S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

[iamrefreshed]

I’ll wait.

Yes, a long, long time.

 

[Darryl1958]

Try actually reading page 4 of the s&p downgrade report itself to answer your question.

The S&P Credit Rating Downgrade Report states on Page 4: “Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”

And anyone who says different has not read the report.

Hate to pop your little teaparty bubbles boys, but it is what it is, despite wishful thinking.

jomoco

So, is it your position that vast government spending ‘investing’ in clean energy and education funded by huge tax increases on only the riches of the rich is the solution to this, and that if the Tea Party believed this too, then the triple A credit rating could be maintained?

 

[estesbob]

President Obama is about to give another speech, so all our problems are over.

. I just heard him say in his speech that unemployment benefits create jobs. Can somebody explain that to me?

 

[rlg94086]

. I just heard him say in his speech that unemployment benefits create jobs. Can somebody explain that to me?

Hmm…well, I’m sure there are some other government jobs out there, where you are paid to do nothing.

 

[Trader]

. I just heard him say in his speech that unemployment benefits create jobs. Can somebody explain that to me?

The liberal position is that unemployment benefits allow the jobless to keep spending.

They ignore the part that the benefits also allow them to refuse jobs beneath them, or decide not to create their own by self-employment. I know from personal experience that the self-employed are some of the hardest working people in any economy. We might have more self-empolyed without the high tax and regulatory burden, starting with the 15.3% self-employment tax.

By the way, the market has dropped even more after the speech.

 

[estesbob]

Hmm…well, I’m sure there are some other government jobs out there, where you are paid to do nothing.

It is the second time in a week his administration has made this claim. . In fact today he said that they didn’t extend the payroll tax break and extend unemployment benefits it would cost 1 million jobs.

. I’m also somewhat amused about the Obama administration talking points the downgrade that was caused by runaway spending and borrowing was caused by the tea party’s insistence that we rein in runaway spending and borrowing.

 

[estesbob]

The liberal position is that unemployment benefits allow the jobless to keep spending.

They ignore the part that the benefits also allow them to refuse jobs beneath them, or decide not to create their own by self-employment. I know from personal experience that the self-employed are some of the hardest working people in any economy. We might have more self-empolyed without the high tax and regulatory burden, starting with the 15.3% self-employment tax.

By the way, the market has dropped even more after the speech.

I noticed that. It is now down more than 500 points. But then when you turn your country over to someone who has absolutely no experience whatsoever why should you be surprised when he shows no leadership whatsoever?

 

[Ridgerunner]

. I just heard him say in his speech that unemployment benefits create jobs. Can somebody explain that to me?

As a statist, he might well think it; Keynsian “multiplier effect” and all. The same result could be achieved by throwing money out of a substantial number of helicopters, and without the bureaucratic loss entitlements entail. It is true, though, that as government transfer payments go up, income from wages goes down. Unemployment benefits are paid out of someone’s pocket, either his immediate pocket or his notional “future pocket” (i.e., debt). Either way, it negatively affects income from work.

It is interesting, though, that as a percentage of national income as a whole, that percentage enjoyed by capital goes up with unemployment, (though down in absolute numbers) while at full employment, the percentage enjoyed by capital goes down relative to labor. (though up in absolute numbers)

So, liberals really ought to concentrate on full employment and not on transfer payments if they want the labor percentage to increase as a percentage of the whole. But they don’t of course. Somehow, they think they can encroach on capital without reducing income from labor, notwithstanding that it has never worked as a strategy.

 

[ProVobis]

Hmm…well, I’m sure there are some other government jobs out there, where you are paid to do nothing.

Government jobs have been on a decline. But what they should do is to take the existing government jobs and re-evaluate the pay and benefits. Pension payments to retired government workers these days are an enormous strain on the taxpayer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I noticed that. It is now down more than 500 points. But then when you turn your country over to someone who has absolutely no experience whatsoever why should you be surprised when he shows no leadership whatsoever?

Oh no. He is absolutely showing leadership. But it is leadership in pushing an ideology that’s alien to most of us. Interesting that Soros made his hedge fund immune from disclosure right before this.

 

[ProVobis]

499 out of the 500 S&P companies are lower today. Those S&P guys sure know how to stir up the markets.

Even Warren Buffet’s company got put on negative watch. And he was the guy who wanted to upgrade US debt to AAAA.

 

[CMatt25]

Well once again today I heard the President himself talk about things in his plan. That going forward we need common sense and compromise. Which he said in his plan includes only those most able to afford paying more to have their taxes increased along with modest cuts in Medicare. We all should know if we were following the past few yrs, that at one point the President had in his plan to expire the Bush tax cuts for those above a quarter million dollars a year or for those in only the upper 2 or 3% of incomes. I’m sure he would go with an even higher cut off if need be to get at least some additional revenue. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have not delivered the jobs as promised. So now we’ll see if his opposition will use common sense and be willing to compromise and even be willing to raise taxes on any of the uppermost incomes.

 

[estesbob]

Well once again today I heard the President himself talk about things in his plan. That going forward we need common sense and compromise. Which he said in his plan includes only those most able to afford paying more to have their taxes increased along with modest cuts in Medicare. We all should know if were following, that at one point the President had in his plan to expire the Bush tax cuts for those above a quarter million dollars a year or for those in only the upper 2 or 3% of incomes. I’m sure he would go with an even higher cut off if need be to get at least some additional revenue. So now we’ll see if his opposition will use common sense and be willing to compromise and even be willing to raise taxes on any of the uppermost incomes.

And once again you failed to give any details whatsoever about what is plan entailed. just more vague promises of balance ,revenue enhancements and modest cuts with absolutely no specifics.

 

[CMatt25]

And once again you failed to give any details whatsoever about what is plan entailed. just more vague promises of balance ,revenue enhancements and modest cuts with absolutely no specifics.

Estesbob you might have needed to pay closer attention to what the President has said over the course of time then. Because for instance there was not a thing vague about his original number of a quarter of a million dollars. You just don’t agree with the details is all.

 

[SamH]

And once again you failed to give any details whatsoever about what is plan entailed. just more vague promises of balance ,revenue enhancements and modest cuts with absolutely no specifics.

Wasn’t that the basis of the Obama election campaign? To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi we had to elect him to find out what he proposed. Now we know, an empty suit parroting a teleprompter.

When he spoke today the market took another 200 point drop. I guess the opinion polls were instantaneous on that one.

 

[SamH]

that at one point the President had in his plan to expire the Bush tax cuts for those above a quarter million dollars a year or for those in only the upper 2 or 3% of incomes. I’m sure he would go with an even higher cut off if need be to get at least some additional revenue. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have not delivered the jobs as promised. So now we’ll see if his opposition will use common sense and be willing to compromise and even be willing to raise taxes on any of the uppermost incomes.

But instead he signed a bill that extended those tax cuts. A bill written by his own party and passed at his request.

I guess when you have so much invested in something that’s worth so little you have stick it out or admit you’ve made a massive mistake.

1-20-13, the end of an error.

 

[Darryl1958]

Well once again today I heard the President himself talk about things in his plan.

Yes he did

That going forward we need common sense and compromise.

Common sense is a good idea.
Compromise is a very good plan too.
Finally something specific we can all work with.

Which he said in his plan includes only those most able to afford paying more to have their taxes increased along with modest cuts in Medicare.

Well there you go. That is very reasonable. Only those who can afford it need to pay.
That is very specfic and clears things up.
And God forbid that there be immodest cuts to Medicare. It is very well and good that he is not proposing immodest cuts.

We all should know if we were following the past few yrs, that at one point the President had in his plan to expire the Bush tax cuts for those above a quarter million dollars a year or for those in only the upper 2 or 3% of incomes.

This is very sound reasooning. This for sure will raise the trillions needed to balance things out and restore the quadruple credit rating even.
And if only two or three percent of the population is affected,well, this is truly wonderful news.

I’m sure he would go with an even higher cut off if need be to get at least some additional revenue.

The legacy of hope and change lives on in his followers. Surely he will do so.

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have not delivered the jobs as promised.

Bush did it.

So now we’ll see if his opposition will use common sense and be willing to compromise and even be willing to raise taxes on any of the uppermost incomes.

Only the evil and greedy and people lacking common sense will not be able to see the wisdom of these modest proposals.
But given that it is only two or three percent affected, maybe 5 % depending on the cut off if not enough tax revenue is generated, surely everyone in the 95% to 98% of Americans unaffected will be able to agree. Even greedy Republicans who are not going to be affected will have to sign on for their own self-interests, if for no other reason.
I mean, why would greedy Republicans put their necks out to save the top 2 or 3 % a few bucks in tax savings? It woudl be against common sense for them to do so.

 

[Darryl1958]

But instead he signed a bill that extended those tax cuts. A bill written by his own party and passed at his request.

I guess when you have so much invested in something that’s worth so little you have stick it out or admit you’ve made a massive mistake.

1-20-13, the end of an error.

Ahh…
Take credit for extending tax cuts to the people when Democratic control of government is complete, and then blame the Tea party for sheltering the wealthy by continuing the same policy, when Congress becomes divided.
Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

They never miss an opportunity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Estesbob you might have needed to pay closer attention to what the President has said over the course of time then. Because for instance there was not a thing vague about his original number of a quarter of a million dollars. You just don’t agree with the details is all.

Actually it was $200,000. The $250,000 was for couples earning a total of $250,000 together. Maybe he was not entirely clear on that?

 

[estesbob]

Actually it was $200,000. The $250,000 was for couples earning a total of $250,000 together. Maybe he was not entirely clear on that?

he has somewhat waffled on that amount too. nobody really knows the details of his plan, which is not surprising since he has no plan.