• 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.
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course! The fact that 80+% of Americans think that Congress should engage in more compromise is reason NOT to compromise. If you are a republican....
 
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.
Click to expand...

S&P is explaining why it is diverging from CBO's baseline in favor of its alternative scenario. The baseline assumes that current law will be executed as is. In other words, the Bush tax cuts would expire when they are scheduled to do so. In contrast, the alternative scenario is based on what is likely to happen i.e., most/all the Bush tax cuts would be renewed, the AMT patch would again be applied, the "doctor's fix" would again be utilized to preclude modest Medicare savings, etc. The baseline shows smaller deficits than the alternative scenario.
 
Red Crow said:
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???
Click to expand...

He was voted out long before this went down.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
I am a Democrat and I take some the responsibility for this mess.
Click to expand...
If you are really taking responsibility then pony up some of your money. Send off a check for whatever amount of money the government wants to take from the wealthiest among us. Go for it! Repeat as often as necessary.
Flyersfan314 said:
We need to reduce spending but cutting domestic spending right now would be bad for the economy. Consumer spending is already so low, that would hurt even more.
Click to expand...
More likely eliminating whole extra-constitutional departments, repealing their extra-constitutional regulations, and the economy would grow rapidly. Even repealing Obamacare would probably cause a jump-start to the economy.
Flyersfan314 said:
We need to raise taxes on the upper 1% and possibly repeal the Bush tax cuts altogether,
Click to expand...
LOL. It never takes very long to get back to punishing achievement, does it?
 
Red Crow said:
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???
Click to expand...

What makes you think that this hasn't already been priced into the market? The only real way this matters is if institutions have to sell out from treasuries in a large way. Furthermore, rational people saw what Obama was willing to give. The GOP basically could not say yes to virtually anything, even cuts they would have considered too much themselves 5 years ago.
 
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...

How is reverting to Clinton era rates "steeply progressive?" Have you seen effective marginal rates in Europe?

What is hard to believe is you understand anything you are discussing.
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Think you are a little swept away with partisan talking point hyperbole. Nobody was taken hostage...but there was finally some acknowledgement/discussion on the unsustainable direction our disastrous economy is headed.
 
I was going to post an analysis but what's the point? People believe what they want to believe about this. It's the fact that Americans can't turn off their TVs and look at the world around them that it's impossible to have a rational discussion about something as important as this.

We made our bed, now we have to lay in it. If we want to delude ourselves about the reasons, then the situation will just get worse. It's not like we didn't see this coming years ago. :shrug:
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

So we need to raise taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich? Do you have any concept of the marginal propensity to save or spend?

i like the idea of allowing only those people who pay taxes to vote.
Click to expand...

So this changes things how? If you get unemployment, you pay taxes. If you have a legal job, you pay FICA. So changing voting to those who pay taxes doesn't change much of anything. Sure you'd disenfranchise some seniors and college kids, but the bulk of voters wouldn't change. Unless you were being a dishonest user and imply only income tax is a real tax and that payroll which is almost the same amount in taxes doesn't exist...but then you'd be really dishonest.
 
haymarket said:
This rating evaluation is a recognition of the reality that we now have people entrusted with the power of governing who actually hate and despise our Constitutionally limited government and would risk the health of the nation in order to pursue extremist ideological crusades simply based on a far left, Marxist belief system.
Click to expand...

I used bold to fix your statement. It is better now. Thank me.
 
deltabtry said:
Then I would say it high time for the American people to tell the government to get their sh!t together instead of looking for some party to blame. Congress won't act in favor of the people until the people stand up and demands to be heard, as one voice.
Click to expand...
In the past the peasants marched on the castle with pitchforks.

Didn't Hitler rise to power in just this sort of environment?
 
AdamT said:
Eliminating the Bush tax cuts, i.e., going back the Clinton rates that allowed the economy to flourish, would stop the growth of the debt in and of itself.
Click to expand...

tell it to senators kerry, mcccaskill, feinstein, inouye, landrieu, mikulski, shaheen, menendez, wyden, rockefeller...

Senate passes package extending Bush tax cuts - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

you won't need to clue in the members in the crosshairs---tester, conrad, nelson, nelson, manchin, webb, klobuchar, kohl, stabenow, bingaman, casey...

there are some 14 very competitive senate seats held by dems up in 12 vs realistically two held by reds (nevada and massachusetts)

Tougher road ahead for Senate Dems - Shira Toeplitz - POLITICO.com
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The Republican party of "No" got what they wanted. They damaged Obama. It doesn't matter to them that they also hurt the country, but then party over country has always been the Republican meme.
Click to expand...
I see it the other way around. The Marxist president Obama's defeat was certain before the Boehner deal. Now it is the Marxist president's election to lose. This is a huge defeat for the nation. And coincidentally, for Republicans.
 
Misterveritis said:
In the past the peasants marched on the castle with pitchforks.

Didn't Hitler rise to power in just this sort of environment?
Click to expand...
This is true, and there is a fine line between chaos and order although I would be more worried about a rise of a soft tyranny opposed to a hard tyranny. My comment was meant through due process of course, after all we the people are the true wardens of power.
 
AdamT said:
What you cannot do is fix the problem with spending cuts alone.
Click to expand...

andrew cuomo, jan 5:

"we have to relearn the lesson our founders knew and we have to put up a sign that says new york is open for business, we get it, and this is going to be a business friendly state"

"we have to hold the line on taxes for now and reduce taxes in the future, new york has no future as the tax capital of the nation, our young people will not stay, our business will not come"

"put it simply, the people of this state simply cannot afford to pay any more taxes, period"

link above
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Economic history is lacking a bit eh?

Progressive taxation was originally discussed by Adam Smith.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Radical Karl's argument was for a steeply progressive income tax. Look carefully at my post and you will see that. His goal, and the Marxist president Obama's goal, is the destruction of capital in order to advance the society to revolution. Smith was concerned with funding government.
 
obvious Child said:
What makes you think that this hasn't already been priced into the market? The only real way this matters is if institutions have to sell out from treasuries in a large way. Furthermore, rational people saw what Obama was willing to give. The GOP basically could not say yes to virtually anything, even cuts they would have considered too much themselves 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

The GOP won the election. They weren't the ones that were in a position to forced into a deal that they didn't agree with.
 
AdamT said:
Of course! The fact that 80+% of Americans think that Congress should engage in more compromise is reason NOT to compromise. If you are a republican....
Click to expand...
Opportunities for leverage do not occur every day. One must take advantage of them when one can.

If you think that polled majorities should drive policy do you agree with me and the roughly 60% of Americans that Obamacare should be repealed?
 
obvious Child said:
So we need to raise taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich?
Click to expand...
We need to tax everyone, including the poor. So you have it exactly right. In this way we can step back from the looming "tragedy of the commons."
obvious Child said:
Do you have any concept of the marginal propensity to save or spend?
Click to expand...
Does it matter? People who do not have to pay for a thing will want as much of it as they can get. That is what has happened. That is why were are here.
obvious Child said:
So this changes things how? If you get unemployment, you pay taxes.
Click to expand...
If you are a net provider of tax dollars you get to vote. If you are a net consumer of taxes then you don't.
obvious Child said:
If you have a legal job, you pay FICA.
Click to expand...
But we have been told that social security contributions are not taxes. They are contributions toward our retirement. So for this purpose let's buy the lie a bit longer.
obvious Child said:
So changing voting to those who pay taxes doesn't change much of anything.
Click to expand...
It changes a great deal. When the people who pay the taxes vote but the people who consume our taxes cannot we will bring the nation's spending back in line.
obvious Child said:
Unless you were being a dishonest user and imply only income tax is a real tax and that payroll which is almost the same amount in taxes doesn't exist...but then you'd be really dishonest.
Click to expand...
If you want to eliminate the farce that the social security taxes are contributions and agree that social security is a welfare program then I would revise my argument. But you are not likely to, are you?
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom