S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html)

Hold on to your hats boys n girls

Thank you O'bama. Another legacy for your presidency.

Damn Bush!!!

Damn Bush!!!

Congress more than anything. Your Tea Party infusion has resulted in the lowest congressional ratings ever.

Perhaps we can pray our credit rating back :rotf2:

-spence

gold eft's

Have to call my broker now.

Congress more than anything. Your Tea Party infusion has resulted in the lowest congressional ratings ever.

Perhaps we can pray our credit rating back :rotf2:

-spence

So your blaming the tea party?? unfriggin real Spence. According to you they are a bunch of powerless fringe right nut jobs.

Congress more than anything. Your Tea Party infusion has resulted in the lowest congressional ratings ever.

Perhaps we can pray our credit rating back :rotf2:

-spence

really?

July 16, 2008

Congressional Approval Hits Record-Low

Congress' job approval rating has dropped five percentage points over the past month, from 19% in June to 14% in July, making the current reading the lowest congressional job approval rating in the 34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question. The previous low was 18%, last reached in May.


Huffington Post 8/4/11
Strictly speaking, these new results are not the "lowest ever" for Congress, but they come close. Congressional approval as measured by a half dozen or more media polls has been trending downward since 2009, and also hit a similar low in the second half of 2008. Gallup found congressional approval as low as 14 percent in March 2010 and the CBS/New York Times poll tracked approval as low as 14 percent in the same month and at 12 percent in October 2008.

So your blaming the tea party?? unfriggin real Spence. According to you they are a bunch of powerless fringe right nut jobs.

No.
I blame the stupid infighting and lack of anything getting done ON BOTH SIDES.

Out of Afganastan, Out of Irag, End the bush tax rates and things would be a lot rosier IMHO.

neither side has the balls to do that.

The terrorists are winning.......in case nobody has noticed? Their 911 shenanigans has driven this country to financial ruin!!! Their attack went beyond taking down the towers and killing 3000 people....they have managed to change the way we live.....and are slowly draining our financial resources?!?!?!?? We just keep molly coddling these middle eastern countries though.....Kuwait....what have you done for us lately????? We are trying to free Iraq??? Hows that going??? We got Bin Laden so why the "F" are we not out of Afghanistan yet!?!?!?!?! ITS TIME TO START TAKING CARE OF THOSE WHO ARE US CITIZENS!!!!

End the bush tax rates and things would be a lot rosier IMHO.



yeah...raising taxes as we slip into a double dip would be just brilliant :uhuh:

So your blaming the tea party?? unfriggin real Spence. According to you they are a bunch of powerless fringe right nut jobs.

I never said they were powerless. And yes, a lot of the blame should go to the Tea Party and an intolerant position that made it impossible for the House Speaker to do his job.

Boehner and Obama had a deal, they blew it up. The result is a credit downgrade that will further hut the economy.

Unfriggin real is right.

-spence

yeah...raising taxes as we slip into a double dip would be just brilliant :uhuh:

Simpson Bowles.
Cuts and some increases in revenue are NEEDED.

really?
You can't compare results from different polls.

Here's a more interesting look.

Worst. Congress. Ever. - By Norman Ornstein | Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever)

Also...

And after the combative and exhaustive debt debate, it appears the American public agrees with him. Per a brand-new New York Times/CBS poll, 82% now disapprove of Congress’ job, which is a record high in that poll. A CNN poll also had Congress’ disapproval at an all-time high of 84%. Here are more numbers from the NYT/CBS survey: 72% disapproved how congressional Republican handled the debt negotiations, while 66% said that of congressional Dems and 47% said that of Obama; the Tea Party’s fav/unfav is now 20%-40%, compared with 26%-29% back in April; and by a margin of greater than 2-to-1, respondents said creating jobs should be a higher priority than spending cuts. The best news for Obama this entire week? His job approval (48%-47%) remains relatively unchanged. By comparison, however, House Speaker John Boehner’s disapproval rating has sky-rocketed to 57%.

First Read - First Thoughts: Better than expected (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/05/7262872-first-thoughts-better-than-expected)

Simpson Bowles.
Cuts and some increases in revenue are NEEDED.
Simpson is a liberal uncle#^&#^&#^&#^&er.

-spence

You can't compare results from different polls.

...

right..just stick to the MSNBC<NYT< CNN< CBS polls

you said...

"Your Tea Party infusion has resulted in the lowest congressional ratings ever."

not true....as usual

Simpson Bowles.
Cuts and some increases in revenue are NEEDED.

Obama's budget proposal earlier in the year told us what he thought of Simpson Bowles

the best way to "some increases in revenue" is to grow the economy....not increase taxes in an already bad economy....increased taxes and regulation inhibit economic growth...I know that these are new concepts...

Ririckhound -

"Out of Afganastan, Out of Irag..."

That is happening, and this was factored into the debt downgrade.

"End the bush tax rates and things would be a lot rosier IMHO."

Does it mean anything to you, anything at all, that tax revenues collected were HIGHER after Bush cut all of our tax rates? First of all, are you aware of that fact? Second, if you are aware, then why don't you get the idea that tax revenues collected DO NOT always move proportionately with tax rates?

When a guy like Paul Ryan has the courage to say "we need to fix this", it's THE LIBERALS who respond by saying "YOU HATE OLD PEOPLE"!!!

What we need is consensus that we're on a disastrous track, but liberals keep saying we don't need to change medicare and social security. They are denying irrefuatble facts. Hence my often stated position that it's a mental disorder. No sane, rational person can say that we don't need major changes to medicare and social security.

Our current $14 trillion debt is PEANUTS compared to medicare, medicaid, and social security. Liberals, as a group, will not admit that. I don't know what planet they live on...

The terrorists are winning.......in case nobody has noticed? Their 911 shenanigans has driven this country to financial ruin!!! Their attack went beyond taking down the towers and killing 3000 people....they have managed to change the way we live.....and are slowly draining our financial resources?!?!?!?? We just keep molly coddling these middle eastern countries though.....Kuwait....what have you done for us lately????? We are trying to free Iraq??? Hows that going??? We got Bin Laden so why the "F" are we not out of Afghanistan yet!?!?!?!?! ITS TIME TO START TAKING CARE OF THOSE WHO ARE US CITIZENS!!!!

Isn't that what Reagan did to the USSR?
So true Larry.

right..just stick to the MSNBC<NYT< CNN< CBS polls
No, it means if you want to compare numbers make sure they were captured in a consistent manner. Not rocket science.

"Your Tea Party infusion has resulted in the lowest congressional ratings ever."

not true....as usual
Read the article, it's interesting.

-spence

The terrorists are winning.......in case nobody has noticed? Their 911 shenanigans has driven this country to financial ruin!!! Their attack went beyond taking down the towers and killing 3000 people....they have managed to change the way we live.....and are slowly draining our financial resources?!?!?!?? We just keep molly coddling these middle eastern countries though.....Kuwait....what have you done for us lately????? We are trying to free Iraq??? Hows that going??? We got Bin Laden so why the "F" are we not out of Afghanistan yet!?!?!?!?! ITS TIME TO START TAKING CARE OF THOSE WHO ARE US CITIZENS!!!!

"Their 911 shenanigans has driven this country to financial ruin!!!"

Wrong. Reckless, stupid spending is leading us to ruin. An Addiction to welfare and entitlements are leading us to financial ruin.

"We are trying to free Iraq??? Hows that going???"

It's going spectacularly well, in fact. Iraq is now a pro-western democracy (though still fledgling). Those people are way better off now, than they were before we stepped in. I'm not necessarily saying it was worth the price we paid, but the fact is, Iraq is the closest thing to a free democracy that there is in that region. Bush speculated the once democracy took hold in Iraq that it would "spread like pollen", and all the protests in neighboring countries seem to suggest he was exactly right on that score.

"Their 911 shenanigans has driven this country to financial ruin!!!"

Wrong. Reckless, stupid spending is leading us to ruin. An Addiction to welfare and entitlements are leading us to financial ruin.

"We are trying to free Iraq??? Hows that going???"

It's going spectacularly well, in fact. Iraq is now a pro-western democracy (though still fledgling). Those people are way better off now, than they were before we stepped in. I'm not necessarily saying it was worth the price we paid, but the fact is, Iraq is the closest thing to a free democracy that there is in that region. Bush speculated the once democracy took hold in Iraq that it would "spread like pollen", and all the protests in neighboring countries seem to suggest he was exactly right on that score.

If anyone here does not believe that 911 has cost the US untold TRILLIONS of dollars then you are a fool. We are running 2 different wars as a result....lives lost, dollars pissed away and YES....all because 911 happened....the rest is a drop in the bucket!

Once we "withdraw" from Iraq....they will soon resume their old ways and fall back into the way things used to be....do not kid yourself!

PS-Homeland Security ring a bell???? Trillions spent right there on measures to ensure our security....if thats at all possible.

No.
I blame the stupid infighting and lack of anything getting done ON BOTH SIDES.

Out of Afganastan, Out of Irag, End the bush tax rates and things would be a lot rosier IMHO.

neither side has the balls to do that.

Hmmmm... you forgot Lybia and the cost of Obama care

"End the bush tax rates and things would be a lot rosier IMHO."

Does it mean anything to you, anything at all, that tax revenues collected were HIGHER after Bush cut all of our tax rates? First of all, are you aware of that fact? Second, if you are aware, then why don't you get the idea that tax revenues collected DO NOT always move proportionately with tax rates?
Haven't we covered this topic enough in earlier Debunking GOP Myths 101 sessions?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 which immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues exacerbated by a slumping economy. It wasn't until 2005 that tax receipts were higher than when Bush took office. We all know that the 2005-2008 run up was being fueled by a credit bubble and not real organic growth.

In fact, I'm not sure there's much evidence that the Bush tax cuts did much more than redistribute wealth upwards and increase the size of the federal debt. Did the rich invest in job creation or just get richer? The growing income inequality during the 2000's is one measure.

So given that taxes are at an historic low and we have a massive deficit problem to solve...here's a good question.

If raising taxes was perfectly acceptable for Ronald Reagan, who did it 16 times I believe, why is it such a taboo subject that the GOP is shunning it's own conservatives who subscribe to the same pragmatic position?

Reagan seems to be the source of divine inspiration for the low tax pledge, and yet in practice he was a tax raising big spender?

Perhaps modern conservatism's foundation is weaker than one might imagine.

-spence

No, it means if you want to compare numbers make sure they were captured in a consistent manner. Not rocket science.


Read the article, it's interesting.

-spence

why would I bother to read crap that you link from biased sources to expound on another of your demonstrably false statements ?

Haven't we covered this topic enough in earlier Debunking GOP Myths 101 sessions?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 which immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues exacerbated by a slumping economy. It wasn't until 2005 that tax receipts were higher than when Bush took office. We all know that the 2005-2008 run up was being fueled by a credit bubble and not real organic growth.

In fact, I'm not sure there's much evidence that the Bush tax cuts did much more than redistribute wealth upwards and increase the size of the federal debt. Did the rich invest in job creation or just get richer? The growing income inequality during the 2000's is one measure.

So given that taxes are at an historic low and we have a massive deficit problem to solve...here's a good question.

If raising taxes was perfectly acceptable for Ronald Reagan, who did it 16 times I believe, why is it such a taboo subject that the GOP is shunning it's own conservatives who subscribe to the same pragmatic position?

Reagan seems to be the source of divine inspiration for the low tax pledge, and yet in practice he was a tax raising big spender?

Perhaps modern conservatism's foundation is weaker than one might imagine.

-spence

wow...a Spence OP Ed...we know what that's worth...:rotf2:

yes we have covered this and debunked all of your bunk

What we need is consensus that we're on a disastrous track, but liberals keep saying we don't need to change medicare and social security. They are denying irrefuatble facts.

...

They are also denying the fact that we are broke and can't afford
business as usual, that is reality. Everyone has to sacrafice to get
us back on track, including the 51% of those who don't pay any
taxes.

The way to bring in revenue is to create jobs and therefore put
more people on the tax rolls.

Oh and BTW, Spence, God is not mocked.

Hmmmm... you forgot Lybia and the cost of Obama care

No, I didn't. I'm not sure what they can do w/ Lybia right now. They are in, I didn't want them to be, but now what?

They are also denying the fact that we are broke and can't afford business as usual, that is reality. Everyone has to sacrafice to get us back on track, including the 51% of those who don't pay any taxes.

The way to bring in revenue is to create jobs and therefore put
more people on the tax rolls.
You can't have it both ways. Hit the middle class with a larger tax burden and there's no money to buy goods and services...supply side alone doesn't work.

To create more taxpayers through job growth will require innovation, education and inspiration.

Oh and BTW, Spence, God is not mocked.
I wasn't mocking God, I was mocking Michelle Bachmann. Oh, and God happened to think it was pretty funny :hihi:

-spence

You can't have it both ways. Hit the middle class with a larger tax burden and there's no money to buy goods and services...supply side alone doesn't work.

To create more taxpayers through job growth will require innovation, education and inspiration.


I wasn't mocking God, I was mocking Michelle Bachmann. Oh, and God happened to think it was pretty funny :hihi:

-spence

Spence -


"Hit the middle class with a larger tax burden"

Who, exactly, hit the middle class with a larger tax burden? NOT BUSH, because afetr his tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid a HIGHER share of the total tax burden. That reduces the tax burden on the middle class.

Spence, please, get some facts. I could post a thousand links supporting my position...here is one...

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts)

"The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA"

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts. It is irrefutable fact that wealthy Americans paid a HIGHER percentage of the tax burden, after the Bush cuts. Bush also lowered your tax rate, and mine, by the way...

To create more taxpayers through job growth will require innovation, education and inspiration.

Oh, and God happened to think it was pretty funny :hihi:

-spence

I agree, that's what it will take but I don't see any new innovative ideas
coming out of this administration.
Until that happens take the regulation cuffs off our companies, and do away with
Obama care so they will have the confidence to expand and hire.

Oh, and you are right, God has a GREAT sense of humor. :hihi:

No, I didn't. I'm not sure what they can do w/ Lybia right now. They are in, I didn't want them to be, but now what?

How about the old stand by?? Surge baby:wall:

"Hit the middle class with a larger tax burden"

Who, exactly, hit the middle class with a larger tax burden? NOT BUSH, because afetr his tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid a HIGHER share of the total tax burden. That reduces the tax burden on the middle class.
You're ignoring the context for that remark in which Justplugit asserted the bottom 51% should be paying more taxes.

Spence, please, get some facts. I could post a thousand links supporting my position...here is one...

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts)

"The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA"

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts. It is irrefutable fact that wealthy Americans paid a HIGHER percentage of the tax burden, after the Bush cuts. Bush also lowered your tax rate, and mine, by the way...
The Wiki presents two sides to the argument, you pick one and then claim it's fact?

I'd like to see a thousand links. So far all I can find is a WSJ article that you have to have a subscription to read, a Heritage piece from 2007 with no supporting information and a lot of links to Rushlimbaugh.com.

All that being said, it's quite possible that the wealthy did increase their share of the burden in that time period. With wages stagnant for most Americans, but the rich continuing to get richer, it would make sense that the receipts show they were paying more as a %.

But to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me.

-spence

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 which immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues exacerbated by a slumping economy. It wasn't until 2005 that tax receipts were higher than when Bush took office. We all know that the 2005-2008 run up was being fueled by a credit bubble and not real organic growth.
-spence

It's funny that after 3 years the economy is worse than the one Obama "inherited," but we must be patient because it takes time to fix these things. But because the Bush tax cuts "immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues," that somehow contra-indicates the idea that they led to higher revenues. The fact that revenues rose in 2005 is somehow too late to be connected to tax cuts. And that we "all know" the three year growth rate that followed was due to a credit bubble--not "real organic growth."

Actually, it makes sense that revenues would immediately fall after a tax cut which was made to stimulate job growth. It takes time for the growth to occur. It doesn't occur "immediately." And the revenue will fall because the "immediate" taxes are being collected before that growth. Higher taxes will always "immediately" create more government revenue than lower taxes. But if the effect of the higher taxes is to stunt job growth and create job loss, the longer, non-immediate, effect could well be decreased revenue. Higher taxes will always garner more revenue, ALL OTHER THINGS REMAINING THE SAME. But if the the higher taxes create smaller markets at the expense of bigger government, all other things do not remain the same, and the "economy" may shrink, and revenues may dwindle.

And, no, we don't "all know" the three year growth was due only to a credit bubble. And, by the way, is the government credit bubble of a raised deficit ceiling going to create "real organic growth," especially if there is more "stimulus" spending?

They are also denying the fact that we are broke and can't afford business as usual, that is reality. Everyone has to sacrafice to get
us back on track, including the 51% of those who don't pay any taxes.
.

Spence, please re-read, your misqouting me.

IMHO, everyone should be paying taxes so they share in the responsibility and have a hand in sacrafcing
no matter how much they make or how many entitlements they receive.

Actually, it makes sense that revenues would immediately fall after a tax cut which was made to stimulate job growth. It takes time for the growth to occur. It doesn't occur "immediately." And the revenue will fall because the "immediate" taxes are being collected before that growth. Higher taxes will always "immediately" create more government revenue than lower taxes. But if the effect of the higher taxes is to stunt job growth and create job loss, the longer, non-immediate, effect could well be decreased revenue. Higher taxes will always garner more revenue, ALL OTHER THINGS REMAINING THE SAME. But if the the higher taxes create smaller markets at the expense of bigger government, all other things do not remain the same, and the "economy" may shrink, and revenues may dwindle.



That makes too much sense. :D

S&P= Terrorists?

the Progressives and dems are in all out panic..Spence has been a fine example here as he jousts at windmills with tired talking points and displays a deep understanding of the DNC playbook that I posted earlier


didn't see this coming...:rotf2: Treasury Department, Democrats etc. attack S&P
Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department said there is “no justifiable rationale” for Standard & Poor’s move to downgrade the nation’s credit rating as global finance ministry officials prepared responses to the historic announcement.


In the wake of Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the United States government's credit rating from AAA to AA+, a number of commentators on the left are directing most of the blame not at high levels of government spending, and not even at tax rates they would like to increase, but at the ratings agency itself. Since S&P made enormous mistakes in rating securities backed by subprime mortgages prior to the economic meltdown, they argue, the ratings agency has no right to judge the U.S. government today.

"These are some of the people who have the worst records of incompetence and irresponsibility around," top House Democrat Rep. Barney Frank told MSNBC. S&P analysts, Frank continued, are "trying to justify their reputation" by being tough on the U.S. An unnamed White House official, quoted by CNBC, called S&P's performance "amateur hour" and cited a $2 trillion math mistake made in an earlier S&P assessment. Another anonymous administration official added: "A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself."

Farther along on the left, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the downgrade "an outrage" and accused S&P of "just making stuff up." "After the mortgage debacle," Krugman said, "they really don't have that right." Later, Krugman approvingly passed along a tweet from the lefty blogger Atrios, who wrote of S&P: "Apparently we're supposed to care about what some idiots at some corrupt organization think about anything."

Barney Frank referring to anyone as incompetent and irresponsible is hysterical

S&P= Terrorists?




Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department said there is “no justifiable rationale” for Standard & Poor’s move to downgrade the nation’s credit rating as global finance ministry officials prepared responses to the historic announcement.

"These are some of the people who have the worst records of incompetence and irresponsibility around," top House Democrat Rep. Barney Frank told MSNBC. S&P analysts, Frank continued, are "trying to justify their reputation" by being tough on the U.S. An unnamed White House official, quoted by CNBC, called S&P's performance "amateur hour" and cited a $2 trillion math mistake made in an earlier S&P assessment. Another anonymous administration official added: "A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself."

Farther along on the left, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the downgrade "an outrage" and accused S&P of "just making stuff up." "

Barney Frank referring to anyone as incompetent and irresponsible is hysterical

Typical of the left, if you don't agree with them smear the facts or
the person.

Barney Frank, a good example of why we need term limits.

gold eft's

Have to call my broker now.

Make sure to call Gordan Liddy for gold purchases, he is the most trust worthy person in America today. Ask Spence. :)

Spence -

"The Wiki presents two sides to the argument, you pick one and then claim it's fact?"

It DOES NOT claim that the rich DIDN'T pay more taxes after the Bush tax cuts. My point was that the wealthy are paying a higher share of the tax burden than ever before. That's irrefutable fact. It may not serve your particular personal agenda, but it's still fact.

"to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me."

Spence, I never, ever claimed that the Bush cuts CAUSED the wealthy to pay more. AllI said was that after the tax cuts were put in place, they paid more. I can't prove that the cuts caused them to pay more, nor can you prove that the cuts didn't cause them to pay more. But it's fair to say that the tax cuts were not designed to allow the rich to pay less taxes...if that was the intent of the Bush tax cuts, it failed miserably.

Spence, please try to respond to what I'm actually saying. Please don't put extremist jibberish in my mouth.

Spence, we can't have 50% of our citizens paying no income tax. I'm sure that many of those folks have multiple flat screen TVs, laptops, multiple cars, cell phones, etc...They can afford to pay SOME income taxes.

If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8685945/If-we-are-to-survive-the-looming-catastrophe-we-need-to-face-the-truth.html)

"The truly fundamental question that is at the heart of the disaster toward which we are racing is being debated only in America: is it possible for a free market economy to support a democratic socialist society? On this side of the Atlantic, the model of a national welfare system with comprehensive entitlements, which is paid for by the wealth created through capitalist endeavour, has been accepted (even by parties of the centre-Right) as the essence of post-war political enlightenment.

This was the heaven on earth for which liberal democracy had been striving: a system of wealth redistribution that was merciful but not Marxist, and a guarantee of lifelong economic and social security for everyone that did not involve totalitarian government. This was the ideal the European Union was designed to entrench. It was the dream of Blairism, which adopted it as a replacement for the state socialism of Old Labour. And it is the aspiration of President Obama and his liberal Democrats, who want the United States to become a European-style social democracy.

But the US has a very different historical experience from European countries, with their accretions of national remorse and class guilt: it has a far stronger and more resilient belief in the moral value of liberty and the dangers of state power. This is a political as much as an economic crisis, but not for the reasons that Mr Obama believes. The ruckus that nearly paralysed the US economy last week, and led to the loss of its AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s, arose from a confrontation over the most basic principles of American life."

Futures not looking good for tomorrow.

implosion imminent

it's quite possible that the wealthy did increase their share of the burden in that time period...But to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me.

-spence

Spence, a rational person could make a strong case that the Bush tax cuts led directly to the wealthy paying more taxes. You see, a cut in tax rates lets people keep more of their money. When that happens, wealthy folks have more incentive to take chances by investing in growth. When those investments bear fruit, those wealthy people have to pay taxes on the gains. Therefore, a cut in tax rates could easily trigger an increase in investment by wealthy folks. That argument has no "spin" whatsoever, and it sounds fairly reasonable to me.

Now Spence, perhaps you could tell us all why, in your opinion, lowering tax rates DOES NOT encourage investment in growth? Enlighten me, Spence. Please tell me how a cut in tax rates does NOT encourage people to invest more...

Best thread ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bye bye 401k :wave:

4pm is gonna be effin BRUTAL

Not time to buy yet.

damn tea party

:uhuh:

QUOTE=RIJIMMY;878383]damn tea party[/QUOTE]

I cant get this song out of my head today.....

&#x202a;John Cougar Mellencamp Crumblin Down Video&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uCm1N-vSHI)

when the tax loopholes are closed, perhaps, just perhaps, we'll get out of this mess that we're in.
as long as buisnesses can write off just about anything, we're screwed.
15% of the fortune 500 paid no tax at all. plus they get a tax break for sending u.s. jobs overseas.
no matter who caused this mess, someone has to fix it.
in case your wondering, i had 2 different corps, inc, and did just what the big boys. write everything off.

It's funny that after 3 years the economy is worse than the one Obama "inherited," but we must be patient because it takes time to fix these things. But because the Bush tax cuts "immediately led to a DECREASE in tax revenues," that somehow contra-indicates the idea that they led to higher revenues. The fact that revenues rose in 2005 is somehow too late to be connected to tax cuts. And that we "all know" the three year growth rate that followed was due to a credit bubble--not "real organic growth."
If this growth was real why was household income falling at the same time, why was hiring so slow compared to the tax burdened days of the 1990s?

I've yet to read a good analysis that says the economic rise 2005-2008 was driven primarily by private investment spurred through tax cuts.

Actually, it makes sense that revenues would immediately fall after a tax cut which was made to stimulate job growth. It takes time for the growth to occur. It doesn't occur "immediately." And the revenue will fall because the "immediate" taxes are being collected before that growth. Higher taxes will always "immediately" create more government revenue than lower taxes. But if the effect of the higher taxes is to stunt job growth and create job loss, the longer, non-immediate, effect could well be decreased revenue. Higher taxes will always garner more revenue, ALL OTHER THINGS REMAINING THE SAME. But if the the higher taxes create smaller markets at the expense of bigger government, all other things do not remain the same, and the "economy" may shrink, and revenues may dwindle.
I think this view is oversimplified and ignores much larger forces at play that ultimately shape our economic performance. Energy costs, technology evolution, geopolitical change etc... are likely far more influential than the rate of taxation.

Perhaps if the distribution of income was more equal, taxation would be more of a factor. I'm not advocating wealth equality for this reason, but rather just making an observation.

And, no, we don't "all know" the three year growth was due only to a credit bubble. And, by the way, is the government credit bubble of a raised deficit ceiling going to create "real organic growth," especially if there is more "stimulus" spending?
I don't think we're going to see stable economic growth if the government appears to be non-functional. The stability of our Government is perhaps a principal factor making the US a desirable place to do business.

-spence

Spence, please re-read, your misqouting me.

IMHO, everyone should be paying taxes so they share in the responsibility and have a hand in sacrafcing
no matter how much they make or how many entitlements they receive.
I don't believe I was misquoting you.

And regarding the 51%, they do pay taxes, they actually pay a lot in taxes compared to their income. Just because they don't pay Federal Income Taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to Medicare, Social Security, sales taxes etc...

-spence

It DOES NOT claim that the rich DIDN'T pay more taxes after the Bush tax cuts.
The article does directly contradict the Heritage analysis that the wealthy paid a larger share because of the cuts.

ritics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. The cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality.[16][17][18][19][20] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[21]

My point was that the wealthy are paying a higher share of the tax burden than ever before. That's irrefutable fact. It may not serve your particular personal agenda, but it's still fact.
If it's an irrefutable fact then some numbers should be easy to come by. This would help with the analysis...

But if the rich are paying a higher % of the burden because of higher GDP then attributing that to a tax cut doesn't make much sense...unless you can also attribute the economic rise to the same cut.

Spence, I never, ever claimed that the Bush cuts CAUSED the wealthy to pay more. AllI said was that after the tax cuts were put in place, they paid more. I can't prove that the cuts caused them to pay more, nor can you prove that the cuts didn't cause them to pay more. But it's fair to say that the tax cuts were not designed to allow the rich to pay less taxes...if that was the intent of the Bush tax cuts, it failed miserably.
On an individual basis the rich certainly paid less after the tax cuts. As was mentioned above, where the burden is placed is dependent on many variables as actual revenues are a function of economic performance. As I referenced in your own link, there is debate on what really occurred.

-spence

I don't think we're going to see stable economic growth if the government appears to be non-functional. The stability of our Government is perhaps a principal factor making the US a desirable place to do business.

-spence

There is no such thing as economic growth in this country. Ever. As long as we spend more than we make.

It is a practice that can not be sustained. We must produce more than we consume and become self reliant. Is this concept so foreign to us? Less than 50 years ago that is how this country operated. A blink of time in the grand scheme of history. How hard is it to just keep everything stupid simple. You make x you can spend x. If you don't have money to support programs x y and z at their current levels then tough. Everyone is so freaking entitled in this country.

It is ridiculous. To think we need to go further in debt as a government or as individuals to live our lives. Increasing debt to pay old debt? Economics 101! When does it end?

We are headed straight down the toilet and the Chinese are going to push the lever. You think it is bad talking to India for customer service etc. Wait until we are the customer service and it is China calling.

Spence, a rational person could make a strong case that the Bush tax cuts led directly to the wealthy paying more taxes. You see, a cut in tax rates lets people keep more of their money. When that happens, wealthy folks have more incentive to take chances by investing in growth. When those investments bear fruit, those wealthy people have to pay taxes on the gains. Therefore, a cut in tax rates could easily trigger an increase in investment by wealthy folks. That argument has no "spin" whatsoever, and it sounds fairly reasonable to me.
According to Detbuch above this takes time for the incentives to ferment. I thought you had remarked it was more instantaneous...I think you're mixing your ideas of what "paying more taxes" really means.

Now Spence, perhaps you could tell us all why, in your opinion, lowering tax rates DOES NOT encourage investment in growth? Enlighten me, Spence. Please tell me how a cut in tax rates does NOT encourage people to invest more...
The CBO has published numbers on this exact topic and I remember reading their estimates that a dollar in tax cuts produces between 10 and 40 cents of economic benefit.

This isn't a great deal...

Why? Because those the rich often save it rather than spend or invest, and even if they invest a lot of that activity is to make money in speculative markets that don't directly lead to job growth.

More importantly...

We are currently running a very large budget deficit. A cut in taxes therefore has to be PAID for by BORROWING more money. So not only does your tax cut generate a fraction of benefit for the investment, a lot of that benefit is wiped out to service the loan on the debt necessary to create the tax cut.

-spence

On an individual basis the rich certainly paid less after the tax cuts. As was mentioned above, where the burden is placed is dependent on many variables as actual revenues are a function of economic performance. As I referenced in your own link, there is debate on what really occurred.

-spence

Spence, I'm using small words so you can get this. After the Bush tax cuts, the wealthy (as a group) paid MORE taxes. Theyt paid more in absolute dollars. They paid more in terms of the percentage of total taxes paid.

you ar eliterally making it up as you go along.

We are currently running a very large budget deficit. A cut in taxes therefore has to be PAID for by BORROWING more money. So not only does your tax cut generate a fraction of benefit for the investment, a lot of that benefit is wiped out to service the loan on the debt necessary to create the tax cut.[/B]

-spence

Then why do we have "tax free days"?? And why did Obama and Bush try stimulate the economy by sending people a tax refund?? Why do towns and states give tax breaks to corporations to set up shop there?
You can take 100% of the money from the wealthy and it won't dig us out of this hole. Not even close.
I think you need to pay a higher rate.

Then why do we have "tax free days"?? And why did Obama and Bush try stimulate the economy by sending people a tax refund?? Why do towns and states give tax breaks to corporations to set up shop there?
You can take 100% of the money from the wealthy and it won't dig us out of this hole. Not even close.
I think you need to pay a higher rate.
Ironically you're actually talking about "bottom up" stimulus though I don't think you were intending to :hihi:

-spence

Spence, I'm using small words so you can get this. After the Bush tax cuts, the wealthy (as a group) paid MORE taxes. Theyt paid more in absolute dollars. They paid more in terms of the percentage of total taxes paid.

you ar eliterally making it up as you go along.

Nope, I'm quite in control.

What you're failing to grasp is that without two items:

A) Proof this is true

and

B) Evidence that correlates this with the Bush Tax Cuts

The point is moot.

The funny thing is the data probably backs your point, but it's not the point you're trying to make :humpty:

-spence

I don't believe I was misquoting you.

And regarding the 51%, they do pay taxes, they actually pay a lot in taxes compared to their income. Just because they don't pay Federal Income Taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to Medicare, Social Security, sales taxes etc...

-spence


Yup you did, believe it. :hihi:

Because of our current tax structure everyone should pay Fed Tax so they have a hand in the game.

Yup you did, believe it. :hihi:

Because of our current tax structure everyone should pay Fed Tax so they have a hand in the game.

???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you're failing to grasp is that without two items:


A) Proof this is true

and

B) Evidence

The point is moot.

-spence

I guess we can declare 98% of your statements and claims moot then :uhuh: the other 2% supported with evidence from MSNBC

it's the spending....raising taxes will not solve the spending problem and as we see with the most recent deal, if we allow the increased debt limit and/or increased taxes, they will find a way to weasle out of the spending cuts.....if we don't hold firm to massive, acutal, meaningful spending cuts, no level of taxation will matter...and the only people that are serious about this are the people that you loathe :uhuh: and S & P apparently

WOW!:claps:

Scarborough: ‘Terminally Stupid Ideologues’ Should ‘Stop Using the Tea Party as a Piñata’
August 8, 2011

Following Senator John Kerry’s outburst Sunday in which he referred to the S&P downgrade as the “Tea Party Downgrade,” Joe Scarborough fought back on his Monday episode of ”Morning Joe.“ The host called on ”terminally stupid ideologues“ that ”really don’t understand” anything because they’re “so dogmatic [they] can’t think for [themselves]“ to ”stop using the Tea Party as a piñata.”

"I am not blaming the President exclusively. We have blamed the Tea Partiers here for not moving. We have blamed Republicans. We have blamed Democrats as well. But please – I know it makes you feel better, but, you know, stop using the Tea Party as a piñata. We’ve got systemic problems in this country. The President could have done something for two years when he had Democrats controlling the House of Representatives and controlling the United States Senate. He did nothing on entitlement reform."

Scarborough went on to assert that, contrary to what the liberal media presented, President Obama never offered cuts to entitlement programs in his “grand bargain.”