• 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.
But...but...but...if we come to a debt deal and raise the debt ceiling, everything will be ok; the stock market will be good to go; we'll retain our credit rating!
 
The Giant Noodle said:
No one is saying DONT cut spending. We are also saying raise taxes on the wealthy too. Im all for adding another 15% on their backs at this moment. They need to sacrifice too. Theyve been getting a easy ride for over a decade.
Click to expand...

I see your 15% and raise you another 10%. Boy, this is fun. Let's name the game : " Tax someone else".
 
The Giant Noodle said:
No one is saying DONT cut spending. We are also saying raise taxes on the wealthy too. Im all for adding another 15% on their backs at this moment. They need to sacrifice too. Theyve been getting a easy ride for over a decade.
Click to expand...

It would be economic suicide to raise taxes 15%. Raise taxes on small businesses by 15%? That's just plum nuts.
 
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 don't think that would have been sufficient enough.
 
washunut said:
I see your 15% and raise you another 10%. Boy, this is fun. Let's name the game : " Tax someone else".
Click to expand...

Yeah, because after you take all the rich folks's money, you're going to have to go after someone else's money.
 
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...

You're not going to raise a trillion dollars in new revenue, simply by raising taxes.

Looks like killing all those jobs has turned out to be a bad idea, eh?
 
The Giant Noodle said:
No one is saying DONT cut spending. We are also saying raise taxes on the wealthy too. Im all for adding another 15% on their backs at this moment. They need to sacrifice too. Theyve been getting a easy ride for over a decade.
Click to expand...

You guys are talking so much bull****. Raising taxes on the rich by 15% may actually reduce revenue, because rich americans will either move or cheat. Obama tax increases will only give 70 billion dollars per year. To my ears it sounds like class warfare, not increasing revenue.

If you want to increase revenue, then you have to increase taxes on everyone. Not just the very rich. Bush Tax cut was not a tax cut for just the very rich. It was a tax cut for everyone.
 
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Click to expand...

According to historical accounts that I've read, and there are probably members in this forum who were taxpayers back in the 60s and 70s, during the Reagan tax reforms which lowered the marginal tax rates there was a simultaneous gutting of thousands of deductions that people could take on their itemized returns.

The point is that highlighting the high marginal tax rates of that era is meaningless when those tax obligations could be itemized away with expenses for your 3 martini lunch, for the strippers who entertained your clients, and who knows what else.

Here's the upshot in graphical form.

hauser.gif


Look at how tax revenue is always around 19% of GDP regardless of whether the top marginal tax rate is 90% or 35%.

Nobody every paid a real effective marginal tax rate of 90%. Who would be so astoundingly stupid as to go to work for only 10 cents on the dollar?
 
Camlon said:
You guys are talking so much bull****. Raising taxes on the rich by 15% may actually reduce revenue, because rich americans will either move or cheat. Obama tax increases will only give 70 billion dollars per year. To my ears it sounds like class warfare, not increasing revenue.

If you want to increase revenue, then you have to increase taxes on everyone. Not just the very rich. Bush Tax cut was not a tax cut for just the very rich. It was a tax cut for everyone.
Click to expand...

You're going to make them mess their underoos with that much reality, at once. Which is why I probably shouldn't mention that after Bush cut taxes, record revenues started to flow into the government coffers. Plus, Bush didn't kill jobs.

My heart really goes out to the Libbos. They certainly meant well and their plan just isn't working out.
 
apdst said:
You're going to make them mess their underoos with that much reality, at once. Which is why I probably shouldn't mention that after Bush cut taxes, record revenues started to flow into the government coffers. Plus, Bush didn't kill jobs.

My heart really goes out to the Libbos. They certainly meant well and their plan just isn't working out.
Click to expand...

True - it didn't work out.

so the GOP plan which is in effect and is working is . . . what?

They're both stroking the same hookah.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
No one is saying DONT cut spending. We are also saying raise taxes on the wealthy too. Im all for adding another 15% on their backs at this moment. They need to sacrifice too. Theyve been getting a easy ride for over a decade.
Click to expand...

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.​
 
Aunt Spiker said:
True - it didn't work out.

so the GOP plan which is in effect and is working is . . . what?

They're both stroking the same hookah.
Click to expand...

The GOP plan is for the government to get out of the friggin' way and let the private sector prosper. Most of the GOP--'cept for the RINO's--has figgered out that the government can't fix the problem.
 
apdst said:
The GOP plan is for the government to get out of the friggin' way and let the private sector prosper. Most of the GOP--'cept for the RINO's--has figgered out that the government can't fix the problem.
Click to expand...

Ah yes - the good old 'the broken system that ****ed itself will somehow fix itself' addage.

That would work if it wasn't already too late for it to work.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
They lowered it because congress didnt go far enough to shore up its finances. This is 100% on the fault of the Tea Party and Republicans. They needed to raise taxes on the wealthy and didnt. Now we have this!!!!!!!!!!! :soap
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Raising taxes on the rich nets $70 B per year. Undoing all the Bush Tax Cuts, including the middle class, nets about $340 B per year. In good times. Your partisan rant is grossly uninformed.

This debt was a colossal joint effort by all. Elect McCain in 2008 and while there would have bene no Obamacare, we were still going to face a massive debt issue requiring major spending cuts more sooner than later.

When Congress, and the American people, have the willpower to do it, it will get done. Hopefully we vote Obama out, as he is most certainly a part of the problem, and replace the necessary members of Congress, with the 2012 elections. "Raising taxes on the rich" sure as hell won't get it done.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Ah yes - the good old 'the broken system that ****ed itself will somehow fix itself' addage.

That would work if it wasn't already too late for it to work.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the new system is working like a well oiled machine??

The government didn't build the greatest economy in the world; the private sector did and only the private sector can fix it.

Ask yourself this simple question: Where does the money come from?
 
apdst said:
Ok, so the new system is working like a well oiled machine??

The government didn't build the greatest economy in the world; the private sector did and only the private sector can fix it.

Ask yourself this simple question: Where does the money come from?
Click to expand...

It's all broken - and all incapable of fixing itself.

Too bad we can't scrap it all and start fresh.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, because after you take all the rich folks's money, you're going to have to go after someone else's money.
Click to expand...

bummer. That is why Obama and his elfs on this site talk about millionaires and billionaires. They pretend that a family of a teacher and a firefighter may income of $250K that these people like to transpose into Warren Buffett.
 
Amazing, S&P cut the rate because we spent too much and didn't offer anything substantial as to curbing that in the deficit agreement, and because of all that spending that got us here, the liberals think it is the GOP's fault that we stood in the way of even greater spending...This is real lunacy we are witnessing here.

j-mac
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's all broken - and all incapable of fixing itself.

Too bad we can't scrap it all and start fresh.
Click to expand...

It's only broken, because the government feels the need to come in save the day, everytime something is out of wack.
 
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...

In the next 10 years, the cumulative debt is scheduled to hit about 22 trillion, up from our 14.5 now. If you were to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts "for the rich" starting tomorrow, that debt in 10 years would be ... drumroll ... 21.3 trillion. Whoop-ty-****ing do.

Wealth envy is a disease of the mind. It makes people stupid.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
In the next 10 years, the cumulative debt is scheduled to hit about 22 trillion, up from our 14.5 now. If you were to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts "for the rich" starting tomorrow, that debt in 10 years would be ... drumroll ... 21.3 trillion. Whoop-ty-****ing do.

Wealth envy is a disease of the mind. It makes people stupid.
Click to expand...


21.3 isn't better than 22?
 
Thunder said:
Please save us the partisan lies. S&P's said exactly why they did what they did and its not simply because we didn't cut enough spending. They are worried about the bickering in Congress that created this whole mess, care of the Tea-Party.
Click to expand...

So "the Tea Party" created the debt. Social Security. Medicare. Obamacare. The Housing Bubble. 3 years of unempoyment benefits. 45 million folks on food stamps.

And the "Tea Party" stood in the way of fixing all those colossal messes.

Don't make me ****ing laugh.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Don't be so foolish. This cannot be blamed on the Tea Party. Yeah! Let's squeeze a few trillion dollars from the top 1%.... The problem is spending, spending what we don't have. Raising taxes may help (or hurt) but the main problem is spending largely done by Bush and Obama.
Click to expand...

100% correct, but by the end of his first term Obama will have increased the national debt by $5,000,000,000,000 which is a stunning rate of deficit spending. I believe Bush's largest annual deficit was $280B while Obama's is $1.6T; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Obama is an utter disaster on every economic metric, as we knew he would be; what did liberals and the ignorant average America Idol voter expect? This clown never operated anything close to a for profit business; he's the least qualified man in virtually any room he enters, yet he's president of the United States. :shocked2:
 
digsbe said:
Don't be so foolish. This cannot be blamed on the Tea Party. Yeah! Let's squeeze a few trillion dollars from the top 1%.... The problem is spending, spending what we don't have. Raising taxes may help (or hurt) but the main problem is spending largely done by Bush and Obama.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that we are running big deficits. You fix the deficit by some combination of increasing revenues and decreasing expenses. The single largest contributor to the deficit is the economic slowdown (it took $400B out of government receipts). The problem with cutting expenditures is that is is counter-productive to near-term economic growth (it actually promotes recession by contracting the economy). The problem with Washington is that they refused to even consider tax increases, which was (is) the easiest and least recession promoting way to reduce deficit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom