Black Monday here we come

[UserRemoved1]

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time - The Washington Post

Hold on to your hats boys n girls

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

[buckman]

Damn Bush!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Perhaps we can pray our credit rating back

-spence

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[BigFish]

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!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Perhaps we can pray our credit rating back

-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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

really?

You can't compare results from different polls.

Here's a more interesting look.

Worst. Congress. Ever. - By Norman Ornstein | Foreign Policy

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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

[striperman36]

gold eft's

Have to call my broker now.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by striperman36

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.

[Jim in CT]

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

yes we have covered this and debunked all of your bunk

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[scottw]

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... 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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by 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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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

-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

"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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

"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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Oh, and God happened to think it was pretty funny

-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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by 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.

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