S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

[Stjudeprayforus]

Thank you. Whatever you might think about the totality of who is responsible for this, this happened on Barry’s watch.
Like a businesswoman told Cavuto on Fox early this morning, the argument that Obama “inherited this” is totally groundless. She said she was a CEO and she also inherited problems with her business but she FIXED them----that’s what a ;eader does----fixes problems.

youtube.com/watch?v=GaL5Uf_fd6M&feature=share

It was good… here is the video for those who want to see it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Thank you. Whatever you might think about the totality of who is responsible for this, this happened on Barry’s watch.
Like a businesswoman told Cavuto on Fox early this morning, the argument that Obama “inherited this” is totally groundless. She said she was a CEO and she also inherited problems with her business but she FIXED them----that’s what a ;eader does----fixes problems.

I heard Arian Huffington ditching him too.

 

[Nec5]

Hey, we got a Plus! I’ll take a plus over an extra “A” any day. If other countries try charging us higher interest to buy our debt, well, we won’t invade another country when it starts acting up. So there!:tiphat:

By the way, where are all the Pollyannas here and elsewhere that said unemployment was a lagging indicator 2 or 3 years ago? Yeah, it’s lagging. Just like the economy.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Even Democrats as far back as Truman keep trying to raise taxes in the hopes it helps.
and of course… Democrats plans stall the economy. For Truman…It took tax cuts to bring the economy back.
Democrats never learn.

Did Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 stall the economy?

 

[agnes_therese]

Even Democrats as far back as Truman keep trying to raise taxes in the hopes it helps.
and of course… Democrats plans stall the economy. For Truman…It took tax cuts to bring the economy back.
Democrats never learn.

Only Democrats raise taxes? That would be a surprise to Ronald Reagan. Perhaps you don’t remember him being criticized for what some called the largest tax increase in history. (quite possibly an exaggeration, as with all things political, but still . . .)

 

[ProVobis]

Hey, we got a Plus! I’ll take a plus over an extra “A” any day. If other countries try charging us higher interest to buy our debt, well, we won’t invade another country when it starts acting up. So there!:tiphat:

Raising interest rates is a consequence of selling bonds. Any other government OR INDIVIDUAL is free (from our side, anyway) to buy or sell these bonds at the market price. Of course this “free” market may be distorted by Fed purchases (or sales, which have yet to happen). Or the purchases by other central banks, who also can print money to buy them. Either way, such purchases by the central banks add to the national debt.

BTW, the information on who holds the bonds isn’t disclosed for 2-3 months.

treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

finance.yahoo.com/news/-14-Trillion-Debt-But-Who-atlantic-40631997.html?cmtnav=/mwphucmtgetnojspage/headcontent/main/40631997//num_rating_up/desc/1/0

Note that the Federal Reserve holds half of the $5.7 Trillion that the government “owes itself.” Ron Paul claims that some of this can be cancelled since it’s phony spending. They could also sell them, but that obviously would decrease prices and effectively raise rates.

 

[ProVobis]

Only Democrats raise taxes? That would be a surprise to Ronald Reagan.

Indeed. In the 1986 Tax Reform Act, many deductions were eliminated for everyone. In fact, Reagan even wanted to scrap the home mortgage deduction but this wasn’t agreed to by Congress.

He also raised the SS (payroll) tax, which Obama now wants to cut.

 

[Trader]

Indeed. In the 1986 Tax Reform Act, many deductions were eliminated for everyone. In fact, Reagan even wanted to scrap the home mortgage deduction but this wasn’t agreed to by Congress.

He also raised the SS (payroll) tax, which Obama now wants to cut.

Ah, but he only wants the cut to be temporary, so when he is gone and the cut expires the tax increase for the working poor and middle class will be on someone else.

The temporary nature of our whole tax and spending system contributes to the stall in economic growth. How does a business plan for a plant that takes three years to permit, design, and build when they have no idea what the rules will be at that time? They could wind up like Boeing who spent a billion dollars on a plant in South Carolina and was told by NLRB that they could not use it. It would have been OK with them to relocate to Mexico, but not to South Carolina. Last I heard the people of South Carolina were also Americans.

 

[estesbob]

Indeed. In the 1986 Tax Reform Act, many deductions were eliminated for everyone. In fact, Reagan even wanted to scrap the home mortgage deduction but this wasn’t agreed to by Congress.

He also raised the SS (payroll) tax, which Obama now wants to cut.

An interesting part of this raising of the Social Security payroll tax was institution of the Earned Income Credit, which was designed to refund to the working poor the increase in Social Security taxes. . It has since taken on a life of its own and far outstripped its original intentions.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Even Democrats as far back as Truman keep trying to raise taxes in the hopes it helps.
and of course… Democrats plans stall the economy. For Truman…It took tax cuts to bring the economy back.
Democrats never learn.

We’ve had tax cuts for 10 years. Its clear that the old trickle-down theory is wrong.

 

[Darryl1958]

We’ve had tax cuts for 10 years. Its clear that the old trickle-down theory is wrong.

The Reagan era inaugurated the longest economic boom in American history. With all the pundits talking about the end of American influence in the 1970’s, America pulled so far ahead of the world in economic terms in the ensuing years that all that talk of America’s demise that preceded him became ludicrous. With twenty-five years of unprecedented growth, what is unclear is how anyone could still think that the theory was wrong.

America now has a spending problem, and raising taxes is not going to fix that. There are simply not enough taxes available to be raised from the millionaires and the billionaires to feed government’s voracious spending habits.

 

[estesbob]

We’ve had tax cuts for 10 years. Its clear that the old trickle-down theory is wrong.

You will not find any conservative economist using the term" trickle-down" to describe the benefits of lower taxes. The truth is I should not have to justify wanting to keep the money I earn over and above what is necessary to help run the country. It doesn’t matter whether my money trickles down or not-it is my money. The problem we have in the country today is solely due to excessive spending . Without a balanced budget amendment raising taxes, in addition to the harm it would do to an already fragile economy, does nothing more than enable the government to continue their wasteful ways.

 

[estesbob]

I actually find some truth to this:

“I find it interesting to see S&P so vigilant now in downgrading the U.S. credit rating,” said Sen. Bernie Sander, a Vermont independent who votes with Democrats.

“Where were they four years ago when they, and other credit rating agencies, helped cause this horrendous recession by providing AAA ratings to worthless subprime on behalf of Wall Street investment firms?” he said. “Where were they last December when Congress and the White House drove up the national debt by $700 billion by extending Bush’s tax breaks for the rich?”

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said that the rating agencies have a horrible record and people should pay no attention to them.

Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/06/credit-ratings-agency-defends-downgrade-us-debt/#ixzz1UM6p9iD5

 

[jomoco]

We’ve had tax cuts for 10 years. Its clear that the old trickle-down theory is wrong.

Yes, and the raygun legacy of privatization of govt lives on like frankenstein stomping about in the middle east for profit.

Though Blackwater changed its name, I’m sure it was a real moral booster for our troops to fight alongside mercenaries being paid ten times more money than them, that could quit and fly back home whenever they wanted to, murder at will, etc.

Ah yes, ronnie raygun, who almost tripled our natnl debt, the tea party’s “conservative” hero!

A grade b actor spending like david o selznick producing gone with the wind, the soviet version?

Who was raygun’s economic boy genius that actually invented trickle down economics?

Some young preppie named stockman? Who later admitted TDE was a mistake he regretted?

jomoco

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You will not find any conservative economist using the term" trickle-down" to describe the benefits of lower taxes. The truth is I should not have to justify wanting to keep the money I earn over and above what is necessary to help run the country. It doesn’t matter whether my money trickles down or not-it is my money.

Its your money and the State can choose to take a portion of it. When the State gives the rich a tax break it expects a return on that investment in the form of jobs. If those jobs aren’t generated the State can and should rescind that tax cut.

Without a balanced budget amendment raising taxes, in addition to the harm it would do to an already fragile economy, does nothing more than enable the government to continue their wasteful ways.

As opposed to to throwing away revenue for jobs that have never been created? There was no economic apocalypse when Reagan and Clinton raised taxes during a recession.

 

[estesbob]

Its your money and the State can choose to take a portion of it. When the State gives the rich a tax break it expects a return on that investment in the form of jobs. If those jobs aren’t generated the State can and should rescind that tax cut.

What a novel economic theory. A theory that makes sense only if one buys into the progessvie nonsense that all money bbelongs to the State and taxes determine how much of the States money we are allowed to keep.

As opposed to to throwing away revenue for jobs that have never been created? There was no economic apocalypse when Reagan and Clinton raised taxes during a recession.

If this is true why is the Left calling for more sti,ula spending? After all look how much it has done for the economy so far.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Only Democrats raise taxes? That would be a surprise to Ronald Reagan. Perhaps you don’t remember him being criticized for what some called the largest tax increase in history. (quite possibly an exaggeration, as with all things political, but still . . .)

Yes… Reagan compromised with a democrat majority and it backfired. Raising taxes NEVER works. EVER.

It was when he LOWERED taxes that the economy took off.

 

[sw85]

Yes… Reagan compromised with a democrat majority and it backfired. Raising taxes NEVER works. EVER.

It was when he LOWERED taxes that the economy took off.

It’s not lowering taxes itself but raising deficit spending that helps the economy.

The GDP formula is C + I + G + (X - M), where C is consumption, I is investment, G is government, X is exports, and M is imports (thus (X - M) is the trade deficit/surplus). Taxes hurt GDP by lowering the amount of money available for C and I; thus, government spending funded entirely by taxes has zero impact on the economy, since it’s accompanied by equivalent reductions in C and I.

Thus the impact of G on the economy is net positive ONLY when G is financed by deficit spending. (Granted, this impact is short-term – the debt must be repaid with interest eventually, so it’s long-term impact is negative). Cutting taxes without cutting spending raises C and I but leaves G constant and fills in the difference with sovereign debt, which, as we’re increasingly seeing, is unsustainable.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

What a novel economic theory. A theory that makes sense only if one buys into the progessvie nonsense that all money bbelongs to the State and taxes determine how much of the States money we are allowed to keep.

It is a fact that is revealed when one reads the Constitution. The amount of money that belongs to the State is determined by the State and it is under no Constitutional obligation to return any of the money garnered through taxes directly to the people. Theres no such thing as a Constitutional right to tax breaks and determining tax rates is not a right reserved for the people. Constitutionally speaking; what money belongs to you is ultimately not determined by you.

If this is true why is the Left calling for more sti,ula spending? After all look how much it has done for the economy so far.

Stimulus spending provides temporary jobs. The only mistake the Federal government made was allowing the States to manage those funds. Stimulus spending won’t work if the States refuse the money or don’t use it for its intended purpose.

 

[estesbob]

It is a fact that is revealed when one reads the Constitution. Determining tax rates is not a right reserved for the people. The amount of money that belongs to the State is determined by the State and it is under no Constitutional obligation to return any of the money garnered through taxes directly to the people. Theres no such thing as a Constitution right to tax breaks.

Right to tax breaks??? Just what is a tax break? The truth is there is no such thing as a tax break UNLESS one believes all money belongs to the Govt

Stimulus spending provides temporary jobs. The only mistake the Federal government made was allowing the States to manage those funds. Stimulus spending won’t work if the States refuse the money or don’t use it for its intended purpose.

If stimuls spending created permanent jobs we have full employment.