S&P lowers its outlook on U.S. debt

[endzone_dave]

In this economy????? No.

Sure it would. If the government increased taxes on the WBs in this country, they would take in much more revenue.

Trickle down economics doesn't work, the experiement has failed.

[chipwhich]

Sure it would. If the government increased taxes on the WBs in this country, they would take in much more revenue.

Trickle down economics doesn't work, the experiement has failed.

Tax and spend has failed.

[endzone_dave]

Tax and spend has failed.

Maybe we could try tax and don't spend.

[chipwhich]

Maybe we could try tax and don't spend.

Would love to see that happen.

There is this silly notion amongst posters here that giving the guys who waste our money, and giving them more of our money, will somehow lead to great things like lower deficit and reduced spending. It would be like turning over a percentage of your income to an investment adviser, they blow it all, and tell you not only do they need the same percent they got last year, but they need more in order to make me rich.

Year over year they take more more more, and my financial reports get worse worse worse.

At some point you gotta stop the madness.

Maybe they can increase taxes and come next budget we can all focus on cutting NPR and Planned Parenthood, and Pell Grants. Yeah, that's gonna be a real home run. I can smell the deficit dropping now

Show me some fiscal responsibility before you ask me for more of my tax dollars.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Tax and spend has failed.

When have we tried "tax and spend"

What we did was "spend and don't tax...while fighting two wars"...the Republican way is what failed. I'm all for trying the other way at least then you have a revenue stream that can match the spending.

---------- Post added April-19th-2011 at 08:21 AM ----------

It also isn't going to solve our problems.

The heck it ain't. Where exactly do you think all this money to pay down the debt is going to come from? Cutting taxes won't do it, in fact that only serves to dry up the revenue stream, and until the economy turns and begins to speed back raising revenue naturally then something has to compensate.

[chipwhich]

The heck it ain't. Where exactly do you think all this money to pay down the debt is going to come from? Cutting taxes won't do it, in fact that only serves to dry up the revenue stream, and until the economy turns and begins to speed back raising revenue naturally then something has to compensate.

See my post above.

[mardi gras skin]

Hey, increasing Warren Buffet's taxes and only Warren Buffet's taxes will net more cash then cutting off the federal funding of NPR. Therefore, it might be a large piece of the puzzle.

Tongue in cheek, but seriously we need to put the bill back in billionaire.

And if he wanted to, Warren Buffet could easily offset all the cuts to NPR all by himself. Just cut the government out of the collections business and save all the associated overhead.

[Burgold]

I think I'm in agreement with Chipwhich here. My plan, if I had a plan, would be a moderate increase in taxes combined with spending cuts. There's fat in the budge that can be trimmed, but as we all know every bit of fat is considered important by someone and so we aren't going to get there via cuts. We need to freeze spending except for emergencies like war or natural disasters, cut a bit, put SS up to 70, do something about Medicare (this should have been done with the health reform, but wasn't) and increase taxes by a point or two. Basically, we have to make everyone unhappy for a period of time.

America, it's time to start eating your vegetables and stop hiding them under the mashed potatoes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

See my post above.

You're like a broken record, and the GOP and Tea Party thanks you for towing the line, oh and the corporations who are raking in billions in profits thank you too for paying their share of the taxes. Although, please don't take it personally when they outsource your job to Mexico, it's just business.

[Rocky21]

Maybe we could try tax and don't spend.

Amen.

Reagan started us into this **** hole. Thanks a lot you old geezer.

[The 12th Commandment]

We'll only recover when the next boom of whatever it is happens. Technology got us out of the last one what's it gonna be this time? Truth be told, neither side is capable of fixing it and if something doesn't happen outside of their control to give them more money we're fooked.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Just curious

How many billion dollar tax returns were filed last year?

[TimmySmith]

You're like a broken record, and the GOP and Tea Party thanks you for towing the line, oh and the corporations who are raking in billions in profits thank you too for paying their share of the taxes. Although, please don't take it personally when they outsource your job to Mexico, it's just business.

And the Democrats thank you for carrying the torch that increased taxes are the only way to pay for something that we obviously could not afford in the first place, still can't afford and will never be able to afford. FYI the government (Federal, Local, State) raises and creates new taxes everyday, just not on income, but don't stop carrying that torch.

[The 12th Commandment]

By the way, isn't the S&P the body who rated those derivatives so high?

[Fresh8686]

By the way, isn't the S&P the body who rated those derivatives so high?

Yup, and its hardly surprising since the credit rating agencies like S&P largely rely on fees from the companies actually selling the bonds with the investors getting the information for free. Kind of seems like a conflict of interest doesn't it? But then again thats the whole problem with our current economic model and its unholy union with the government. Everything becomes a conflict of interest as each hand tends to the other, leaving public goods (like a free press for instance) and those unable to field armies of lobbyists standing out in the cold.

On a somewhat related note, I thought this was kind of interesting.

"Taxpayers from the 95th to 99th percentiles (those earning in the low six figures) paid effective tax rates higher than those of the top 400 earners. These folks paid an effective tax rate of 17.52 percent, almost an entire percentage point higher than the top 400. The average daily income of the top 400 was a miniscule $945,000 per day. Three-quarters of their income was "earned" from capital gains and dividends and therefore taxed at 15%. Salaries and wages accounted for only 6.5 of income for the top 400."

The bottom 90% of income earners in the US saw their incomes rise from $29,577 in 1992 to $33,546 in 2007, a whopping 13%, while the top 400 incomes rose from $46,790 in 1992 to $344,759 in 2007...a piddly 399%. Snark! Their effective tax rates have dropped from 26.38 percent to 16.62 percent during this period. In 2007, 25 of the top 400 paid an effective tax rate of zero, nada, nothing, zilch! Another 127 paid an effective tax rate of 10 to 15%. ONLY 33 of the top 400 paid the federal minimum tax rate of 30 to 35%.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument

So who here is in support of a raise in the capital gains tax?

[Koolblue13]

Anybody siding with either Republicans or Democrats in this thread should not be taken seriously.

[Madison Redskin]

I hear you. The biggest problem we are facing today is the economy. Tax hikes will have a negligible impact to receipts in comparison to an economic turnaround. Now is not the time to raise taxes. At some point we all can't be consumers and service providers.

When is the right time to raise taxes? When the economy is great, conservatives argue, "The government is flush with tax revenue. It's high time to put money back in the taxpayers' wallets by cutting taxes!" When the economy tanks, conservatives argue, "It's high time to stimulate the economy by putting money back in the taxpayers' wallets by cutting taxes!"

IMO, we need to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire AND dramatically reshape (i.e., cut) entitlement spending.

[twa]

So who here is in support of a raise in the capital gains tax?

Wouldn't that hit the middle class more?...it is already going to 20%

[Destino]

And the Democrats thank you for carrying the torch that increased taxes are the only way to pay for something that we obviously could not afford in the first place, still can't afford and will never be able to afford. FYI the government (Federal, Local, State) raises and creates new taxes everyday, just not on income, but don't stop carrying that torch.

You're right they do pass new taxes all the time and yet here we are. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that supply side hasn't worked and that dismantling the regulation infrastructure has been a disaster. This isn't a democrat versus republican debate to be perfectly honest. Clinton and Obama have been just as guilty as Reagan and Bush. We are operating under a flawed economic ideology.

[Fresh8686]

Anybody siding with either Republicans or Democrats in this thread should not be taken seriously.

True that. They are both part of the problem. All you have to do is follow the money. Shoot look at some of Obama's top campaign contributors: Goldman Sachs $994K, Microsoft $833K, Citigroup $701K, JP Morgan $695K... the list goes on. This is a systemic issue not delineated by party affiliation. And the wild-west situation we've got with derivatives happened very quietly under Clinton's watch, so it's definitely not just a republican thing.

---------- Post added April-19th-2011 at 11:51 AM ----------

Wouldn't that hit the middle class more?...it is already going to 20%

I don't know really, I need to do a lot more reading about it. Thats why I was asking.

[TimmySmith]

You're right they do pass new taxes all the time and yet here we are. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that supply side hasn't worked and that dismantling the regulation infrastructure has been a disaster. This isn't a democrat versus republican debate to be perfectly honest. Clinton and Obama have been just as guilty as Reagan and Bush. We are operating under a flawed economic ideology.

Absolutely. But as in the Planned Parenthood or NPR threads they digress into political ideology instead of a reality that private organizations that relied on public grants are simply going to have to find new means of subsistence.

I do not believe that the average poster here truly understands the effects of our bond rating being lowered. I suspect that the value of real state could drop by 10-15% almost overnight. The average person will have no chance to borrow money. Instead of preaching politics, we need to cut spending, fast.

[Destino]

Absolutely. But as in the Planned Parenthood or NPR threads they digress into political ideology instead of a reality that private organizations that relied on public grants are simply going to have to find new means of subsistence.

I do not believe that the average poster here truly understands the effects of our bond rating being lowered. I suspect that the value of real state could drop by 10-15% almost overnight. The average person will have no chance to borrow money. Instead of preaching politics, we need to cut spending, fast.

Well for one I'm not entirely sure the rating wasn't changed to pressure the government to adopt a economic "growth" policy for wall street. Which means less regulation. Even the pitiful bill they passed recently wasn't well received by the financial sector and they control Standard and Poor's with their business. I do agree with you that enough people still take these sham rating agencies seriously enough for this to be problematic. Debt needs to be seriously addressed but sadly since the 80s adoption of the two santa strategy (a republican thing, but I'm not blaming them) we've grown accustomed to never having to sacrifice anything. The republicans promise tax cuts and RAISE SPENDING when they have power. The democrats promise tax increases on "THEM" (the rich, not you brave citizen!) and increases in spending. It's all about what they are giving you and thus TWO SANTAS, both parties arrive with gifts.

Both parties are entirely irresponsible. They have sold out to the wealthy and powerful and keep the masses quietly moving along by promising them gifts and diverting attention via major issues that never change like immigration and abortion.

Personally Timmy, I think we are screwed. Just wonder how long it will take before the next major crash and if that will be the one that sparks the next depression. We've allowed the criminals to get away with it. The 80's savings and loan crisis saw charges brought and few convictions. The 90s tech bubble saw very little investigation. The 00s credit crunch didn't just avoid any mention criminal charges but resulted in a government pay out to the very people that caused the disaster because of how dependent the US was to those companies. Think of how confident those people are after that? The next crash is going to be HUGE.

[Hubbs]

Personally Timmy, I think we are screwed. Just wonder how long it will take before the next major crash and if that will be the one that sparks the next depression. We've allowed the criminals to get away with it. The 80's savings and loan crisis saw charges brought and few convictions. The 90s tech bubble saw very little investigation. The 00s credit crunch didn't just avoid any mention criminal charges but resulted in a government pay out to the very people that caused the disaster because of how dependent the US was to those companies. Think of how confident those people are after that? The next crash is going to be HUGE.

Now here's something you and I can both agree about whole-heartedly.

The S&L crisis was a legal firestorm compared to the housing crisis. I believe over 1,000 executives went to jail back then, and none have worn handcuffs this time around, despite widespread fraud that's grown more provable by the day. The revolving door that exists between Wall Street and the government is inexcusable.

[DjTj]

Now here's something you and I can both agree about whole-heartedly.

The S&L crisis was a legal firestorm compared to the housing crisis. I believe over 1,000 executives went to jail back then, and none have worn handcuffs this time around, despite widespread fraud that's grown more provable by the day. The revolving door that exists between Wall Street and the government is inexcusable.

It's not like there was no revolving door back in the 80s. The difference in prosecutions has a lot more to do with the sophistication of today's executives than with an increased level of corruption.

The Bear Stearns executives were acquitted. By a jury.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111010486.html

These guys were all smart enough to know the law, walk a fine line, and know how to get away with it. It's not really direct corruption per se, but Wall Street and big business have just gotten a lot smarter a lot faster than the government has.

[deejaydana]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to add to those last two posts look at the GM and Chrysler heist in particular. Bush and Obama basically told bond holders of those companies---those holding those companies debt---to take a backseat to the Unions. They were shafted entirely and given nothing for the paper they held. This wasn't even legal and yet the media gave them a pass on it stating that if they (GM/Chrysler) "failed" the entire country would collapse. And people actually believed it. Gov't has increasingly walked on property rights and rule of law.