how liberals are always so concerned about revenue going to the govt which just confirms what I always knew, Democrats want to keep people dependent and the best way to do that is take more money out of the pockets of the taxpayers so liberals have the money to spend and not the taxpayers
 
So tell me, if Obama has truly pissed off the entire nation, do you not feel he'll be held accountable by the ballot box next year?
The one term Marxist president Obama? Yes. He has to go.

Have you heard that he has granted illegal aliens amnesty? He is halting all deportation proceedings against individuals meeting certain conditions. So the Kenyan tyrant needs to go back to Kenya.
 
Thank you for pointing this out, as it is mostly ignored. The widing gap between the have and the have nots is what caused this growth in numbers. And now we have the wealthy and their, what, supporters complaining, bemouning those who fall on the poorer side of the gap.


Hhmm…wonder where the dough is going to come from, now that were into cutting gov spending and discretionary spending is almost nonexistent. I have read that consumer spending drives about 70 percent of economic activity in our country.Looks like were screwed.:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom