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

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

Medicare spends nearly a third of its budget on the last year of recipients’ lives and somewhere around a third of that is believed to have no meaningful effect on that period. If you want to seriously deal with the budget deficit you need to deal with the total lack of cost-benefit controls present in Medicare, probably much in the way that it is handled in other countries. This means empowering medicare oversight panels to even CONSIDER whether it is worth it for the government to, for example, pay for a $50,000 treatment for terminal cancer patients that has been shown to add at most a few weeks to a life.

You will never fix medicare until you add a “Death Panel”, or more accurately, a rational cost/benefit assessment for covered treatments in general. If a person wants to pay for extraordinary treatments that don’t meaningfully contribute to life or health, then let them pay themselves. Needless to say, this is a nonstarter with many groups, not least of which are those in the healthcare industry who make those billions of dollars on non-palliative end of life care.

42

[quote]etaco wrote:
Medicare spends nearly a third of its budget on the last year of recipients’ lives and somewhere around a third of that is believed to have no meaningful effect on that period. If you want to seriously deal with the budget deficit you need to deal with the total lack of cost-benefit controls present in Medicare, probably much in the way that it is handled in other countries. This means empowering medicare oversight panels to even CONSIDER whether it is worth it for the government to, for example, pay for a $50,000 treatment for terminal cancer patients that has been shown to add at most a few weeks to a life.

You will never fix medicare until you add a “Death Panel”, or more accurately, a rational cost/benefit assessment for covered treatments in general. If a person wants to pay for extraordinary treatments that don’t meaningfully contribute to life or health, then let them pay themselves. Needless to say, this is a nonstarter with many groups, not least of which are those in the healthcare industry who make those billions of dollars on non-palliative end of life care.[/quote]

Very true.

43

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

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.[/quote]

Well, that is the point of insisting that new spending be met either with (1) offsetting cuts somewhere else or (2) additional taxes. The point is to remove the concept of a “credit card” altogether and “re-couple” spending and tax raises.

That is precisely what I’m suggesting - make the generation consuming the benefits of the spending accountable to the debt they are piling up with their consumption, and remove the “free lunch” aspect to borrowing. That’s the best way to restrain the debt - make the consumers pay it. Tough medicine? Yes, but in teh long-run, more viable than the other options.

Best way to get someone off the credit card binge is to make them pay for what they’ve borrowed.

Is this happening in South African as well?

44

[quote]Bambi 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.

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]

Oh yes I have heard, and it’s nothing new. Actually over the past 4 decades I understand it improved as I remember reading that the Beatles were being tax at an unholy 97%. Prompting them to move all their assests over seas and the writing of the very excellent ‘Taxman’. Some of Paul’s best bass work occurs in that song…

45

[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, but understand the difference. The debt ceiling is frequently raised, but there’s raising it some and then there are huge, big jumps… The administration has already had it raised big time and proposed raising it to the absurd. That’s what checks and balances are for.

46

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Are we the biggest target because we have the biggest military or do we have the biggest military because we’re the biggest target? It’s hard to tell. The argument can be made that our military footprint across the world has in the very least contributed to anger towards our country.
Why must we answer every time they call?
And cutting defense spending shouldn’t be a left vs. right argument. As far as I’m concerned neither party has shown any seriousness when it comes to cutting defense spending.

47

[quote]pat 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, but understand the difference. The debt ceiling is frequently raised, but there’s raising it some and then there are huge, big jumps… The administration has already had it raised big time and proposed raising it to the absurd. That’s what checks and balances are for.[/quote]

I agree but sadly checks and balances don’t seem to exist anymore.

48

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays.

49

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?

50

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?

51

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.

52

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

What you propose amounts to a subsidy and if you think that China, Japan and the EU will just it idly by because you play word games you are mistaken.

53

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

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.[/quote]

Well, that is the point of insisting that new spending be met either with (1) offsetting cuts somewhere else or (2) additional taxes. The point is to remove the concept of a “credit card” altogether and “re-couple” spending and tax raises.

That is precisely what I’m suggesting - make the generation consuming the benefits of the spending accountable to the debt they are piling up with their consumption, and remove the “free lunch” aspect to borrowing. That’s the best way to restrain the debt - make the consumers pay it. Tough medicine? Yes, but in teh long-run, more viable than the other options.

Best way to get someone off the credit card binge is to make them pay for what they’ve borrowed.

Is this happening in South African as well?[/quote]

I am an American and certainly not an expert and when I am in SA I really don’t keep up. No time. South Africa is a kind of a mess and I don’t like to dig too deep into the political situation but I think they have about tripled their debt in less than a decade. IMO they rely too much on metals and minerals to save their economy. SA is a great country and could have a promising future but unions/socialism are messing things up. Similar story but on a manageable scale.

The natives know far more than me. I really don’t know the players.

54

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

Yes you did; you proposed to penalize the companies who run operations abroad. Whether or not you penalize one group of companies or assist another the end result is the same.

As Orion said - it amounts to a subsidy. Companies that do not receive it are now at a disadvantage to those who do.

55

The ratings agencies said they are going to downgrade if the gov’t passes a ‘fluff’ piece, like Obama wants. He has said he’ll oppose serious cuts especially to entitlements.

Bail on any stocks now, btw…all hell going to break loose.

56

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

What you propose amounts to a subsidy and if you think that China, Japan and the EU will just it idly by because you play word games you are mistaken.[/quote]

Why in the hell would I make a proposal the would encourage spending money outside the U.S.? I proposed no penalties, what proposed was to get more money circulating in the U.S. The E.U. China and japan can shove it up their ass if they don’t like it. However, if they have proposals that would benefit the American economy, then I am all ears…
All you little non-Americans bitch about how we try to dominate everything either economically or militarily, but when we don’t want to include you in something economically, you whine moan and pitch a fit. When you need help militarily, you whimper and whine for us to help you. I say screw you, fix your own problems and invest enough in your own militaries so you don’t need ours.

57

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

Yes you did; you proposed to penalize the companies who run operations abroad. Whether or not you penalize one group of companies or assist another the end result is the same.

As Orion said - it amounts to a subsidy. Companies that do not receive it are now at a disadvantage to those who do.
[/quote]

No I did not, I proposed no penalties, I just give no advantages to companies funneling money outside the U.S. How is flooding China or India with money going to help us? It’s not. So why reward people for fucking us. It’s like giving the guy in prison an extra pack of smokes for raping you. It makes no sense.
Besides, if I make it more economically viable to manufacture and do business inside the U.S. then it won’t be so attractive to do it else where. The point is to bring it home. I really don’t give a shit if other countries like it, I am interested in fixing one.
Don’t worry, it’s not like we’re going t suddenly fix the trade deficit or anything like that, but it would be nice to bring some balance.
I see no economic advantage to sending our money, business and manufacturing overseas. So I really don’t give a shit if anybody likes it.

If it were really up to me, I would pay off our debts to China and stop doing business with them all together. They’ve been fucking us from day 1. If I could I would, they can ride bikes again for all I give a shit.

58

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

What you propose amounts to a subsidy and if you think that China, Japan and the EU will just it idly by because you play word games you are mistaken.[/quote]

Why in the hell would I make a proposal the would encourage spending money outside the U.S.? I proposed no penalties, what proposed was to get more money circulating in the U.S. The E.U. China and japan can shove it up their ass if they don’t like it. However, if they have proposals that would benefit the American economy, then I am all ears…
All you little non-Americans bitch about how we try to dominate everything either economically or militarily, but when we don’t want to include you in something economically, you whine moan and pitch a fit. When you need help militarily, you whimper and whine for us to help you. I say screw you, fix your own problems and invest enough in your own militaries so you don’t need ours. [/quote]

We dwarf you economically, please go right ahead.

You have clearly demonstrated how this whole unilateralism thing works, we will respond in kind.

I wish you the best if luck and please remember, the early bird catches the worm and that is especially true when it comes to food lines.

59

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

  • 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.

[/quote]

NO, giving tax breaks to varying degrees isn’t “free market”. Things such as tax moratoriums on housing will simply pull sales forward. Companies shouldn’t be punished for producing things where the greatest comparative advantage lays. [/quote]

Who’s being punished?[/quote]

Every American company that produces overseas.

All Americans when other nations retaliate.

Are you in any shape for a trade war?[/quote]

I proposed no penalties, so I don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

Yes you did; you proposed to penalize the companies who run operations abroad. Whether or not you penalize one group of companies or assist another the end result is the same.

As Orion said - it amounts to a subsidy. Companies that do not receive it are now at a disadvantage to those who do.
[/quote]

No I did not, I proposed no penalties, I just give no advantages to companies funneling money outside the U.S. How is flooding China or India with money going to help us? It’s not. So why reward people for fucking us. It’s like giving the guy in prison an extra pack of smokes for raping you. It makes no sense.
Besides, if I make it more economically viable to manufacture and do business inside the U.S. then it won’t be so attractive to do it else where. The point is to bring it home. I really don’t give a shit if other countries like it, I am interested in fixing one.
Don’t worry, it’s not like we’re going t suddenly fix the trade deficit or anything like that, but it would be nice to bring some balance.
I see no economic advantage to sending our money, business and manufacturing overseas. So I really don’t give a shit if anybody likes it.

If it were really up to me, I would pay off our debts to China and stop doing business with them all together. They’ve been fucking us from day 1. If I could I would, they can ride bikes again for all I give a shit.
[/quote]

I am perplexed, what about we will fuck you up dont you understand?

60

And how do you propose we pay back China or any of our foreign debt holders while we’re at it? Let’s face it, this country is in serious shit economically and protectionism will not solve it.