the text of S&Ps statement, they blame republicans

[Mr.Nick]

Do progressives not understand we should be creating wealth NOT taking it from other nations??

NO democrats attack those that dare to create wealth.

You know because its not fair that a person has more than another - therefore they steal from the haves and redistribute to the have nots to be "fair."

And people are shocked that the economic growth of this nation is retarded??

 

[Immanuel]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about..

The problem is that taxes these days are more strict than ever.

Do you seriously believe people paid 91% in taxes back in the day???

What a gullible fool.

Let me ask you how you think today's taxes are more strict than they were when we had 91% on the top earners?

Granted they weren't paying 91% back then, but still I suspect they were paying more than what they do today. Can you explain why you think it was less strict under Eisenhower than it is under Bush/Obama? Do you really think the Effective Tax Rate under Eisenhower is lower than it is today?

Immie

Yeah keep on assuming or "suspecting."

There are less loopholes today, not to mention the democrats want their fucking money so they can redistribute the wealth to their voting base.

The tax rate doesn't matter when there are loopholes and exemptions.

A person would have had to meet some bizarre criteria to be taxed 91%.

Today there is no "bizarre criteria" other than being middle class.

Even though you are right that there were more loopholes, they still do not compensate for the nearly 60% marginal rate difference. And I disagree with you... effective tax rate has everything to do with it.

Immie

 

[Oldstyle]

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

In what universe does raising our debt ceiling fix our credit rating??

You may as well claim that an asshat in 100k worth of debt should take out a new credit card and pay the old one off..

How do you believe the bullshit you do?

The problem is you don't know jack shit and you believe if you do what the government says everything will get better..

Guess what? the assholes in DC only care about keeping their power base and thats YOU the ignorant fools who nod their heads and keep electing authoritarian clowns.

I'm dumbfounded as to how a person could rationalize raising the debt ceiling as something that will help this economy...

Did you happen to notice that our credit rating dropped the second we raised the debt ceiling??

Yeah because in your little mind the more debt your in the better...

Of course you believe what you believe because bankruptcy is not an issue here in the US. No you just get an asshat lawyer who figures out a way for you to pay 15k on $100,000 worth of useless charged shit.

So yes, I can see why your dumbass doesn't comprehend that debt is bad.

For the most part, excluding the tone, I agree with your points.

One thing I would comment on is your first question. Raising the limit does not "fix" our credit rating and for God's sake it sure as hell doesn't do anything good for our economy in general. The one thing it does do is keep us from defaulting on our obligations and quite frankly, I think default would be a much bigger catastrophe than a drop in our credit rating.

Unfortunately, I believe as S&P seems to believe that unless Congress (both parties) wake up and smell the coffee and increase revenues (meaning higher taxes) while at the same time cutting spending (meaning across the board, get rid of the fat) spends all around raising the debt limit is only prolonging the inevitable.

Even worse is that I have no confidence in Congress actually coming out of the REM sleep in the next thirty years or so.

God help us.

Immie

I really don't see what you folks seem to. Where is S&P calling for tax increases? I'm sorry but they aren't. They call for deficit reduction...and specifically that entitlements be addressed. Increasing taxes in a weak economy could very likely result in less revenue as doing so will most likely hurt that economy. It's for exactly that reason that the Bush Tax cuts were extended when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Oval Office.

 

[Mr.Nick]

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

In what universe does raising our debt ceiling fix our credit rating??

You may as well claim that an asshat in 100k worth of debt should take out a new credit card and pay the old one off..

How do you believe the bullshit you do?

The problem is you don't know jack shit and you believe if you do what the government says everything will get better..

Guess what? the assholes in DC only care about keeping their power base and thats YOU the ignorant fools who nod their heads and keep electing authoritarian clowns.

I'm dumbfounded as to how a person could rationalize raising the debt ceiling as something that will help this economy...

Did you happen to notice that our credit rating dropped the second we raised the debt ceiling??

Yeah because in your little mind the more debt your in the better...

Of course you believe what you believe because bankruptcy is not an issue here in the US. No you just get an asshat lawyer who figures out a way for you to pay 15k on $100,000 worth of useless charged shit.

So yes, I can see why your dumbass doesn't comprehend that debt is bad.

For the most part, excluding the tone, I agree with your points.

One thing I would comment on is your first question. Raising the limit does not "fix" our credit rating and for God's sake it sure as hell doesn't do anything good for our economy in general. The one thing it does do is keep us from defaulting on our obligations and quite frankly, I think default would be a much bigger catastrophe than a drop in our credit rating.

Unfortunately, I believe as S&P seems to believe that unless Congress (both parties) wake up and smell the coffee and increase revenues (meaning higher taxes) while at the same time cutting spending (meaning across the board, get rid of the fat) spends all around raising the debt limit is only prolonging the inevitable.

Even worse is that I have no confidence in Congress actually coming out of the REM sleep in the next thirty years or so.

God help us.

Immie

We were never going to default.......

The whole default bullshit was just progressive scare tactics.

Progressives refuse to cut spending because nearly everyone that votes progressive is on the government dole.

If they stop giving their base money they will lose votes.

Republican voters aren't on the government dole, if we cut spending it wouldn't put a dent in the Republican base.

non-progressives stand on their own two feet- they don't need the government to provide for them and tell them what to do.

The progressive elitists know all this....

They want to buy an animal farm and us tea party members are telling them to fuck off..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Let me ask you how you think today's taxes are more strict than they were when we had 91% on the top earners?

Granted they weren't paying 91% back then, but still I suspect they were paying more than what they do today. Can you explain why you think it was less strict under Eisenhower than it is under Bush/Obama? Do you really think the Effective Tax Rate under Eisenhower is lower than it is today?

Immie

Yeah keep on assuming or "suspecting."

There are less loopholes today, not to mention the democrats want their fucking money so they can redistribute the wealth to their voting base.

The tax rate doesn't matter when there are loopholes and exemptions.

A person would have had to meet some bizarre criteria to be taxed 91%.

Today there is no "bizarre criteria" other than being middle class.

Even though you are right that there were more loopholes, they still do not compensate for the nearly 60% marginal rate difference. And I disagree with you... effective tax rate has everything to do with it.

Immie

But there are more regulations and fines...

The regulations and fines are probably one of the more difficult problems with doing business in the US.

Look at all these alphabet agencies..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's funny. I see a whole lot of "congress and the administration", and "democrats and republicans" in their statement. Didja actually read it, or are you just regurgitating some talking point that you received?

Silly question. Of course its the second option.

If you have some sailent point can you make it?

Otherwise remember personal insults dont make facts dissapear.

He did. You're just hacking as usual.

 

[Immanuel]

In what universe does raising our debt ceiling fix our credit rating??

You may as well claim that an asshat in 100k worth of debt should take out a new credit card and pay the old one off..

How do you believe the bullshit you do?

The problem is you don't know jack shit and you believe if you do what the government says everything will get better..

Guess what? the assholes in DC only care about keeping their power base and thats YOU the ignorant fools who nod their heads and keep electing authoritarian clowns.

I'm dumbfounded as to how a person could rationalize raising the debt ceiling as something that will help this economy...

Did you happen to notice that our credit rating dropped the second we raised the debt ceiling??

Yeah because in your little mind the more debt your in the better...

Of course you believe what you believe because bankruptcy is not an issue here in the US. No you just get an asshat lawyer who figures out a way for you to pay 15k on $100,000 worth of useless charged shit.

So yes, I can see why your dumbass doesn't comprehend that debt is bad.

For the most part, excluding the tone, I agree with your points.

One thing I would comment on is your first question. Raising the limit does not "fix" our credit rating and for God's sake it sure as hell doesn't do anything good for our economy in general. The one thing it does do is keep us from defaulting on our obligations and quite frankly, I think default would be a much bigger catastrophe than a drop in our credit rating.

Unfortunately, I believe as S&P seems to believe that unless Congress (both parties) wake up and smell the coffee and increase revenues (meaning higher taxes) while at the same time cutting spending (meaning across the board, get rid of the fat) spends all around raising the debt limit is only prolonging the inevitable.

Even worse is that I have no confidence in Congress actually coming out of the REM sleep in the next thirty years or so.

God help us.

Immie

We were never going to default.......

The whole default bullshit was just progressive scare tactics.

Progressives refuse to cut spending because nearly everyone that votes progressive is on the government dole.

If they stop giving their base money they will lose votes.

Republican voters aren't on the government dole, if we cut spending it wouldn't put a dent in the Republican base.

non-progressives stand on their own two feet- they don't need the government to provide for them and tell them what to do.

The progressive elitists know all this....

They want to buy an animal farm and us tea party members are telling them to fuck off..

Now that I agree with. We were not going to default. But that is because the assholes in DC were playing games. They were bound and determined to raise the debt ceiling hours before default. There was no threat.

As for progressives and stopping their handouts: well, not that they would, but if they can make it seem like that is what Conservatives and Republicans want to do then the Democrats and Progressives reap the benefits.

Immie

 

[IndependntLogic]

The new leftist phrase for raising taxes is "raising revenues". Of course, the leftists are incapable of understanding that raising taxes leaves those "evil rich people who make over $250K a year" with LESS disposable income, resulting in LESS money they can spend and invest in the marketplace.

The leftists also can't understand the fact that if ALL people making over $250K a year were taxed at 100% (in other words, ALL of their money was taken from them), it would only reduce the budget deficit by 50%.

Wait. I mean, this thread just deteriorated into a bunch a petty name calling quickly so I was not really inclined to respond to ANY of the post but yours is exceptionally entertaining.
So your position is that the folks at S&P are "Leftists"

That's some seriously funny juju dude!

So here's what every knows and what us business owners have always known.

If you are working through a debt problem, you need to do two things if at all possible: Cut spending and raise revenues (Yes, that's what you call it raising taxes gasp!).

The Dems have been willing to cut some spending that will make little or no difference in our debt.
The Republicans have been willing to cut some spending that will make little or no difference in our debt.
The GOP has presented a plan that is worthless.
The Dems have presented no plan at all.
Both sides just passed a defense budget that increases spending in the one area where we really had a lot of room to move.
So BOTH sides are full of sh*t, when it comes to reducing spending in any real way.

But S&P did make it clear that while both sides are willing to do almost nothing about spending, the GOP refusal to INCREASE TAXES, was the leading factor in their downgrade. Oh well, crap. I'm sure the Right will find a way to spin this back on Obama. The president sucks but this one isn't his alone or even primarily.

 

[Ernie S.]

The new leftist phrase for raising taxes is "raising revenues". Of course, the leftists are incapable of understanding that raising taxes leaves those "evil rich people who make over $250K a year" with LESS disposable income, resulting in LESS money they can spend and invest in the marketplace.

The leftists also can't understand the fact that if ALL people making over $250K a year were taxed at 100% (in other words, ALL of their money was taken from them), it would only reduce the budget deficit by 50%.

We've had 10+ years of lower tax rates. Where's the economic boom?

Our economy always does better with higher tax rates, not only to raise immediate revenues, but because it forces investors into higher risk growth investments:

"for all the years for which official data exists, higher tax rates have been accompanied by faster economic growth and lower tax rates were accompanied by slower economic growth"

A Few Graphs on Real GDP Growth Rates versus Taxes and the Size of Government

There are hundreds of graphs and articles by qualified people showing the same:

supply-side economics is a bunch of bunk!

Sorry to challenge your religion, but reality says otherwise.

The largest upward slope in GDP is between 2002 and 2007 when dems took over Congress.

 

[Immanuel]

In what universe does raising our debt ceiling fix our credit rating??

You may as well claim that an asshat in 100k worth of debt should take out a new credit card and pay the old one off..

How do you believe the bullshit you do?

The problem is you don't know jack shit and you believe if you do what the government says everything will get better..

Guess what? the assholes in DC only care about keeping their power base and thats YOU the ignorant fools who nod their heads and keep electing authoritarian clowns.

I'm dumbfounded as to how a person could rationalize raising the debt ceiling as something that will help this economy...

Did you happen to notice that our credit rating dropped the second we raised the debt ceiling??

Yeah because in your little mind the more debt your in the better...

Of course you believe what you believe because bankruptcy is not an issue here in the US. No you just get an asshat lawyer who figures out a way for you to pay 15k on $100,000 worth of useless charged shit.

So yes, I can see why your dumbass doesn't comprehend that debt is bad.

For the most part, excluding the tone, I agree with your points.

One thing I would comment on is your first question. Raising the limit does not "fix" our credit rating and for God's sake it sure as hell doesn't do anything good for our economy in general. The one thing it does do is keep us from defaulting on our obligations and quite frankly, I think default would be a much bigger catastrophe than a drop in our credit rating.

Unfortunately, I believe as S&P seems to believe that unless Congress (both parties) wake up and smell the coffee and increase revenues (meaning higher taxes) while at the same time cutting spending (meaning across the board, get rid of the fat) spends all around raising the debt limit is only prolonging the inevitable.

Even worse is that I have no confidence in Congress actually coming out of the REM sleep in the next thirty years or so.

God help us.

Immie

I really don't see what you folks seem to. Where is S&P calling for tax increases? I'm sorry but they aren't. They call for deficit reduction...and specifically that entitlements be addressed. Increasing taxes in a weak economy could very likely result in less revenue as doing so will most likely hurt that economy. It's for exactly that reason that the Bush Tax cuts were extended when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Oval Office.

The way I read it is that S&P is calling for lower debt. That means raising revenue AND cutting spending. I have listened to the Conservative mantra of "Trickle Down Economics" for a long, long time. I agree that under certain situations (such as when current tax rates are high (which they are not right now)) Trickle Down works. In the same manner, Obama's "Flood the Basement" brand of economics can work under certain situations.

At this current juncture in time, I don't think further tax cuts is the answer. Congress needs to bring about a surplus not simply "lower the rate of growth of the debt". In effect, we need to readjust our policies to make things work.

In my humble opinion, one of the major problems we have is a political climate that sees fit to destroy business. Progressives have made the corporations out to be spawn of Satan. Progressives are driving business out and that is killing us. However, I don't think it is tax policy so much as other policies such as Health Care Reform that are doing so. Obama and Democrats have a anti-corporate view of society.

Just like we could never live in a pure Democracy or a pure Capitalistic Society, we cannot live in a society that does not promote corporate growth. Our politicians are killing us slowly but surely which means in effect that we are committing suicide.

Immie

 

[California Girl]

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.



The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.



We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.

We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario-which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook-we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.







context of the plucked quote regarding revised base case scenario... >>>



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." Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

>>>


Our revised upside scenario-which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable-retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.




Our revised downside scenario-which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating-features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

Valarie, please.... context is 'yammering'. Please stop yammering.... you'll confuse the moronic. And that's mean.

 

[Immanuel]

Yeah keep on assuming or "suspecting."

There are less loopholes today, not to mention the democrats want their fucking money so they can redistribute the wealth to their voting base.

The tax rate doesn't matter when there are loopholes and exemptions.

A person would have had to meet some bizarre criteria to be taxed 91%.

Today there is no "bizarre criteria" other than being middle class.

Even though you are right that there were more loopholes, they still do not compensate for the nearly 60% marginal rate difference. And I disagree with you... effective tax rate has everything to do with it.

Immie

But there are more regulations and fines...

The regulations and fines are probably one of the more difficult problems with doing business in the US.

Look at all these alphabet agencies..

That's okay, but if you have a link to those agencies it might help everyone see what you meant.

I asked why you thought what you did. I did not say you were wrong. I agree in some respects, but I have not done the research as to whether or not today is more strict (growth wise) than under Eisenhower, but now I see more about what you meant. Definitely the anti-business philosophy of our current "leaders" is IMHO hurting our growth.

Immie

 

[Ernie S.]

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the fuck does this country think they are??

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

In what universe does raising our debt ceiling fix our credit rating??

You may as well claim that an asshat in 100k worth of debt should take out a new credit card and pay the old one off..

How do you believe the bullshit you do?

The problem is you don't know jack shit and you believe if you do what the government says everything will get better..

Guess what? the assholes in DC only care about keeping their power base and thats YOU the ignorant fools who nod their heads and keep electing authoritarian clowns.

I'm dumbfounded as to how a person could rationalize raising the debt ceiling as something that will help this economy...

Did you happen to notice that our credit rating dropped the second we raised the debt ceiling??

Yeah because in your little mind the more debt your in the better...

Of course you believe what you believe because bankruptcy is not an issue here in the US. No you just get an asshat lawyer who figures out a way for you to pay 15k on $100,000 worth of useless charged shit.

So yes, I can see why your dumbass doesn't comprehend that debt is bad.

The problem with the bolded above is that we haven't borrowed to pay off debt. What we are doing is getting a second credit card to pay the minimum payment on the first one, while going deeper in debt.

 

[Mr.Nick]

For the most part, excluding the tone, I agree with your points.

One thing I would comment on is your first question. Raising the limit does not "fix" our credit rating and for God's sake it sure as hell doesn't do anything good for our economy in general. The one thing it does do is keep us from defaulting on our obligations and quite frankly, I think default would be a much bigger catastrophe than a drop in our credit rating.

Unfortunately, I believe as S&P seems to believe that unless Congress (both parties) wake up and smell the coffee and increase revenues (meaning higher taxes) while at the same time cutting spending (meaning across the board, get rid of the fat) spends all around raising the debt limit is only prolonging the inevitable.

Even worse is that I have no confidence in Congress actually coming out of the REM sleep in the next thirty years or so.

God help us.

Immie

We were never going to default.......

The whole default bullshit was just progressive scare tactics.

Progressives refuse to cut spending because nearly everyone that votes progressive is on the government dole.

If they stop giving their base money they will lose votes.

Republican voters aren't on the government dole, if we cut spending it wouldn't put a dent in the Republican base.

non-progressives stand on their own two feet- they don't need the government to provide for them and tell them what to do.

The progressive elitists know all this....

They want to buy an animal farm and us tea party members are telling them to fuck off..

Now that I agree with. We were not going to default. But that is because the assholes in DC were playing games. They were bound and determined to raise the debt ceiling hours before default. There was no threat.

As for progressives and stopping their handouts: well, not that they would, but if they can make it seem like that is what Conservatives and Republicans want to do then the Democrats and Progressives reap the benefits.

Immie

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with "safety nets" as limited programs... However, today these programs are being severely abused. We shouldn't have 35 year old grandmothers and third generation welfare recipients.

The government shouldn't be paying scientists to promote "global warming."

The government shouldn't be granting money to anyone, and quite frankly if they insist on grants those receiving them names should be published online and the people should have privy as to what they're doing for those grants.

As a libertarian thats opposed to the majority of government actions is that not too much to ask??

 

[Mr.Nick]

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

In what universe does raising our debt ceiling fix our credit rating??

You may as well claim that an asshat in 100k worth of debt should take out a new credit card and pay the old one off..

How do you believe the bullshit you do?

The problem is you don't know jack shit and you believe if you do what the government says everything will get better..

Guess what? the assholes in DC only care about keeping their power base and thats YOU the ignorant fools who nod their heads and keep electing authoritarian clowns.

I'm dumbfounded as to how a person could rationalize raising the debt ceiling as something that will help this economy...

Did you happen to notice that our credit rating dropped the second we raised the debt ceiling??

Yeah because in your little mind the more debt your in the better...

Of course you believe what you believe because bankruptcy is not an issue here in the US. No you just get an asshat lawyer who figures out a way for you to pay 15k on $100,000 worth of useless charged shit.

So yes, I can see why your dumbass doesn't comprehend that debt is bad.

The problem with the bolded above is that we haven't borrowed to pay off debt. What we are doing is getting a second credit card to pay the minimum payment on the first one, while going deeper in debt.

That was my assertion... Maybe I didn't implicate my idea very well on that sentence.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Even though you are right that there were more loopholes, they still do not compensate for the nearly 60% marginal rate difference. And I disagree with you... effective tax rate has everything to do with it.

Immie

But there are more regulations and fines...

The regulations and fines are probably one of the more difficult problems with doing business in the US.

Look at all these alphabet agencies..

That's okay, but if you have a link to those agencies it might help everyone see what you meant.

I asked why you thought what you did. I did not say you were wrong. I agree in some respects, but I have not done the research as to whether or not today is more strict (growth wise) than under Eisenhower, but now I see more about what you meant. Definitely the anti-business philosophy of our current "leaders" is IMHO hurting our growth.

Immie

The DOJ , FDA and EPA........

 

[Immanuel]

We were never going to default.......

The whole default bullshit was just progressive scare tactics.

Progressives refuse to cut spending because nearly everyone that votes progressive is on the government dole.

If they stop giving their base money they will lose votes.

Republican voters aren't on the government dole, if we cut spending it wouldn't put a dent in the Republican base.

non-progressives stand on their own two feet- they don't need the government to provide for them and tell them what to do.

The progressive elitists know all this....

They want to buy an animal farm and us tea party members are telling them to fuck off..

Now that I agree with. We were not going to default. But that is because the assholes in DC were playing games. They were bound and determined to raise the debt ceiling hours before default. There was no threat.

As for progressives and stopping their handouts: well, not that they would, but if they can make it seem like that is what Conservatives and Republicans want to do then the Democrats and Progressives reap the benefits.

Immie

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with "safety nets" as limited programs... However, today these programs are being severely abused. We shouldn't have 35 year old grandmothers and third generation welfare recipients.

The government shouldn't be paying scientists to promote "global warming."

The government shouldn't be granting money to anyone, and quite frankly if they insist on grants those receiving them names should be published online and the people should have privy as to what they're doing for those grants.

As a libertarian thats opposed to the majority of government actions is that not too much to ask??

Well speaking as one who has found himself in a long term unemployment situation... yes Virginia, age discrimination is a fact... I have to say that I have always believed that government should not allow its citizens to starve. Then again, they should not be buying them brand new refrigerators, cars, computers etc. etc. etc. either. I'm not opposed to things like Welfare although I think Welfare needs major overhauls and should become a tool to put people to work rather than a reason not to work. And for the record, I am not on Welfare... but I am beginning to fear the possibility. My retirement plan is quickly disintegrating.

Oh and further for the record, I do not consider myself progressive in the least. I look more at myself as a compassionate conservative, but Bush, quite frankly made that term out to be a joke.

However, you are right, in times like this the government needs to bite the bullet and make some drastic cuts. They had damned well better do something or what we will end up with is major economic collapse in the likes that will make the Carter years seem like a walk in the park.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

But there are more regulations and fines...

The regulations and fines are probably one of the more difficult problems with doing business in the US.

Look at all these alphabet agencies..

That's okay, but if you have a link to those agencies it might help everyone see what you meant.

I asked why you thought what you did. I did not say you were wrong. I agree in some respects, but I have not done the research as to whether or not today is more strict (growth wise) than under Eisenhower, but now I see more about what you meant. Definitely the anti-business philosophy of our current "leaders" is IMHO hurting our growth.

Immie

The DOJ , FDA and EPA........

LOL,

I thought you were going to pull out a link of the massive governmental department boondoggles! I thought maybe you were like TDM and didn't know how to open up a separate tab so that you could link to the site without posting first and then editing your post.

Forgive me for that!

Immie

 

[Si modo]

God, I love the TM threads - she really is a masochist.

 

[IndependntLogic]

So here's what everyone knows and what business owners have always known.

If you are working through a debt problem, you need to do two things if at all possible: Cut spending and raise revenues (Yes, that's what you call raising taxes - gasp!).

The Dems have been willing to cut some spending that will make little or no difference in our debt.
The Republicans have been willing to cut some spending that will make little or no difference in our debt.
The GOP has presented a plan that is worthless.
The Dems have presented no plan at all.
Both sides just passed a defense budget that increases spending in the one area where we really had a lot of room to move.
So BOTH sides are full of sh*t, when it comes to reducing spending in any real way.

But S&P did make it clear that while both sides are willing to do almost nothing about spending, the GOP refusal to INCREASE TAXES, was the leading factor in their downgrade. Oh well, crap. I'm sure the Right will find a way to spin this back on Obama. The president sucks. No doubt about it. But this one isn't his alone or even his primarily.
No one likes taxes. I've never lived in a country where people said "Hooray for taxes!". But they are how a government gets its money. Yes there is waste and yes we can all stomp our little feeties over the waste. Boo hoo. For now, BOTH sides need to man up and do things they don't like.