S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

[Insight]

The main objective of the Tea (taxed enough already) was to CUT SPENDING. Please expand your media options.

Well said. The ridiculous spending has to stop. The billions in stimulus that backfired. The 3 billion for training shrimp to jog on treadmills, jell-o wrestling and nude swimming parties. The billions given to Planned Parenthood to murder babies in minority neighborhoods. The billions given to ACORN for organized voter fraud and coaching pimps on how to smuggle under-aged girls into the country for prostitution.

washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/tax-dollars-shrimp-treadmills-jell-o-wrestling/

lifenews.com/2011/07/13/members-of-congress-press-for-planned-parenthood-investigation/

youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U&feature=player_embedded

God Bless

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The Federal gov has spent us broke and people like you still divert the responsibility back to the people, while attempting to toss in a good old guilt trip on top of it. Wow, no wonder this country is so messed up.

Notice the poster does not assign any blame to our President----or even congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle.

It’s all those right-wing, demonic, selfish Tea Partiers who don’t want to pay taxes and are acolytes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann----as well as apologists for the “rich and powerful.”

Figures. Oh, boy.

 

[sub_rosa]

Most posters are ignoring the fact that the S&P had factored in an expiration of the so called Bush tax cuts. The failure of Congress to allow them to expire and seeming intransigence on the issue has played a role in their decision. So, they are basically saying that a mix of spending cuts and more revenue is what they were looking for in a budget. I know this makes little difference to people that only desire to criticize and blame Obama for all manner of ill in the world. And, it is precisely what motivates the Tea Party and the House Republicans. The fact of the matter is that it is Congress’s responsibility to pass budgets, set spending limits, and borrow the money to pay for that spending. This was a manufactured crisis. The Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted for a budget that required the government to spend more than it took in in revenues. So, they tacitly agreed to borrow more money when the passed the continuing resolution that poses for a budget that is currently in force. Their sudden refusal to raise the Debt Ceiling is the height of hypocracy. It doesn’t take a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. It takes political will. And, like it or not, there have only been two Presidents that have submitted a balnaced budget to Congress. Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. These are the factss. They are not in dispute except in the heat oppressed minds of the Tea Party.

Yes! Yes! Yes!
I have refrained from posting because the discussion has been so one-sided. I know where people are coming from in this forum. Blame this on Obama when the republicans are to blame. The lack of factual info is astounding.

 

[sub_rosa]

Notice the poster does not assign any blame to our President----or even congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle.

It’s all those right-wing, demonic, selfish Tea Partiers who don’t want to pay taxes and are acolytes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann----as well as apologists for the “rich and powerful.”

Figures. Oh, boy.

why would they? it’s the Tea Parties fault. Plain and simple. Thank you so much!

 

[comrade1789]

It is sad that the Maoist regime in China has to lecture America, acting like that bratty teenager it is, giving sound advice actually: "Beijing, which did not release any other official statement on the downgrade, called on Washington to make substantial cuts to its ‘gigantic military expenditure’ and its ‘bloated social welfare” programs.’ --(source: msnbc.msn.com/id/44045568). Our wealth is being handed over to our enemies, a once Godly nation, we are being plundered, our wealth is going into exile. It won’t be long before China starts calling the shots in US domestic policy under threat of calling in the debts. If the Left hates the Christian stance on homosexuality, it will really hate China’s stance, as Marxist-Leninist stance sees homosexuality as an abherration of capitalist degredation and moral collapse. If the Left loves “pro-choice” so much, they will really be sad when, like China, there is “No-Choice,” courtesy of Planned Parenthoon Int’l and Mary Stopes Int’l, the 2 largest abortion contractors in China, enforcing the forced abortion, sterilization policy of the regime.

There are now more English speaking people in nations like China and India than there are in America. China has the largest middle-class in the world, translated as the largest wealth-producing class and largest consumption class in the world. All that weaponry we bought is aging and becoming inoperable, and is reaching the point where it can no longer be used as a strongarm to keep our creditors at bay. As always with God’s people, if they won’t reform themselves, God will use Nebuchadnezzar to reform them.

As far as this silly business of blaming the Republicans or Democrats separately for this mess, I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton

:“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

 

[bbarrick8383]

Yes! Yes! Yes!
I have refrained from posting because the discussion has been so one-sided. I know where people are coming from in this forum. Blame this on Obama when the republicans are to blame. The lack of factual info is astounding.

I would like you to explain then with factual information how tax increases always equate to revenue increases.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I would like you to explain then with factual information how tax increases always equate to revenue increases.

Did the Clinton tax rate increases cause more revenue or less revenue?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Did the Clinton tax rate increases cause more revenue or less revenue?

Are the two economy’s identical? Even close?

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Did the Clinton tax rate increases cause more revenue or less revenue?

Clinton … er the Republican led congress… passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:
* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.

The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000–a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.

heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Tax-Cuts-Not-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom

 

[bbarrick8383]

Clinton … er the Republican led congress… passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:
* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.

The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000–a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.

heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Tax-Cuts-Not-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom

But wait…doesn’t a tax increase always mean revenue increase?

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

like it or not, there have only been two Presidents that have submitted a balnaced budget to Congress. Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. These are the factss. They are not in dispute except in the heat oppressed minds of the Tea Party.

Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan – a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

Thank you Newt Gingerich.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Ah… Clinton… the big hero to the left…

diplomatdc.wordpress.com/category/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-u-s-presidents/

the Clinton Administration had worked diligently to stop balanced budget efforts in the past. For example, the President was involved in the effort to defeat the September 1993 bipartisan Penny-Kasich Deficit Reduction Act. It would have eliminated hundred of useless and obsolete agencies, and outlined a specific cuts. A year later Clinton personally made calls to defeat the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Labor Secretary Robert Reich said “The President is against simply balancing the budget,” and Clinton said “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

So why did he decide to sign a balanced budget?

Democrats lost 54 seats in the House of Representatives that year, and 8 seats in the Senate (followed by two defections after the election), giving the Republicans a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954. The Republicans also had a net gain of 12 governors’ seats in that election.
Clinton had good reason to pay less attention to the people who had given him such bad advice, and he accepted Morris’ advocacy of a balanced budget plan. Morris also said, “We need to tell the liberal Democratic congressional wing to shut up. Their agenda is no longer relevant.”

 

[Darryl1958]

why would they? it’s the Tea Parties fault. Plain and simple. Thank you so much!

People voted for Obama because they trusted the Democrats with the economy more than the Republicans.

If he is not responsible for the economy when he is the most powerful man on the earth to do something about it, then he needs to be replaced.

An empty suit taking up space does not a good president make. If it is the Tea Party who are held responsible from their position on the side lines, then good that they be actually given the responsibility to do something about it. Obviously, Democrats are more suited to whining and complaining about others than actually doing something that will make the situation better.

 

[Darryl1958]

Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan – a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

Thank you Newt Gingerich.

It is good to remember that in the Clinton years, Republicans exercised significant power in Congress. Good for Clinton if he claimed responsibility for their good judgment. It is the kidn of judgment that Democrats now would do good to follow.
It is good to remember also that Democrats exercised significant power in Congress during the Bush years.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

like it or not, there have only been two Presidents that have submitted a balnaced budget to Congress. Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. These are the factss. They are not in dispute except in the heat oppressed minds of the Tea Party.

Harry Truman:
"
Truman’s economic policy sought to balance the federal budget through a combination of high taxes and limited spending; any budget surplus would be applied to the national debt. As the economy stalled, Truman in mid-1949 abandoned his hope for a balanced budget and gave some tax breaks to businesses. The economy responded by perking up in 1950. "

Take a guess everyone who controlled congress when he was able to pass tax breaks to perk up the economy… That’s right… REPUBLICANS!

millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/truman/essays/biography/4

 

[7_Sorrows]

if only Geithner and Obama could have been replaced last year or two years ago.
could someone name one positive act they have done that has helped the real estate market, the unemployment, the economy in general since Obama took office.
i believe i read somewhere that Tim’s mother or father and Obama’s mother had worked together at some time or other. maybe Obama feels a bond with Tim. however, since they both took office, they both have been in over their heads. time for both of them to step down i say.

 

[ProVobis]

any budget surplus would be applied to the national debt.

It’s hard to fathom but it would take well over a century (and countless number of Presidents and Congresses) of consecutive $100 Billion yearly surpluses to eliminate this debt. These aren’t just our grandkids we’re talking about that will be paying interest here. Seems like an AA+ rating is way too high.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

It’s hard to fathom but it would take well over a century (and countless number of Presidents and Congresses) of consecutive $100 Billion yearly surpluses to eliminate this debt. These aren’t just our grandkids we’re talking about here. Seems like an AA+ rating is way too high.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

.It took tax cuts to bring the economy back.

But even a full recovery doesn’t guarantee a balanced budget. The only years that I recall which had a balanced budget were in 1969 and 1999(?). The one in 1969 was a result of the LBJ’s 10% surtax to pay for the Vietnam war. And we all know the events of the 90’s which produced that then-surplus. Just saying. (BTW, I’m neither a Republican nor Democrat because I just don’t see the point.)

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

People voted for Obama because they trusted the Democrats with the economy more than the Republicans.

If he is not responsible for the economy when he is the most powerful man on the earth to do something about it, then he needs to be replaced.

An empty suit taking up space does not a good president make. If it is the Tea Party who are held responsible from their position on the side lines, then good that they be actually given the responsibility to do something about it. Obviously, Democrats are more suited to whining and complaining about others than actually doing something that will make the situation better.

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.