We're so scrooed

[David Jamieson]

most of us are doing well enough that a revolution is just a big pain in the ass at this point.

[Kansuke]

most of us are doing well enough that a revolution is just a big pain in the ass at this point.

That'll have to do for now.

[BJJ-Blue]

you act like the one of the greatest financial disasters in the history of human kind didnt happen under the republicans watch..

Because it wasn't. When the meltdown happened Bush was President, yes. But the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House.

Ask yourself this, why do liberals who blame Bush always bring up his last 2 years in office, but forget about the first 6 years? And who controlled Congress during the 6 years of economic growth?

[BJJ-Blue]

I read the story about the credit rating downgrade on Yahoo first. And I always read a few user comments for fun. Some guy put it this way:

We had one Party who wanted to CUT spending, CAP the debt limit, and BALANCE the budget.

And the other Party said "No"

It's really that simple.


That guy said it better than even I could have.

[Reality_Check]

http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...=1245316529563

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy.

Who used it as a bargaining chip? The Republicans. Who is willing to do so again? The Republicans.

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.

Clearly the S&P regards the Republicans intransigence over increasing revenues as a "bad" thing.

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.

An upwards revision to "stable" from "negative" is contingent on the Bush tax cuts expiring.

[Reality_Check]

I read the story about the credit rating downgrade on Yahoo first. And I always read a few user comments for fun. Some guy put it this way:

We had one Party who wanted to CUT spending, CAP the debt limit, and BALANCE the budget.

And the other Party said "No"

It's really that simple.


That guy said it better than even I could have.

Um...President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. The debt limit was already capped. Increasing it was for paying for things already incurred. The budget was balanced in 2000 without any gimmicks such as a balanced budget amendment. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, were all placed on the nation's charge card, greatly increasing the national debt and blowing a hole in the budget.

[BJJ-Blue]

Who used it as a bargaining chip? The Republicans. Who is willing to do so again? The Republicans.

Incorrect. Sticking by your word and refusing to raise the debt limit or taxes because those were your campaign promises is not playing politics in any way. It's just being honest, something the community organizer has no clue about.

Clearly the S&P regards the Republicans intransigence over increasing revenues as a "bad" thing.

They aren't too fond of the spending and lack of cuts either:

"S&P was looking for $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. The deal that passed Congress on Tuesday would bring $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion in cuts over that time."

Source: (complete article)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SP-off...48715.html?x=0

An upwards revision to "stable" from "negative" is contingent on the Bush tax cuts expiring.

Then they are wrong. Please cite any example of a society taxing itself into prosperity.

Here are a few examples of tax cuts INCREASING revenue:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

And as an added bunes, in all 3 of those instances "the rich's" share of the tax burden actually increased:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Source: (complete article)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...ower-Tax-Rates


So now that I've shown that tax cuts increase revenue and increase the tax burden on "the rich", please explain why cutting taxes right now is a bad idea.

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...President Obama was more than willing to cut spending.

LMFAO!!! Next you'll be trying to explain to us how the Earth is flat.

If he was willing to cut spending, please direct me to his budget proposal doing just that. I'll actually be curious if you can find ANY budget proposal he put forward at all during the negotiations. I know I can't.

FYI, while the Democrats controlled Congress, they did not submit a budget for over 2 years. Of course the law says it must be done every year, but they just brushed that aside. We only got a budget when the GOP took over the House. And these are facts that cannot be refuted.

And yes, the budget was balanced in 2000. That's a fact. And what Party controlled the House and Senate when that budget was passed?

[Reality_Check]

From July 11th:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ence-president

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.

We have agreed to a series of spending cuts that will make the government leaner, meaner, more effective, more efficient, and give taxpayers a greater bang for their buck. That includes defense spending. That includes health spending. It includes some programs that I like very much, and we—be nice to have, but that we can’t afford right now. And if you look at this overall package, we could achieve a situation in which our deficits were at a manageable level and our debt levels were stabilized, and the economy as a whole I think would benefit from that. Moreover, I think it would give the American people enormous confidence that this town can actually do something once in a while; that we can defy the expectations that we’re always thinking in terms of short-term politics and the next election, and every once in a while we break out of that and we do what’s right for the country.

From April 13th:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-fiscal-policy

So today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission that I appointed last year, and it builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table -- but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

From July 2nd:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-creating-jobs

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

...

And over the last few weeks, the Vice President and I have gotten both parties to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts.

From July 19th:

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of...ficit-reductio

We have a Democratic President and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts, modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include a revenue component. We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach. And we’ve got the American people who agree with that balanced approach.

I guess the Earth is flat.

[Lebaufist]

When the facts change, blue, so should your opinion.

If actual numbers such as what RC presented don't give you pause and don't effect your stance, then there is no point arguing it with you. You're just spinning. You have presented no real facts that apply to our actual current situation.

Your kind of naivet'e is whats fueling the discord. The tea party is running with unproven ideas that they think wouldn't effect them. Its ludicrous.

"Burn the system down" might work in Fallout: New Vegas, but it doesn't work if every one is still alive and wanting to live. If anything, Obama has come out of his initial ideals as a Democrat and faces the juggling act that every President finds himself doing. He's not the king of America. Anybody that has ever taken a civic class knows this. He HAS to work with congress. He HAS to work with republicans. THEY are the ruling party in the house. THEY must now carry the burden of the downgrade. Since THEY chose this rather routine debt issue to blackmail the whitehouse. Its borderline treason.

[Syn7]

Get 'control' of what? The House, right? But not the Senate or the Executive, right? Right?

control of the executive branch, wtf you think im talkin bout son?

[Syn7]

Because it wasn't. When the meltdown happened Bush was President, yes. But the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House.

Ask yourself this, why do liberals who blame Bush always bring up his last 2 years in office, but forget about the first 6 years? And who controlled Congress during the 6 years of economic growth?

right.... by that logic, anything that happens today is the republicans fault cause they control the house... and thats bullsh1t... republicans and democrats love pointing fingers, but both are just as responsible as the next...

[Syn7]

Um...President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. The debt limit was already capped. Increasing it was for paying for things already incurred. The budget was balanced in 2000 without any gimmicks such as a balanced budget amendment. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, were all placed on the nation's charge card, greatly increasing the national debt and blowing a hole in the budget.

from now on, whenever blue says anything, im gonna just quote this post...

[Syn7]

LMFAO!!! Next you'll be trying to explain to us how the Earth is flat.

If he was willing to cut spending, please direct me to his budget proposal doing just that. I'll actually be curious if you can find ANY budget proposal he put forward at all during the negotiations. I know I can't.

FYI, while the Democrats controlled Congress, they did not submit a budget for over 2 years. Of course the law says it must be done every year, but they just brushed that aside. We only got a budget when the GOP took over the House. And these are facts that cannot be refuted.

And yes, the budget was balanced in 2000. That's a fact. And what Party controlled the House and Senate when that budget was passed?

did bush put out a balanced budget every year??? or any budget EVERY year? is it just democratic presidents that p1ss all over the rules when it doesnt suit their own personal political agenda??? not one president in the last 50 years hasn't been a piece of sh1t waste of skin scumbag... thats my word... swallow it... its the truth... your system is SEVERELY broken... political and financial...

[Hebrew Hammer]

Um...President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. The debt limit was already capped. Increasing it was for paying for things already incurred. The budget was balanced in 2000 without any gimmicks such as a balanced budget amendment. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, were all placed on the nation's charge card, greatly increasing the national debt and blowing a hole in the budget.

I also love this graphic, it says it all...well almost all. The key point that it shows that no one mentions at all, is that Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have been in place now for about 12 years...these are the people that the Fox News types like to call the 'Job Creators'...well the reality is that they have been getting richer, much wealthier in fact, the divide between the richest Americans and the middle classes has continued to deepen under this policy. Its a famous fallacy from Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory...ask some one when last time a wealthy person's trickled down some dough to them.

I'm still waiting for this influx of job creation by lower taxes of the rich. It never happens unless you get a job working as a domestic in their households...but then you'd probably have to be undocumented worker. You know what people, we had deregulation of corporations, no unions, no pensions, no medical care, no social security, and little taxes for the rich...you know what we were working 12-16hrs a day for pennies, your kids were forgoing school to work at an early age, and we had Robber Barons running the country...your Rockefellers...it was late 19th century early 20th and life really sucked for the common man. Let the Right Wing Teabaggers get their way and its really going to suck unless you're rich.

Let me footnote this by saying I'd much rather see a flat tax rate for all americans and elimination of tax credits, loopholes, tax code, etc...its a nightmare.