T Nation

S&P: 50% Chance of US Debt Rating Cut

Oh, I just thought it funny that a system to was supposed to be there for those who’d contribute, might now be snatched away from those who contribute the most. Basically, full blown welfare program. Second, what percentage of Americans are these unworthy moochers (the wealthy)? And, what percent are these moochers actually capturing payout-wise? Why do I get the feeling that it would be like a gnat farting in the wind. If so, seems to me the rich moocher category is going to get defined down, and down, before it even begins to address the cost of the program.

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Raise top rate on people making 1mil or more to 39%
[/quote]
That is an absurd amount of taxation. The more money you take our of circulation, the slower the economy moves…If you take almost have the water out of a river, the river stops flowing. This will stagnate the economy. Rich people by things and invest, you take their money, that cannot do that. People who make luxury items are out of a job.
Second, if you want others to pay more in taxes, pay more yourself first. Lead by example, don’t put your burdens on others you are not willing to accept yourself.

Since we’re stuck with these programs the best thing we can do, is lower heath costs so these programs and the people on them don’t go broke pay 200$ for a bag of water in the hospital.

Yeah, after all the soldier’s sacrifice, all the time and money and effort spent, just pull up stakes and give it back to the terrorists…That makes sense.

After we put ourselves in more danger by giving up and let the terrorists regain a stronghold and gain power and strength, let’s diminish our capability to defend ourselves from their future attacks. Sounds like a good plan. Oh wait, maybe they won’t bother us anymore because they suddenly turned nice.

Claim no deductions on your taxes and pay more yourself.

Fine with me. I’d tax the pot.

Yeah so food and gas cost more, inflation goes up, and the dollar further devalues.

That I can agree with, but we need to dissolve unions too.

That or tell the Chinese to go fuck themselves and stop doing business with them all together.

And that’s why you do not do most of what you said.

Truth be told, I am actually optimistic about the current talks…I think we may get something proper out of this. We got two extreme sides pulling extremely hard for their ideology. Mathmatically, we should end up with something pretty near the middle…I am not going to bitch to much until the end. Let’s see what they do.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Raise top rate on people making 1mil or more to 39%
[/quote]
That is an absurd amount of taxation. The more money you take our of circulation, the slower the economy moves…If you take almost have the water out of a river, the river stops flowing. This will stagnate the economy. Rich people by things and invest, you take their money, that cannot do that. People who make luxury items are out of a job.
Second, if you want others to pay more in taxes, pay more yourself first. Lead by example, don’t put your burdens on others you are not willing to accept yourself.

Since we’re stuck with these programs the best thing we can do, is lower heath costs so these programs and the people on them don’t go broke pay 200$ for a bag of water in the hospital.

Yeah, after all the soldier’s sacrifice, all the time and money and effort spent, just pull up stakes and give it back to the terrorists…That makes sense.

After we put ourselves in more danger by giving up and let the terrorists regain a stronghold and gain power and strength, let’s diminish our capability to defend ourselves from their future attacks. Sounds like a good plan. Oh wait, maybe they won’t bother us anymore because they suddenly turned nice.

Claim no deductions on your taxes and pay more yourself.

Fine with me. I’d tax the pot.

Yeah so food and gas cost more, inflation goes up, and the dollar further devalues.

That I can agree with, but we need to dissolve unions too.

That or tell the Chinese to go fuck themselves and stop doing business with them all together.

And that’s why you do not do most of what you said.[/quote]

The rich have had their top rate cut in half since 1980. Where are the jobs?

We just disagree on the reat. I believe in funding education instead of war.

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

The rich have had their top rate cut in half since 1980. Where are the jobs?

We just disagree on the reat. I believe in funding education instead of war.[/quote]

They would be fleeing the US at an even faster rate than they currently are.

The US spends way, way too much on education as it is.

War is constant. Right or wrong the US hasbeen drawn into fighting other peoples battles.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Raise top rate on people making 1mil or more to 39%
[/quote]
That is an absurd amount of taxation. The more money you take our of circulation, the slower the economy moves…If you take almost have the water out of a river, the river stops flowing. This will stagnate the economy. Rich people by things and invest, you take their money, that cannot do that. People who make luxury items are out of a job.
Second, if you want others to pay more in taxes, pay more yourself first. Lead by example, don’t put your burdens on others you are not willing to accept yourself.

Since we’re stuck with these programs the best thing we can do, is lower heath costs so these programs and the people on them don’t go broke pay 200$ for a bag of water in the hospital.

Yeah, after all the soldier’s sacrifice, all the time and money and effort spent, just pull up stakes and give it back to the terrorists…That makes sense.

After we put ourselves in more danger by giving up and let the terrorists regain a stronghold and gain power and strength, let’s diminish our capability to defend ourselves from their future attacks. Sounds like a good plan. Oh wait, maybe they won’t bother us anymore because they suddenly turned nice.

Claim no deductions on your taxes and pay more yourself.

Fine with me. I’d tax the pot.

Yeah so food and gas cost more, inflation goes up, and the dollar further devalues.

That I can agree with, but we need to dissolve unions too.

That or tell the Chinese to go fuck themselves and stop doing business with them all together.

And that’s why you do not do most of what you said.[/quote]

The rich have had their top rate cut in half since 1980. Where are the jobs?

We just disagree on the reat. I believe in funding education instead of war.[/quote]

The economy has been through many cycles since 1980, and yes many jobs have been created, and lost in that time period. Let’s take a more recent example, the stimulus. Where are the jobs?

In fact, the stimulus behaved exactly how I predicted temporary up tick, followed by ending up right back where we started, except with more debt and a devalued dollar. Even at the peak of the stimulus, unemployment wasn’t any lower than 9%. I mean I nailed this to the letter, but I doubt we can find the post ever so I can’t prove it. Not that I am that good, but it’s the same behaviour the FDR got with his various programs. Temporary bumps with no real change in the state of the economy. Keynesian economics doesn’t work, it has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

As far as tax increases, I will agree to meet in the middle. When the economy meets certain marks, like a unemployment rate of no higher than 5.5%, 400$ per once of gold, and a 1:1 dollar to euro ratio, then I would agree to a temporary across the board tax increase for the purpose of lowering the debt.

Here are some ideas I think would start the economy on the road to recovery much faster and be sustainable:

  • 6 month tax moratoriums on all American owned and operated corporations. Companies who outsource or produce over seas get no tax breaks.
  • 12 month tax moratorium on all american small businesses (<100 people).
  • payroll tax credits for all new hires.
  • 12 month tax moratorium on all new housing purchases.
  • consumer tax breaks and tax exemptions on all american made items worth over $500 dollars.

These are some ideas to get things moving. It’s a way to get more money into the economy using pure free market sources and encouraging American business.

Right now we have to keep spending low, when we recover and have more money, we can spend more money.

As far as education vs. Military, I think education is very important and since it’s already in the hands of the government and cannot be wrestled back, we might as well make it the best we can. But, books don’t stop bombs and bullets. We have to protect ourselves from eminent, real dangers. Just pulling up stakes and leaving regions unstable will only guarantee we’ll be back at even greater cost in life and money. Since we’re already there, let’s do it right, finish and leave it stable so when we do leave, we can stay gone.


I hate when people bring up terrorism if we talk about cutting some of our defense spending.

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I hate when people bring up terrorism if we talk about cutting some of our defense spending. [/quote]

Ja, that is not a defense budget.

It is also not an offense budget.

It is a world domination budget.

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I hate when people bring up terrorism if we talk about cutting some of our defense spending. [/quote]

When your the biggest target, you need the biggest military.

Besides, when any of those other countries get into trouble, guess who they call? Maybe if they spent a little more, we could spend a little less.

You had a congress with a super majority and a sympathetic president for two years, do you not think if it were possible to cut the defense budget they would have don’t it? Why didn’t they? Even the very liberal leaders in government realized we could not. Nasty Pelosi considered it her personal taxi allocation.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Raise top rate on people making 1mil or more to 39%
[/quote]
That is an absurd amount of taxation. The more money you take our of circulation, the slower the economy moves…If you take almost have the water out of a river, the river stops flowing. This will stagnate the economy. Rich people by things and invest, you take their money, that cannot do that. People who make luxury items are out of a job.
Second, if you want others to pay more in taxes, pay more yourself first. Lead by example, don’t put your burdens on others you are not willing to accept yourself.

And that’s why you do not do most of what you said.[/quote]

HAHAHA

Come and live in the UK and we’ll show you truly absurd levels of taxation.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.[/quote]

The problem with paying off the debt with higher taxes is the next jerk in charge will just run up the credit card bills again.

Without a method to restrain the debt we are doomed to repeat the problems.

That is why I cannot support higher taxes. It is time to draw a line in the sand.

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.[/quote]

The problem with paying off the debt with higher taxes is the next jerk in charge will just run up the credit card bills again.

Without a method to restrain the debt we are doomed to repeat the problems.

That is why I cannot support higher taxes. It is time to draw a line in the sand.[/quote]

The choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up…This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my handâ?¦ Unfortunately, [it] consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility."
Ronald Reagan, 1987

Out of curiosity did you draw a line in the sand the 17 times the debt ceiling was raised under Reagan, and the 7 times under George W. Bush?

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.[/quote]

The problem with paying off the debt with higher taxes is the next jerk in charge will just run up the credit card bills again.

Without a method to restrain the debt we are doomed to repeat the problems.

That is why I cannot support higher taxes. It is time to draw a line in the sand.[/quote]

The choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up…This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my handâ?¦ Unfortunately, [it] consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility."
Ronald Reagan, 1987

Out of curiosity did you draw a line in the sand the 17 times the debt ceiling was raised under Reagan, and the 7 times under George W. Bush?
[/quote]

Hardly the first time.

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.[/quote]

The problem with paying off the debt with higher taxes is the next jerk in charge will just run up the credit card bills again.

Without a method to restrain the debt we are doomed to repeat the problems.

That is why I cannot support higher taxes. It is time to draw a line in the sand.[/quote]

The choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up…This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my handâ?¦ Unfortunately, [it] consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility."
Ronald Reagan, 1987

Out of curiosity did you draw a line in the sand the 17 times the debt ceiling was raised under Reagan, and the 7 times under George W. Bush?
[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.[/quote]

The problem with paying off the debt with higher taxes is the next jerk in charge will just run up the credit card bills again.

Without a method to restrain the debt we are doomed to repeat the problems.

That is why I cannot support higher taxes. It is time to draw a line in the sand.[/quote]

The choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up…This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my handÃ?¢?Ã?¦ Unfortunately, [it] consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility."
Ronald Reagan, 1987

Out of curiosity did you draw a line in the sand the 17 times the debt ceiling was raised under Reagan, and the 7 times under George W. Bush?
[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Admirable as that is, the debt ceiling will be raised, unless we want depression mk.2 with the usa defaulting. the after effects would be pretty brutal.

I don’t understand why there can be no concessions for defense cuts. USA spends $800 billion a year on defense; 40% of the world’s budget. As Orion so succinctly pointed out, that is a world domiantion budget on par with the Roman Empire.

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Excellent post. “Starve the beast” hasn’t worked. Even today, there’s no real climate open to meaningfully deep cuts and reform. It’s time for the GoP to support tax raises. There is nothing more conservative, more traditional, than “if you insist, then you will pay for it.” Once the bill hits, once Americans realize just how expensive and consuming their government has becomes, maybe attitudes will finally change. Right now though, there’s no reason to change. They get their services, paying piddly squat to nothing (relative to the real cost). The bulk of the bill for it all shuffled off to Americans not even born yet. And no, hikes on only the wealthy won’t cover it. It’s that massive of a problem. Tax hikes could harm what might be a fragile economy for some time? That might be exactly the wake up call Americans would need.[/quote]

Agreed. That’s one reason why I like the concept of Bowles-Simpson - while closing loopholes and expanding the tax base (i.e., placeing more tax burden on the tax-consumers),it lowers the corporate rate (i.e., more money in the hands of the employers).

Also, I’d raise the returement age and means test SS and Medicare. And I’d try to do something about protecting the value of the dollar so that we don’t punish the one thing we want future retirees to do - save money.[/quote]

The problem with paying off the debt with higher taxes is the next jerk in charge will just run up the credit card bills again.

Without a method to restrain the debt we are doomed to repeat the problems.

That is why I cannot support higher taxes. It is time to draw a line in the sand.[/quote]

The choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up…This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my handÃ??Ã?¢?Ã??Ã?¦ Unfortunately, [it] consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility."
Ronald Reagan, 1987

Out of curiosity did you draw a line in the sand the 17 times the debt ceiling was raised under Reagan, and the 7 times under George W. Bush?
[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Admirable as that is, the debt ceiling will be raised, unless we want depression mk.2 with the usa defaulting. the after effects would be pretty brutal.

I don’t understand why there can be no concessions for defense cuts. USA spends $800 billion a year on defense; 40% of the world’s budget. As Orion so succinctly pointed out, that is a world domiantion budget on par with the Roman Empire.[/quote]

Of course the debt ceiling will be raised. They just better not raise taxes.

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
The ratings have been lowered because the GOP wont budge on repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and tax breaks to big oil and other big corps. Good luck winning an election with that strategy.

Ok, cue the Austrian, supply-side, trickle down, bs>[/quote]

This is absolute horseshit. And no supply-side arguments need be made–the numbers simply don’t add up to the amount of savings we need. They’re not even a drop in the bucket. I suggest you do a better job studying economic matters herr professor.

[quote]Bambi wrote:

I don’t understand why there can be no concessions for defense cuts. [/quote]

Cutting defense doesn’t even come close, ultimately. It’s SS and Medicare that have to be cut. In fact, we will have to cut defense to Zero, to pay SS, Medicare, and interest in the debt. Not that it can’t or shouldn’t be on the table, but it’s not a serious start.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

I don’t understand why there can be no concessions for defense cuts. [/quote]

Cutting defense doesn’t even come close, ultimately. It’s SS and Medicare that have to be cut. In fact, we will have to cut defense to Zero, to pay SS, Medicare, and interest in the debt. Not that it can’t or shouldn’t be on the table, but it’s not a serious start.
[/quote]

Will government parasites be laid off?

Will they form picket lines?

I haz a boner.