My idea would result in your idea.
S&P Downgrades US!
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
My idea would result in your idea.
Here is the deal, we are living with in our means. If we wanted to, we could pay our bills. What is needed, is to start making some rational and responsible fiscal decisions.
Republicans when they took control of all aspects of American government, did exactly the opposite. They opened public coffers for raids by special interests and those raids continue to this day (e.g. Medicare Part D).
It is time for some rational responsible behavior in our government. Unfortunately, we didn't get it during the George II administration. We got a little of it when Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency. But now we are back into Republican control of part of Congress and an incompetent government.
Exactly. Maybe the downgrade is a good thing if it finally convinces congress and the president that there are serious consequences to continuing down our present path.
I don't think the president or the Senate need to be convinced. It's your buds in the House that are in need of convincing - you know those guys who threatened to intentionally force the nation into a default if the rest of the government did not do exactly what they said said they should do which by the way would have pushed the economy back into a deep recession.
Then you are more out of touch with reality than I thought. Yes, the debt ceiling debate brought this thing to a head, but once our debt passed 100% of GDP a downgrade was all but inevitable. The puny cuts made thus far are being described as draconian and they don't come anywhere near being large enough to bring our budget into balance!
We need real cuts, or at least a cap that will not allow any spending above current levels until the budget is balanced.
Just who is out of touch? As usual Mad your numbers are wrong. US debt has not exceeded GDP.
Two, were it not for the enormous fiscal mismanagement of the Republican Party for the first 8 years of this century, we would not have this level of debt and deficits.
Three, the downgrade was because of the continued fiscal mismanagement of the Tea Party/Republicans. It is very apparent to all but the Republican/Tea Partiers that their behavior is taking this nation down the road to financial ruin. The behavior and ideology of Republicans/Tea Partiers has deadlocked this nation and prevented it from taking the actions necessary to restore the economy and to properly manage its finances.
The Tea Party had the option to make the bigger reductions, but failed to do so. They did not want to ruffle the feathers of their financial backers (e.g. closing tax loopholes). And then there is the small matter of those no pledges they made to Grover Norquist. It is sad indeed, that those pledges and the funding it brought to the Tea Party campaign coffers meant more to those teabaggers than the fate and well being of the citizens of this country.
Last edited:
Someone has been watching mainstream news again!
Obviously the Tea Party was shut out, they wanted trillions more in cuts and a balanced budget amendment.
This was all GOP/DEM theatrics.
.................. O.K. If the debate over the debit ceiling etc. had not been highjacked by the right wing Tea Party agenda, the congress GOP and DEM would have handled it as they have in the past. The ceiling would have been raised.
It was never a good idea to try and deal with the deficit and debit, during a game of Russian roulette.
Yes, spending and the tax code need to be addressed. Both of them. But this was not politics as usual. This was a case of extortion. In one sense the GOP in congress does carry some of the blame beyond the Tea Party demands. If they had been more concerned with the country than their attempt to rule as a party, the issue could have been dealt with in a bipartisan vote to simply raise the limit as has been the case in the past.
The question is will the GOP be able now to muzzle this minority and get down to actually addressing the issues at hand in a constructive manner?
The debt was "hijacked" by the tea party? Haaaa! Go back and read our history, we've defaulted before and we'll default again. Hell, we used to settle these argument with the pistol.
The long of the short of it is this: Most Americans are f*cked. They don't understand the structure of the government, don't know who their representatives are, have no idea what law is, can barely manage their pathetic lives are are being led like sheep to the slaughter. Sorry my fellow Americans, the rest of the world is tired of carrying your fat arses and it's wakey wakey time
The long of the short of it is this: Most Americans are f*cked. They don't understand the structure of the government, don't know who their representatives are, have no idea what law is, can barely manage their pathetic lives are are being led like sheep to the slaughter. Sorry my fellow Americans, the rest of the world is tired of carrying your fat arses and it's wakey wakey time
What makes you think Obama needs further convincing? Was he opposed to raising the debt ceiling to alleviate an imminent national crisis? What's the correct path as compared to the present? Is he supposed to just sell off the entire state? Seems the "present path" which is leading to disaster involves certain people believing a nation can exist with a unified set of ideals even when no central apparatus exists to embody said ideals. Lumping Obama in there as if he were equally central to the creation of this problem is like spreading equal blame to the police for not scrambling to meet hostage takers' demands, which would be utterly ridiculous even if the police fumbled in handling the situation.
What about the famines of the third world, due to Western imperialism and capitalism? What about the fact that people starve on the streets, or are denied education or health care, while others dine on roast pheasant and laugh all the way along?
Communism isn't perfect, but why is it wrong that I believe we ought to work for the good of humanity and share and get along?
I am so sick of your fucking rhetoric.
You do realize if your country tanks you CANNOT PAY THAT FUCKING MASSIVE DEBT????
He's a confused capitalist, don't listen to him.
Yeah, facts and rational discourse are big burdens. But I much prefer rational behavior to irrational behavior. That is probably why I am not a teabagger.
No one is saying US debt levels are too high. What is being said is that instead of freaking out and engaging in further irrational behavior, you know the kind of behavior that got us into this mess, let's look at the big picture and proven solutions.
Our number one problem at this moment in time, is growing the economy. Every dollar spend spent growing the economy improves the US debt situation by several orders of magnitude.
Additionally, there are many sides to this issue. Focusing on just one aspect, reducing spending, to the detriment of all others is just plane silly. Tax rates in the United States are the lowest they have been in 70 years. There is plenty of room for the United States government to boost it's income (i.e. taxes revenues). And there is zero evidence that increasing taxes will hurt the economy.
Last edited:
If the idea behind opposing tax increases is that it hurts the economy, shouldn't tax breaks be based on how many jobs one actually creates with the money they don't pay in tax? The old dogmatic Reaganomics system doesn't work verbatim, the trickle down doesn't go where it's supposed to in order to benefit the economy, and it will ultimately hurt the corporations themselves as a result of a weak domestic market and a poor supply of healthy, skilled workers.
Has anything actually been done to separate those who receive tax breaks and create sustainable jobs and profits with those breaks, vs. those who receive tax breaks and spend it all on excess luxuries instead? Doesn't sound like it from what I've been reading in the news and hearing from US politicians, I just keep hearing the repeated mantras of "higher taxes" vs. "taxes are evil". Where's the balance? Do Tea Party Republicans merely want to dismantle the state until it's comprised of nothing more than an (ostensibly) elected military? Do they not understand that government is what creates the national infrastructure which underlies corporate profits?
Has anything actually been done to separate those who receive tax breaks and create sustainable jobs and profits with those breaks, vs. those who receive tax breaks and spend it all on excess luxuries instead? Doesn't sound like it from what I've been reading in the news and hearing from US politicians, I just keep hearing the repeated mantras of "higher taxes" vs. "taxes are evil". Where's the balance? Do Tea Party Republicans merely want to dismantle the state until it's comprised of nothing more than an (ostensibly) elected military? Do they not understand that government is what creates the national infrastructure which underlies corporate profits?
trucetheeker
Registered Member
The fact that so many people are blaming one party or the other shows that the smoke and mirrors show is still working. Follow the money and you'll see that behind all the democrat or republican sham, the US government does exactly what its paymasters demand and that's not the American people. The whole game is transferring wealth from the masses to the elite and they have a multitude of scams to do it starting with Wall Street.
Stop watching the show and start paying attention to what's really going on. You might then be able to make a difference.
Stop watching the show and start paying attention to what's really going on. You might then be able to make a difference.
america loses credit rating
S&P announced that america's credit rating has been downgraded, because of the new budget plans..they say the budget plan is unsustainable..
i post this in free thoughts (no problem if it gets moved) because i am less than amateur when it comes to this kind of thing.
why does america have such a high credit rating to begin with?
is it a true indicator? or is it a political trick?
what is the problem with the budget plan?
where does that put us in the future?
<sorry i started this as a thread and didn't realized that one was already started)
S&P announced that america's credit rating has been downgraded, because of the new budget plans..they say the budget plan is unsustainable..
i post this in free thoughts (no problem if it gets moved) because i am less than amateur when it comes to this kind of thing.
why does america have such a high credit rating to begin with?
is it a true indicator? or is it a political trick?
what is the problem with the budget plan?
where does that put us in the future?
<sorry i started this as a thread and didn't realized that one was already started)
Last edited:
Why not return to the tax rates that did balance the budget under Clinton?
The standard Republican answer: "The wealthy make jobs {in the US} as their investments trickle down."
Is worse than nonsense. What GWB's tax actually did was to build more modern and efficient factories than the US has in Asia, especially in China where labor costs are a small fraction of what they are in the US.
Wealthy people are not idiots. Of course they will invest (build factories) where the rate of return is about 10 times higher than in the US due to low labor cost and an a very unsaturated market. China sold 18 million cars while the US only sold 11 million and most went to first time buyers.
The US is one fourth China's size and has a "replacement only market." US salaries are essentially stagnate in purchasing power, its middle class is shrinking, while China's is rapidly growing and where salaries are growing by about 15% annually in purchasing power.
Where would you build a new factory that makes, for example, refrigerators? In the US or in China, where more than the entire US population will be buying their first refrigerator in less than a decade.
GWB's tax relief for the already wealthy REDUCED jobs in the US. - Helped make Detroit a basket case. 10 years ago wealthy Chinese imported US cars.; Now BYD motors builds luxury models they buy and Detriot sells none to China.
Warren Buffet is a good example of how GWB's trickle down actually works. He invested in China, and now owns 10+% of BYD motors. Not only directly did his tax relief reduce revenues to the IRS, but all the factories in Detroit his Chinese factory helped to close are not paying taxes either. Nor are their former workers - instead they are COLLECTING unemployment.
The simple fact, historically proven, is that tax relief for the very wealthy who can afford international lawyers and advisers, etc. makes jobs in Asia and Reduces both jobs and revenues in the US.
Tax relief for the upper middle class does tend to make jobs in the US. Either they spend more or if unhappy with their job, may open their own business and directly hire others.
Get realistic and drop your silly ideology that GWB's tax relief for the already rich was good for the US via "trickle down." -It has been great for China, but a disaster for the US! Return to the tax rates that balanced the budget.
Last edited by a moderator:
CptBork, this is not a comment on your post or position. The quote is only cited as a stepping of point...
During times of recession, unemployment rises and tax revenue decreases as a result. Conventional idelalogies take two opposing views. Raise taxes on corporations and the rich or give additional tax breaks to corporations and the rich and cut spending. Or spend more on public funded projects to pump more money into the economy.
The background.
When the private sector is in recession, it becomes almost necessity that a government support the general economy, until the private sector begins to stabilize and recover.
Controlling spending when we are not in a recession is important and a significant portion if not the majority of our current debit is from just such spending. The govenment's ability to respond to national emergencies be they economic, natural distater, or military security threats is important and at times may require an increase in government spending.
Would it not be of some benefit to alter the tax structure such that everyone pays a flat tax, adjusted only for poverty levels, which would meet the economic needs during good or at least stable economic times and then place an adjustment (an additional tax rate) on corporate and high income tax categories that is tied only to the employment level, or unemployment rate. When unemployment is low, the upper tax rate would be low, even perhaps zero. When unemployment rises resulting in adverse affects on the economy and associated tax revenues, the rate foes up.
This would encourage employers and those who have the means to invest, to invest in a manner that best reduces the unemployment rate, thus maintaining their own tax rate at a minimum, while at the same time providing the government with the added revenue to support the economy during times of high unemployment and reduced tax revenues resulting from a high rate of unemployment.
To deal with natural disasters and military threats, it would probably be best to either hold an emergency fund aside or implement in the tax code automatic across the board rate increases, again adjusted only for poverty. A reserve fund most likely would not work as congress would surely find ways to tap into it for their own purposes.
That's a perfectly good idea, as long we clearly understand that paying down on debt is not "spending". It's "already spent".madanthony said:
So we freeze actual spending at current levels, quit the wars cold turkey and rewrite Medicare Plan D to keep from going over budget, and raise taxes on the wealthy to pay down the war and SS debt. That what you had in mind?
Reality free analysis - we're seeing a lot of that. Mostly from the right.Yazata said:
It's the lower density countries with mobile and growing populations that most benefit from the better transportation systems.adoucette said:
But you are getting your wish. And it will cost you a small fortune, added up over the next thirty years.
That involves levying higher taxes on wealthy people. Whether the US can do that any more, the way it did after WWII, is open to question.neitzschefan said: