S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stjudeprayforus said:
From my experience… I never did better than I did under Bush. I could have gotten a job in a day if I wanted. Times were great here.
Click to expand...
You’re just speaking from personal experience. I prospered more under Carter, having three raises within one year and always having multiple job offers, but I’m not going to say Carter was the best president ever.
 
ProVobis said:
You’re just speaking from personal experience. I prospered more under Carter, having three raises within one year and always having multiple job offers, but I’m not going to say Carter was the best president ever.
Click to expand...
Did I say Bush was the best President ever?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Take the time to examine why that is the case.The amount of tax paid by the top 50% has increased, even though the rate is lower, because they possess 98% of the nation’s taxable wealth.The bottom 50% only possess 2% of the nation’s taxable wealth which results in far less taxes paid in comparison. Nearly 50% pay nothing because nothing they possess is taxable. There is no scandal in that and no one should complain about it unless they want the top 50% to distribute more taxable wealth to the bottom 50%. So, its ironic that the same people who complain about this are the same people who lambast socialism.
Click to expand...
Again, you operate under the premise that all wealth belongs of the federal government and the purpose of government is to decide how to distribute it… as long as nearly 50% of the people pay no federal income tax they will continue to elect people who call for higher taxes on everybody but themselves and spending money we don’t have mostly on people who don’t pay anything into the tax system in the first place.
 
estesbob said:
Again, you operate under the premise that all wealth belongs of the federal government and the purpose of government is to decide how to distribute it… as long as nearly 50% of the people pay no federal income tax they will continue to elect people who call for higher taxes on everybody but themselves and spending money we don’t have mostly on people who don’t pay anything into the tax system in the first place.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Big_Ro said:
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.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
sub_rosa said:
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.
Click to expand...
:amen: I understand what you are saying. You’ve noticed it too? The private forum is called Catholic Answers but there are a lot of Republican answers it seems. God bless and peace.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
they want the top 50% to distribute more taxable wealth to the bottom 50%.
Click to expand...
Those real estate monguls of the housing boom ultimately paid the price, though it wasn’t through taxation. And they’re amongst the unemployed now.
 
estesbob said:
Again, you operate under the premise that all wealth belongs of the federal government and the purpose of government is to decide how to distribute it… as long as nearly 50% of the people pay no federal income tax they will continue to elect people who call for higher taxes on everybody but themselves and spending money we don’t have mostly on people who don’t pay anything into the tax system in the first place.
Click to expand...
You completely missed the point so I’ll restate it. Nearly 50% pay nothing in taxes because they don’t possess anything taxable. Whether or not anyone wants to resolve that problem by redistributing wealth is immaterial to that fact but it is indisputable that some of the taxable wealth must be distributed to the bottom 50% in order to garner more in taxes from them. Who does it is a separate issue but if you want to maintain the status quo in terms of the current distribution of taxable wealth in this country (98% for the top 50% and 2% for the bottom 50%) then you shouldn’t be complaining about the fact that nearly 50% don’t pay taxes. Higher taxes on those who possess 98% of taxable wealth is the tradeoff for allowing them maintain possession of such an enormous percentage of it. The government isn’t going to bring in more revenue by taxing 0.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You completely missed the point so I’ll restate it. Nearly 50% pay nothing in taxes because they don’t possess anything taxable. Whether or not anyone wants to resolve that problem by redistributing wealth is immaterial to that fact but since you seem to be opposed to redistribution I would like to know how you would propose changing the fact that nearly 50% don’t possess anything taxable. If you want them to pay taxes then you’ll have to find a way to ensure that something which can be taxed winds up in their possession. Otherwise, you have no grounds to criticize them. In the meantime, taxes will have to be raised on those of us in society who actually possess taxable wealth because you can’t tax 0.
Click to expand...
With a poverty rate of 12% it is absolute nonsense to claim that 50% of the people in this county don’t possess anything taxable-especially when we are talking about a federal INCOME tax. Unless you are claiming that 50% of the people in this country have no income whatsoever your latest premise is just as bad as your premise that all money belongs of the government and that the purpose of government is to decide how to *fairly *distribute this money
 
ProVobis said:
These spending habits have somewhat subsided, but not by choice. Where people could easily find borrowed money based on their rising home prices during Greenspan’s era, they found themselves short as home prices began tanking. I’ll agree with you that finding ways to tax will not improve anything because, for one thing, it would take time to bring in the additional revenue even if they were to double the taxes today. There’s no way to cover immediate expenses other than issue more Treasury bonds.
Click to expand...
The spending habits of individuals have somewhat subsided, because they can’t issue themselves treasury notes. As far as government goes, there is no end in site. Health care has barely even gotten started, and the world looks no safer, nore Europe and the rest of the West any more capable of pitching in, in any meaningful and substantial way at least.

Of course, over a quarter of a century, some people with large responsibilities over the economy have been more capable than others, and government sponsored financial organizations underwrote capitalist greed to the extent of creating a housing bubble based on a charade that anyone can afford a house. The conservative fiscal revolution that began in the Reagan era did eventually end for sure.
The thing is to argue that those economic policies do not work ignores the history of some unprecedented good economic times for Americans.
There is luck and circumstance involved too. The technological revolution of the Clinton era drove a lot of wealth generation. Other than allowing it to happen, government policy was neither the driving force behind it, nor did any bad policy have enough impact to curb it.

The arguments against taxation come in a variety of forms. Most point out that raising taxes or even threatening to raise taxes drives away the investor class, who opt to put their money in tax shelters or even overseas rather than create the jobs and the wealth that will make the economy larger. If greater taxation ends up making the pie smaller by driving away businesses and investments to more tax-friendly places, even larger percentages of taxation on a smaller pie will not get the returns that allowing the pie to grow does. 5% of a huge pie can be bigger in real terms than even 50 % of a tiny pie.

Then again forcing that pie to be larger than it should be, as for example encouraging home-buying through irrationally easy credit, only causes Ponzi scheme bubbles that have no relation to reality.
Issuing treasure bills or otherwise raising the debt ceiling is a quick fix, and the only option for the short term.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
I would take Bush back in a minute over the failure we have now.
Click to expand...
Not a lot to hope for on the economic horizon now, and the change has been one disaster after another.

And the main response of Democrats here is to still blame Bush?!!
If Obama has had no effect, nor is capable of doing anything, then he should never been elected in the first place.
 
estesbob said:
With a poverty rate of 12% it is absolute nonsense to claim that 50% of the people in this county don’t possess anything taxable-especially when we are talking about a federal INCOME tax.
Click to expand...
The bottom 50% only possess 2% of the nation’s wealth and not all income is taxable. The poverty rate is not an overall indicator of taxable wealth. Just because someone is above the poverty level doesn’t mean that they possess anything taxable.
estesbob said:
your premise that all money belongs of the government and that the purpose of government is to decide how to *fairly *distribute this money
Click to expand...
I never said that all money belongs to the government nor did I say that it is the government’s job to fairly distribute money. I said that money associated with the rate of taxation belongs to the government and I never said who should be responsible for distributing taxable wealth.
 
estesbob said:
Again, you operate under the premise that all wealth belongs of the federal government and the purpose of government is to decide how to distribute it… as long as nearly 50% of the people pay no federal income tax they will continue to elect people who call for higher taxes on everybody but themselves and spending money we don’t have mostly on people who don’t pay anything into the tax system in the first place.
Click to expand...
In principle it is wrong for people to be able to vote for tax increases on others if they are in no way ready to shoulder the burden too.

In the end, Americans will have to decide if they value economic equality where everybody has the same amount of material wealth, or whether the American dream means more to them, and that individuals themselves are entitled to the benefit of actually owning their wealth.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The bottom 50% only possess 2% of the nation’s wealth and not all income is taxable. The poverty rate is not an overall indicator of taxable wealth. Just because someone is above the poverty level doesn’t mean that they possess anything taxable.
Click to expand...
Which is totally irrelevant when talking about an INCOME tax. . I suspect he would not be surprised to know that the rich pay far more (name removed by moderator)ROPERTY taxes than the poor do and that nobody is suggesting we levy a property tax on people that don’t own property. when talking about an income tax, however, it is specious to 50% of the people in this country should pay no federal income tax. . Everyone enjoys the benefits of living in this great country and everybody but those in abject poverty should support it.
I never said that all money belongs to the government nor did I say that it is the government’s job to fairly distribute money. I said that money associated with the rate of taxation belongs to the government and I never said who should be responsible for distributing taxable wealth.
Click to expand...
You have continually talked about" tax breaks" You also claimed that taxes should be raised on the rich because they didn’t produce enough jobs. Such an attitude must springs from a belief that all money belongs to the government and the purpose of taxation is merely to determine how much of the government’s money an individual gets to keep. If one properly understands that income belongs to the one who earns it than terminology like “tax breaks” is meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top