• 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.
AdamT said:
The bankers just pointed out what we knew already: one of our political parties -- the one that starts with an R -- is completely fixated on thumbing its nose at the President and could not care less if it harms the country in the process.

No one is suggesting that we raise taxes to "crushing levels". That is a straw man argument. The blindingly obvious solution to our problem is to add short-term stimulus and do significant cutting and modest tax increases in the mid/long term. 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...

Nobody is suggesting that we do it, this time. But, once Obama gets one tax hike, he'll be wanting another, then another, then another.
 
There was a direct correlation to the health of the economy and how much the gov spent in the 30s and 40s. The recession was ending before WW2. The claim that it didn't is as untrue as the claim that Clinton had a surplus when he didnt.

Back on topic, there is plenty spending to be cut. We have both a spending and revenue problem. The recession caused a major loss of revenue. Obama offered to cut mandatory spending and raise taxes on the upper %.

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

He is the only one being reasonable about this. Congressional Dems and Repubs refused to make any hard decisions.

Also this 3.7T budget that was voted down 97-0 was never supposed to pass in the first place. It was a requirement of proposing a budget to congress. Obama was working on a better deficit reduction plan at the time. Its easy to blame the president but Obama is this country's best chance to reduce spending on mandatory programs.
 
deltabtry said:
Since 1978 when I started paying attention to who runs this country, either the left or right it is of my opinion (actually fact) that both parties have a serious spending problem. Now if we continue to blame one side opposed to another we will get no where except more in debt. That said, since 1978 the blame game has not resolved a single issue, what it has done is divided us so those who cheer lead us on will remain in power at our expense and now at the expense of our country as one credit rating. Don't be fooled by our politicians, the blame game has a positive effect on their careers just look at the freshman fiances opposed to the senior when exiting congress.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely both sides have a spending problem. The solution has to be cutting domestic spending, cutting military spending and increasing revenues. While not all Democrats are on board with all those things, most of the Democrats are. On the other hand I can't think of a single Republican in Congress that is on board for all three. So it's pretty hard to ignore that.
 
RStringfield said:
Sure, one way to address it would be to raise taxes to crushing levels.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those tax rates during the Clinton administration sure did crush the economy. :roll:
 
Flyersfan314 said:
Its easy to blame the president but Obama is this country's best chance to reduce spending on mandatory programs.
Click to expand...

I like what you had to say; could you elaborate on this point a bit more?
 
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...

If congress would of gone all the way like the Ryan's plan, the senate wouldn't of gone for it because democrats like to spend a lot of money for their progressive and free programs. This is both of the parties fault since it takes two to tango.
 
apdst said:
Actually, it was the tax cuts after WW2 that did it.

If it were true that the war ended the depression, then why are we pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Why do Libbos support massive defense cuts? Why are we in a depression, now? Where does the money come from for all that spending?
Click to expand...

It was not just tax cuts and also it was not just lowering rates, but the cutting of specific taxes that had been very harmful.

It was partially due to the War. FDR allowed much of the New Deal to be killed by congress in order to divert resources to the war. FDR died and Truman was not as popular as FDR. With slim majorities, due in large part to conservative southern Democrats, and the failure of the New Deal, Truman was not able to pass FDR's New Deal revival plans.

The Depression ended due to a brief repudiation of Keynesian ideas.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yeah, those tax rates during the Clinton administration sure did crush the economy. :roll:
Click to expand...

Those tax rates will not be sufficient to deal with the problems on the horizon.
 
Red Crow said:
If congress would of gone all the way like the Ryan's plan, the senate wouldn't of gone for it because democrats like to spend a lot of money for their progressive and free programs. This is both of the parties fault since it takes two to tango.
Click to expand...

That is actually completely false. The Dems were willing to compromise. The Republicans said our way or the highway, thus turning the debt ceiling deal into a major issue, when in reality it shouldn't have been.
 
apdst said:
Nobody is suggesting that we do it, this time. But, once Obama gets one tax hike, he'll be wanting another, then another, then another.
Click to expand...

So we had a straw man argument and now we have a slippery slope argument. Can ad hominem be far behind?
 
AdamT said:
So we had a straw man argument and now we have a slippery slope argument. Can ad hominem be far behind?
Click to expand...

How about a factual argument: Obama believes in social justice and wealth redistribution.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yeah, those tax rates during the Clinton administration sure did crush the economy. :roll:
Click to expand...

You are thinking short term. The bankers are not. They know that there is too much opposition to the left's plan to raise taxes on us up to ridiculous levels. Back to Clinton era levels, we might be able to get there, but that won't be nearly enough. Plus, the Clinton era taxes were higher across the board, not just on the higher levels. No way in hell, are we going to be able to finance the coming deficits with taxes on the "rich" alone.
 
apdst said:
How about a factual argument: Obama believes in social justice and wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

Of course he does. So has every president we've ever had. We have always had a progressive tax system, i.e., wealth redistribution.
 
RStringfield said:
You are thinking short term. The bankers are not. They know that there is too much opposition to the left's plan to raise taxes on us up to ridiculous levels. Back to Clinton era levels, we might be able to get there, but that won't be nearly enough. Plus, the Clinton era taxes were higher across the board, not just on the higher levels. No way in hell, are we going to be able to finance the coming deficits with taxes on the "rich" alone.
Click to expand...

That is just factually inaccurate. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels would halt the growth of the deficit in its tracks, relative to GDP. Add responsible spending cuts and we can start reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP to sustainable levels.

What you cannot do is fix the problem with spending cuts alone.
 
AdamT said:
The bankers just pointed out what we knew already: one of our political parties -- the one that starts with an R -- is completely fixated on thumbing its nose at the President and could not care less if it harms the country in the process.

No one is suggesting that we raise taxes to "crushing levels". That is a straw man argument. The blindingly obvious solution to our problem is to add short-term stimulus and do significant cutting and modest tax increases in the mid/long term. 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...

It's not a strawman because I did not attribute the argument to you or anyone (at least not currently, it would be the argument in the long term from the left as they would refuse to admit failure when Clinton era levels proved to not be enough).

Clinton era rates on the "rich" are not going to be able to finance the looming deficits in SS and Medicare. You are delusional, uninformed or lying if you suggest it will.
 
It's all part of the plan in disaster capitalism. You can almost bet on another false flag event this fall. My money is on Israel and Iran. Whatever it is it will happen in the next few months and as a result there will be new restrictions on Americans: fuel consumption limits (likely imposed by higher taxes), ATM transactions; further budget raids of the People's money (more social solutions to private debt) and so forth. All this will be for "the public good as we fight (the newest manufactured enemy) to preserve our freedoms and our American way of life." <hit the puke button hard here>

It's over people. Some of us know it. None of us want it, unless you are, of course, fabulously wealthy. Everyone else is a pawn or soon will be.
 
AdamT said:
That is just factually inaccurate. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels would halt the growth of the deficit in its tracks, relative to GDP. Add responsible spending cuts and we can start reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP to sustainable levels.

What you cannot do is fix the problem with spending cuts alone.
Click to expand...

LOL. Okay, whatever you say. The short term appeal of the ostrich approach is going to dramatically decline relatively soon.
 
AdamT said:
That is just factually inaccurate. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels would halt the growth of the deficit in its tracks, relative to GDP. Add responsible spending cuts and we can start reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP to sustainable levels.

What you cannot do is fix the problem with spending cuts alone.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
That is actually completely false. The Dems were willing to compromise. The Republicans said our way or the highway, thus turning the debt ceiling deal into a major issue, when in reality it shouldn't have been.
Click to expand...

You can spin it anyway you want to but BOTH parties AGREED and SIGNED the BILL. Again... it took TWO to tango.
 
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...

Obama has been damaging his own self, since January of 2009.
 
AdamT said:
That is just factually inaccurate. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels would halt the growth of the deficit in its tracks, relative to GDP. Add responsible spending cuts and we can start reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP to sustainable levels.

What you cannot do is fix the problem with spending cuts alone.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Grossly so. Repeal of all the Bush Tax Cuts, if they did not change spending behavior one iota, would yield about $340 billion per year. Well less than 3% of current GDP. Our current Federal Spending is projected at about 25.5% of GDP, and climbing. Historic Federal spending is closer to 19-20% of GDP. Full implementation of Clinton taxes, which were on the boom-time dot-com bubble, would not close half the gap as compared to historic averages. Not to mention that such implementation would drive down GDP, and revenue, and possibly produce no net increase at all in revenue.

We have a spending problem.
 
Last edited:
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...

Obama hurt himself because of his policies and his spending.
 
RStringfield said:
It's not a strawman because I did not attribute the argument to you or anyone (at least not currently, it would be the argument in the long term from the left as they would refuse to admit failure when Clinton era levels proved to not be enough).

Clinton era rates on the "rich" are not going to be able to finance the looming deficits in SS and Medicare. You are delusional, uninformed or lying if you suggest it will.
Click to expand...

It was a straw man because you complained about an argument that no one is making. And you just did it again. I never suggested that Clinton-era tax cuts on the rich would pay for anything, let alone SS and Medicare. My argument was that all of the Bush tax cuts should expire and that that, in conjunction with responsible spending cuts, would take care of our problem.
 
apdst said:
Obama has been damaging his own self, since January of 2009.
Click to expand...
Spits the poster who thinks the Great Depression didn't end until sometime after 1945. :roll:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Spits the poster who thinks the Great Depression didn't end until sometime after 1945. :roll:
Click to expand...

Which is true. It did not end until the war ended.

Now, can you add anything to the thread, or are you just a snipe ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom