S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

[Darryl1958]

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.

Most people in the world today would give a kidney to possess the kind of wealth that the bottom 50 % of Americans own today.
It is all about the actual size of the pie. Only is equality of outcome is the overriding value, do the actual percentages make much difference.

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.

Obama has never really said what the rich paying their fair share would be.
What amount of wealth and income would you like the government to tax or otherwise confiscate in order that the bottom 50 % own more than 2 % if the top 2% own less than 90%, or whatever the figure actually is?

What amount of wealth and income do people own outright and is not subject to government taking it away?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Which is totally irrelevant when talking about an INCOME tax…

And, once again, you’re neglecting the fact that not all income is taxable even when the people earning it are above the poverty line. Poverty isn’t the only factor that determines whether or not an income is taxable.

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.

That is a specious interpretation. I’m talking about the money associated with tax rates not ALL money. If the government receives money (taxes) which you never had in your possession and never had any legal claim to then what makes you think it belonged to you in the first place?

 

[CMatt25]

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.

Not exactly. There is enough blame to go around for George Bush to share some of it. Blame for instance also goes to the 60 vote super majority threshhold in the United States Senate where as a result of how it’s been used, the minority party has been able to exercise undue control in recent times. Liberals like me also blame a few of the more conservative members of the Democratic Senate caucus during Obama’s first 2 yrs. We don’t even let Obama entirely off the hook either in some respects. And now the Tea Party controlled Republican Party is much to blame. Not to mention the greed which has been sinking into corporate and wealthy America. Hope that helps clear it up for you.

 

[CMatt25]

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, you are still relatively new here. But maybe something I found by Fr Serpa might help you to understand why it might seem such discussion you refer to is one sided as to where people are coming from on the forum. Father explains Catholic Answers is not owned by the Church but is a private business instead. I hope that helps a bit. Peace.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8199777&postcount=2

 

[estesbob]

Sub rosa, you are still relatively new here. But maybe something I found by Fr Serpa might help you to understand why it seems discussion is one sided as to where people are coming from on the forum. Father explains Catholic Answers is not owned by the Church but is a private business instead. I hope that helps a bit. Peace.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8199777&postcount=2

I am sure it is very helpful for him to have a Non-catholic lecture us on what the Catholic Church teaches

 

[CMatt25]

I am sure it is very helpful for him to have a Non-catholic lecture us on what the Catholic Church teaches

Why was my post quoted regarding this? Sub rosa mentioned the forum discussion was one sided. I merely quoted Fr Serpa explaining how the forum is a private business. I guess I just didn’t know the Catholic Church taught Jesus was a Republican or Tea Party adherent. And that a Catholic had to be likewise.

 

[estesbob]

Why was my post quoted regarding this? Sub rosa mentoned the forum discussion was one sided. I merely quoted Fr Serpa explaining how the forum is a private business. I guess I just didn’t know the Catholic Church taught Jesus was and a Catholic must be a Republican.

Why would anyone be surprised that Catholc teaching is supported in a Catholic forums? “catholic must be Republican” strawman is duly noted.

 

[CMatt25]

Why would anyone be surprised that Catholc teaching is supported in a Catholic forums? “catholic must be Republican” strawman is duly noted.

Ok then to be clearer to you Bob, I didn’t know the Catholic Church teaches Jesus adhered to and a Catholic must also adhere to 2011 Republican or Tea Party politics. Thanks for clearing that up. If that’s the case that’s all the more reason why you don’t see Catholic in my profile then.

 

[sub_rosa]

Sub rosa, you are still relatively new here. But maybe something I found by Fr Serpa might help you to understand why it might seem such discussion you refer to is one sided as to where people are coming from on the forum. Father explains Catholic Answers is not owned by the Church but is a private business instead. I hope that helps a bit. Peace.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8199777&postcount=2

Thanks for the head up. That explains a lot.

 

[estesbob]

Ok then to be clearer to you Bob, I didn’t know the Catholic Church teaches Jesus adhered to and a Catholic must also adhere to 2011 Republican or Tea Party politics. Thanks for clearing that up. If that’s the case that’s all the more reason why you don’t see Catholic in my profile then.

Have you run out of straw yet?

 

[estesbob]

Thanks for the head up. That explains a lot.

LOL! you didn’t think a Catholic Forum would have a preponderance of members who adhered to the teachings of the Catholic Church? you actually needed a non-catholic to explain it to you?

 

[Darryl1958]

Ok then to be clearer to you Bob, I didn’t know the Catholic Church teaches Jesus adhered to and a Catholic must also adhere to 2011 Republican or Tea Party politics. Thanks for clearing that up. If that’s the case that’s all the more reason why you don’t see Catholic in my profile then.

I tried to respond to your quotation of me, but like this sarcastic comment about Jesus being a Tea Partier, your posts completely lack in substance.
If the debate is one sided, it is because all the facts are from the conservative side, and all that the left is offering is sarcasm, one-liners and rhetorical flourishes.

The tea party movement isn’t responsible for America being bogged down with trillions of dollars of debt, or Obamacare which promises trillions of dollars more of debt that S&P is telling everyone is unsustainable.
All the Tea Party is responsible for is changing the nature of the debate from one in which the questions center upon what the government can do to make your lives better, to one in which insane levels of spending are on everyone’s minds.

If they had managed to win the debate, or get their point across more firmly, then America’s credit rating would not have been downgraded.

 

[ProVobis]

If they had managed to win the debate, or get their point across more firmly, then America’s credit rating would not have been downgraded.

Probably not, but I don’t see the downgrade as bad. In fact, I’d give S&P points for having the guts to make the call, unlike Moody’s and Fitch who are being armtwisted into keep their high ratings of this debt plus all the corporate debt they rate.

 

[Darryl1958]

Probably not, but I don’t see the downgrade as bad. In fact, I’d give S&P points for having the guts to make the call, unlike Moody’s and Fitch who are being armtwisted into keep their high ratings of this debt plus all the corporate debt they rate.

I don’t see the decision as political, but merely a rational course of action that more accurately reflects the amount of risk involved in making loans to the American government

That is a good thing, for sure. when it comes to money, we don’t want the experts making their decisions according to their political whims, or worse at the beckoning of their political masters, but we want them to make the decisions according to a rational accounting of all the facts.
Government overspending is a serious matter. American politicians and the American people especially need to wake up to this fact. this story is just one more indication of how serious the problem is. It won’t be the last red flag going up either.

 

[sub_rosa]

LOL! you didn’t think a Catholic Forum would have a preponderance of members who adhered to the teachings of the Catholic Church? you actually needed a non-catholic to explain it to you?

Actually it was the attitude of so many posters that had me questioning what was going on over here. Since I have gone to a Catholic schools through graduate and doctoral studies I am amazed at the lack of factual information people seem to have. Since I have access to Catholic “heirachy” I don’t worry about my standing in the Church in voting. My bishop assures me I won’t be going to hell for voting for obama. I’ll take him at his word.

 

[estesbob]

Actually it was the attitude of so many posters that had me questioning what was going on over here. Since I have gone to a Catholic schools through graduate and doctoral studies I am amazed at the lack of factual information people seem to have. Since I have access to Catholic “heirachy” I don’t worry about my standing in the Church in voting. My bishop assures me I won’t be going to hell for voting for obama. I’ll take him at his word.

Lurkers should be warned that it is best to adhere to the actualn teachings of the Church snd not what anonymous internet Posters allege members of the Magestrium
Privately told them

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t see the decision as political, but merely a rational course of action that more accurately reflects the amount of risk involved in making loans to the American government

That is a good thing, for sure. when it comes to money, we don’t want the experts making their decisions according to their political whims, or worse at the beckoning of their political masters, but we want them to make the decisions according to a rational accounting of all the facts.
Government overspending is a serious matter. American politicians and the American people especially need to wake up to this fact. this story is just one more indication of how serious the problem is. It won’t be the last red flag going up either.

I agree.

 

[sub_rosa]

Lurkers should be warned that it is best to adhere to the actualn teachings of the Church snd not what anonymous internet Posters allege members of the Magestrium
Privately told them

Can you say that in English?

 

[Darryl1958]

In his support for “Born Alive” legislation, Obama in no uncertain terms stood for the rights of the abortionist over and above the rights of a living breathing human being. He in effect defended the infanticide being practiced in Illinois as testified to by Jill Stanek.

So even if my priest, the Catholic bishop of my diocese, the Cardinals and even the Pope of Rome himself assured me that it was legitimate to give my support to such a politician, my own conscience would never allow me to.

There is a world of difference between ‘may’, and ‘should’. To support the Culture of Death of Barrack Obama and the Democrats may be okay with the Catholic hierarchy, but that makes it no less monstrous what they stand for and support with their legislation.

 

[estesbob]

In his support for “Born Alive” legislation, Obama in no uncertain terms stood for the rights of the abortionist over and above the rights of a living breathing human being. He in effect defended the infanticide being practiced in Illinois as testified to by Jill Stanek.

So even if my priest, the Catholic bishop of my diocese, the Cardinals and even the Pope of Rome himself assured me that it was legitimate to give my support to such a politician, my own conscience would never allow me to.

There is a world of difference between ‘may’, and ‘should’. To support the Culture of Death of Barrack Obama and the Democrats may be okay with the Catholic hierarchy, but that makes it no less monstrous what they stand for and support with their legislation.

I think we need a bit more than " my Bishop assured me in private" before jumping to the conclusion that any member of the hierarchy stated it was OK to vote for Obama