• 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.
Have you ever considered the possibility that massive wealth accumulation is in fact not "achievement" but a pathology?

The problem I have with comments like this makes the assumption that the pie is always the same size and never grows. That simply is false. The pie continues to grow and people need to stop complaining when apparently they don't have the initiative or drive to capture their piece of that growing pie.
 
Have you ever considered the possibility that massive wealth accumulation is in fact not "achievement" but a pathology?

It can be. For a few.
 
The problem I have with comments like this makes the assumption that the pie is always the same size and never grows. That simply is false. The pie continues to grow and people need to stop complaining when apparently they don't have the initiative or drive to capture their piece of that growing pie.

It has nothing to do with the size of the pie except to say that there is some point when you have enough pie. If you eat too much, you could get sick. As a matter of fact, some people have so much pie they can't possibly expect to eat it all and are just competing with other pie collectors.

It's also the case that one can have plenty of initiative and drive to do things other than "capture" pie.
 
It has nothing to do with the size of the pie except to say that there is some point when you have enough pie. If you eat too much, you could get sick. As a matter of fact, some people have so much pie they can't possibly expect to eat it all and are just competing with other pie collectors.

It's also the case that one can have plenty of initiative and drive to do things other than "capture" pie.
here is some point when you have enough pie
and who has the moral authority to make that decision?
 
It has nothing to do with the size of the pie except to say that there is some point when you have enough pie. If you eat too much, you could get sick. As a matter of fact, some people have so much pie they can't possibly expect to eat it all and are just competing with other pie collectors.

It's also the case that one can have plenty of initiative and drive to do things other than "capture" pie.

No, the pie is the economy which keeps growing and that is what generates wealth opportunities for individuals. You have to accept the reality that some people just don't have any initiative, drive, or dedication to go after a piece of it whereas others do. Too many want to demonize those that create individual wealth and have sympathy for those that don't.
 
and who has the moral authority to make that decision?

There is no final arbitor of morality. If a life could be saved with a vaccine that costs 82 cents, it should be done. If the vaccine costs $82 bn a dose, to do so would be ridiculous. I don't claim to know what "enough" is for anyone but myself.
 
There is no final arbitor of morality. If a life could be saved with a vaccine that costs 82 cents, it should be done. If the vaccine costs $82 bn a dose, to do so would be ridiculous. I don't claim to know what "enough" is for anyone but myself.
So I ask, what is your complaint?
 
Is Obama really upset, or is he secretly happy that he's damaged the economy?
 
No, the pie is the economy which keeps growing and that is what generates wealth opportunities for individuals. You have to accept the reality that some people just don't have any initiative, drive, or dedication to go after a piece of it whereas others do. Too many want to demonize those that create individual wealth and have sympathy for those that don't.

First, it is my strong belief that we are all going to have to get used to economic growth rates lower than the historical average of 3%. That's another point entierly though.

Second, I think there are few reasonable people that demonize generating wealth in responsible and fair ways. It's the cheaters, abusers, and glutons that are rightly despised.
 
Is Obama really upset, or is he secretly happy that he's damaged the economy?

No, the Republicans and Tea-Baggers are not so secretly happy that they have seriously damaged the economy.

They think they can defeat Obama based on the loss of the AAA credit-rating.

Little do they know that the American people do now and will still blaim the GOP for this mess in November of 2012.
 
The measurement of "achievement" by the accumulation of material wealth.

You mean it is not an achievement to inherit $50 million? I guess there are some who didn't get that memo. :shrug:
 
The measurement of "achievement" by the accumulation of material wealth.
so I will return to the originally question, what gives anyone the moral authority on who has enough.
 
You mean it is not an achievement to inherit $50 million? I guess there are some who didn't get that memo. :shrug:
but it was achievment by some one, then again who has the moral authority to say what was earned and what was not.
 
Everyone knew this was coming. It is time to fire everyone in government in 2012 and start over because the jerks we keep sending to represent us obviously treat the US debt and budget different than they would their own personal debt and budgets.
 
so I will return to the originally question, what gives anyone the moral authority on who has enough.

It has nothing to do with "who has enough"; enough is never enough! It has to do with ones ability to pay a specific amount in taxation that does not cause standard of living to decrease as taxes increase.
 
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.

Wrong. It is not a strawman because I did not say anyone was making the argument. I was talking about what WILL be necessary.

The only way we are going to be able to finance the looming deficits in SS and Medicare is with crushing taxes, huge spending cuts in other areas or fundamental changes in both programs. None of those courses is going to be easy, especially with the naivete of those who continue to pretend we can do it all if we would just tax the "rich" a little more.

The bankers know very well what is coming.
 
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.

How long will you maintain that these are Bush Tax Cuts. The legislation signed by Bush has expired. Obama and the Democrats gave new life to what were once called the Bush Tax Cuts when Obama signed tax relief legislation in December 2010. These are now Obama Tax Cuts.

You see, even Obama can do something right, just like a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.
 
It has nothing to do with "who has enough"; enough is never enough! It has to do with ones ability to pay a specific amount in taxation that does not cause standard of living to decrease as taxes increase.
OK, a inheritances has already been earned and already been taxed by the person who earned it. Taxation was never meant to be a penalty on ones ability of his or hers earnings, taxation is the ability to acquire funds to be able to run our government, and in this country it would be to run the government within is constitutional boundaries. No one has the moral authority to determine who has made enough money or who has received enough gifts, at least not in a free country. Taxation should be applied equally amongst everyone regardless of social status.
 
How long will you maintain that these are Bush Tax Cuts. The legislation signed by Bush has expired. Obama and the Democrats gave new life to what were once called the Bush Tax Cuts when Obama signed tax relief legislation in December 2010. These are now Obama Tax Cuts.

You see, even Obama can do something right, just like a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.

Whatever you call them they should expire next year.
 
Is Obama really upset, or is he secretly happy that he's damaged the economy?

Ironic how the rightwingers are trying to use a report that blames them for the credit going down

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf (bottom of page 4)

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues,
a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act
 
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."

But you are for lowering taxes on the rich but jacking them up on the poor?

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.

The fact you have to ask suggests you do not know what they are. Google before responding please.

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.

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.

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.

So when faced with an honest depiction of total taxes, you resort to fallacy of raising the bar. How...entirely expected of you.

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?

Have I argued that Social Security is not a ponzi scheme or are you going to keep pulling arguments out of your butt because you do not have the skills to actually formulate real arguments?

Social Security is not a welfare program per se. It is a ponzi scheme.
 
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.

S&P's made it clear: in order to prevent a credit-rating downgrade Congress would have to pass around $4 trillion in debt-reduction in 10 years with bi-partisan support.

the GOP chose to ignore this...so now we have lost our AAA rating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom