S&P Downgrades U.S. to AA+

• BGFalcons82

  

  LJ;853120 wrote:I doubt rates go up very much if at all. S&P said that one thing that will cause a downgrade to AA shortly would be a hike in interest rates.
  
  The U.S. was already bottom of the pile AAA and some AAA rated countries have bounced back and forth multiple times in the past 10 years. Honestly, it's not really going to make that big of a difference right now

  
  We'll find out very quickly if there will be any rate hikes. The elephant in the room is that interest rates have been coerced into historic lows due to the fed's activity and the gazillion dollars they've printed. Now, if interest rates spike, how's that deficit reduction package look then? How in the hell can we reduce it when the service on the debt jumps up?
  
  Equally important will be the impact on the housing and development industries with rising rates. Could be an enormous blow.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;853291 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but raising taxes does not scratch the surface of yearly deficits. If Obama got his way and "increased revenue" (BTW Barry...stop using euphemisms for tax increases like revenue and "investments"; We aren't as stupid as you think), we'd still be $1,000,000,000,000 SHORT.
  
  Raising taxes NOW in exchange for spending cuts 10 YEARS FROM now is what he wanted, not to have a "balanced approach". He and everyone else knows that future spending cuts NEVER happen, but tax increases hit as quickly as the IRS can rewrite the tax code.

  So you are smarter than S & P? The old axiom that lowering taxes pays for themselves in tax revenues isn't very informed. The myth has been completely debunked...even by conservative think tanks. Only a fool would not understand that spending reductions and tax increases would help balance the budget.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  jmog;853271 wrote:Barry wanted more cuts 10 years from now in exchange for more taxes right now.
  
  Why couldn't it have been the other way? More cuts now and taxes down the road?

  
  This.
  
  He wanted little more than cutting the rate of growth, as opposed to actually cuts that would make an impact now.
  
  How any of you would trust this Congress to not simply spend more income as opposed to paying down the deficit is amazing. Either you are very naive, very partisan or very stupid.
  
  If we're going to increase taxes as part of this solution, it had damn well better be spelled out by law that any increased revenue goes directly to paying down the debt and not for the current (or future) cost of government programs.
• derek bomar

  

  sleeper;853285 wrote:Look at federal revenues the past 10 years. Since the Bush Tax cuts, we are actually bringing in more revenue than ever with reduced taxes. Raising taxes is not going to solve anything, cutting spending will.
  
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

  
  yea... total $s, but as a % of GDP it's shrinking. you're not that stupid, so why'd you post this?
• sleeper

  

  derek bomar;853316 wrote:yea... total $s, but as a % of GDP it's shrinking. you're not that stupid, so why'd you post this?

  
  Since you are concerned with % of GDP, go ahead and look at spending as a % of GDP. I think you'll come around, eventually.
• derek bomar

  

  sleeper;853319 wrote:Since you are concerned with % of GDP, go ahead and look at spending as a % of GDP. I think you'll come around, eventually.

  
  that's why I said you need to cut spending as well dude. learn to read
• sleeper

  

  derek bomar;853325 wrote:that's why I said you need to cut spending as well dude. learn to read

  
  Your point is still irrelevant. Cutting taxes increases revenue as well as GDP. Raising taxes does the exact opposite. We need to cut spending, the taxes are fine where they are.
• jmog

  derek bomar;853284 wrote: Cut Defense Spending, Cut Entitlement Spending, Raise Revenues. That is the only way.

  
  You do realize that this statement is in agreement with most conservatives, not with the liberals, correct?
  
  The biggest argument is how much defense cuts, how much entitlement cuts, and how much in taxes. THAT is the big part of the argument.
  
  
  Most conservatives want to see the cuts come NOW and then raise taxes to pay off the debt, not raise taxes to lower the deficit.
  
  Cuts to eliminate the deficit and taxes to lower the debt. Not that hard of a concept unless you are a left wing liberal.
• derek bomar

  

  jmog;853343 wrote:You do realize that this statement is in agreement with most conservatives, not with the liberals, correct?
  
  The biggest argument is how much defense cuts, how much entitlement cuts, and how much in taxes. THAT is the big part of the argument.
  
  
  Most conservatives want to see the cuts come NOW and then raise taxes to pay off the debt, not raise taxes to lower the deficit.
  
  Cuts to eliminate the deficit and taxes to lower the debt. Not that hard of a concept unless you are a left wing liberal.

  
  I don't care who I align with. I said the Republican party needs to shed themselves of the Tea Party, or else we are all fucked. Nothing I have said is inaccurate.
• jmog

  derek bomar;853316 wrote:yea... total $s, but as a % of GDP it's shrinking. you're not that stupid, so why'd you post this?

  
  That's because the GDP went up even faster than the revenues due to the tax cuts, you're not that stupid, so why'd you post this?
• jmog

  derek bomar;853345 wrote:I don't care who I align with. I said the Republican party needs to shed themselves of the Tea Party, or else we are all ****ed. Nothing I have said is inaccurate.

  
  Tell me what, in the tax/spend topic, the Tea Party stands for that will "****" us?
  
  Is it that they want a balanced budget amendment?
  Is it that they want to cut spending?
  Is it that they want the taxes to stay right where they are?
  
  Please tell me which of these are so bad for the economy, until then stop giving the Bill Maher or MSNBC talking points about the Tea Party.
• derek bomar

  

  sleeper;853340 wrote:Your point is still irrelevant. Cutting taxes increases revenue as well as GDP. Raising taxes does the exact opposite. We need to cut spending, the taxes are fine where they are.

  
  are you retarded?
• derek bomar

  

  jmog;853350 wrote:Tell me what, in the tax/spend topic, the Tea Party stands for that will "****" us?
  
  Is it that they want a balanced budget amendment?
  Is it that they want to cut spending?
  Is it that they want the taxes to stay right where they are?
  
  Please tell me which of these are so bad for the economy, until then stop giving the Bill Maher or MSNBC talking points about the Tea Party.

  
  I'm not giving you a talking point. I don't watch Maher. That said, to your last point, yes, I think this is bad for the economy. We need to collect more revenue. You can do this by lowering tax rates and widening the base, and cutting out loopholes in the corp tax structure and flattening rates / simplifying the code. But even this won't be ok with the tea party, because even if you are lowering rates, if it leads to more revenue for the gubmint it's a bad thing.
  
  I also think the BBA is stupid.
• ts1227

  

  LJ;853125 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but it is being widely reported that S&P has said that they were looking for tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. We gave them half.

  
  Keep in mind you responded to a guy who you could tell you saw on TV that the sky was blue and he'd blame it on a liberal media bias.
• derek bomar

  

  jmog;853348 wrote:That's because the GDP went up even faster than the revenues due to the tax cuts, you're not that stupid, so why'd you post this?

  
  lol ok.
  
  What impact did the Bush tax cuts have on economic growth?
  
  The evidence is not favorable. For example, according to this Census report (see table A1), median household income in 2007, adjusted for inflation, was lower than it was in 2000. And as the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, based upon data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment growth was particularly weak, “with employment and wage and salary growth … lower than in any previous post-World War II expansion. Employment grew at an average annual rate of only 0.9 percent from November 2001 to September 2007, as compared with an average of 2.5 percent for the comparable periods of other post-World War II expansions. In addition, real wages and salaries grew at a 1.8 percent average annual rate in the 2001-2007 expansion, as compared with a 3.8 percent average annual rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II expansions.”
  
  Thus, there is little evidence to support that the Bush tax cuts had a significant effect on growth. In addition, contrary to the argument that the tax cuts would pay for themselves being made at the time the tax cuts were enacted, the deficit ballooned as a result of the tax cuts.
  
  
  
  Read more: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/maximum-utility/the-bush-tax-cuts-and-economic-growth/1024/#ixzz1UGvr74nR
• RedRider1

  

  I'm willing to pay more taxes...but if and only if the 50% of this country who pay NOTHING in taxes are made to pay some as well. I guess it's only fair when talking about soaking the rich and playing class warfare.
• derek bomar

  

  RedRider1;853406 wrote:I'm willing to pay more taxes...but if and only if the 50% of this country who pay NOTHING in taxes are made to pay some as well. I guess it's only fair when talking about soaking the rich and playing class warfare.

  
  im with you
• Writerbuckeye

  

  ts1227;853359 wrote:Keep in mind you responded to a guy who you could tell you saw on TV that the sky was blue and he'd blame it on a liberal media bias.

  
  You're either a moron or didn't read what I wrote. You get to pick.
• jmog

  derek bomar;853356 wrote:I'm not giving you a talking point. I don't watch Maher. That said, to your last point, yes, I think this is bad for the economy. We need to collect more revenue. You can do this by lowering tax rates and widening the base, and cutting out loopholes in the corp tax structure and flattening rates / simplifying the code. But even this won't be ok with the tea party, because even if you are lowering rates, if it leads to more revenue for the gubmint it's a bad thing.
  
  I also think the BBA is stupid.

  
  Derek you speak like a conservative but blindly back Obama I am really confused.
  
  Conservative stances include-cut spending especially on entitlements but in all areas of the government,balance the budget and pass an amendment to bind future congresses from overspending, simplify the tax code...
  
  Obama ONLY talks about closing loopholes on the rich but not everywhere else. Can we close the loopholes that allows people to have a negative tax liability? Meaning those that get every dime they paid in back PLUS more in credits? I can handle a 0% tax liability for those who needy but a negative tax liability for the poor is a loophole that needs closed.
• LJ

  

  BGFalcons82;853291 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but raising taxes does not scratch the surface of yearly deficits. If Obama got his way and "increased revenue" (BTW Barry...stop using euphemisms for tax increases like revenue and "investments"; We aren't as stupid as you think), we'd still be $1,000,000,000,000 SHORT.
  
  Raising taxes NOW in exchange for spending cuts 10 YEARS FROM now is what he wanted, not to have a "balanced approach". He and everyone else knows that future spending cuts NEVER happen, but tax increases hit as quickly as the IRS can rewrite the tax code.

  
  S&P wanted a balanced budget and to see taxes raised to start paying off the debt. I don't care what Obama wanted. I am not even sure why you brought what Obama wanted into this. ALL of D.C. fucked up. The "Tea Party" the Republicans and the Democrats. I mean, if the average american to figure out that when they get into debt they need to only spend what they make and get a 2nd job and set that money aside to pay off debt. Oddly enough, NOBODY in D.C. can figure that out. They are all fucking stupid.
• ts1227

  

  Writerbuckeye;853465 wrote:You're either a moron or didn't read what I wrote. You get to pick.

  
  Love you.
• BGFalcons82

  

  LJ- the reason I brought up taxes is that they are a red herring in the debt debate. Raising taxes wont do shit, so why is everyone fixated on them? What I read from S n P was that they wanted a $4 trillion bill, not the POS Barry n Harry wanted.
  
  To those, even the conservatives on this site, who would trade a tax hike for down-payment on the debt....it will NEVER happen and to suggest anyone would be for it is to dream a little dream. Stop dreaming...stop spending..and pray our interest rates stay low.
• LJ

  

  BGFalcons82;853545 wrote:LJ- the reason I brought up taxes is that they are a red herring in the debt debate. Raising taxes wont do shit, so why is everyone fixated on them? What I read from S n P was that they wanted a $4 trillion bill, not the POS Barry n Harry wanted.

  Bringing in more revenue to pay down debt won't do shit? Man, I think I need to go turn my degree in and probably never work another day in my life. And quit bringing up what Obama wanted. NOTHING proposed in Congress is what S&P wanted. NOTHING
  

  To those, even the conservatives on this site, who would trade a tax hike for down-payment on the debt....it will NEVER happen and to suggest anyone would be for it is to dream a little dream. Stop dreaming...stop spending..and pray our interest rates stay low.

  To suggest anyone would be for it? Who do you mean by anyone? All the rich people you know? Every rich person I know is 100% for it.
• gut

  Let's also point out that the "baseline" these "cuts" are founded on include the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012(?). I believe this is the $2T "error" the treasury says S&P made, but in fact S&P just assumed current law holds.
  
  So, in fact, this plan does include tax increases, which amount to some $200B a year (actually the Bush tax cuts are estimated at $1T over TEN years, which is comical that it's being blamed for the deficit). Puts in perspective just how bad the spending problem is going forward.
  
  You can't move the needle much beyond 18% of GDP without raising taxes on investment (i.e. Capital Gains, and corporate deductions on R&D/equiment, etc.) which will further hamper growth. The only way to get beyond 18% is bumping FICA and/or implementation of a VAT, taxes that would be bourne by ALL.
• believer

  

  LJ;853548 wrote:Bringing in more revenue to pay down debt won't do shit?

  Absolutely more revenue will help. But here's the unfortunate truth: When the Feds get their hands on "more revenue" they not only spend it with a vengeance, they spend far more than the revenue gain.
  
  This is why CUTTING SPENDING - and you don't have to have a degree in economics to understand it - must happen first.
  
  Show me the real cuts, pass a balanced budget amendment, end the practice of earmarks, simplify cumbersome tax codes, close loopholes top-to-bottom, and THEN let's talk tax increases.