EPTIf the country doesn't raise the debt ceiling is it true that the country's credit rating will get worse?
The US debt (proper debate) - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
If the country doesn't raise the debt ceiling is it true that the country's credit rating will get worse? | ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:27 travis wrote: So a lot of the stuff in this thread confuses me. If the country doesn't raise the debt ceiling is it true that the country's credit rating will get worse? Yes, it will certainly be downgraded, which will have extensive economic repercussions. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:00 Caller wrote: Since everybody else is talking out of their ass about things that they don't know about, I will too. See? I can come up with ways to sound smart by talking about the debt and economy despite not knowing what the fuck i'm talking about either. No, you sound clueless. You can't tax individuals based on spending. Do you want the IRS to audit receipt piles for all individual tax payers? If you think people are talking out of their asses then counter the points made, don't make a long post that you admit is full of shit too. Edit: To the guy that said certain social spending should kick in at 68 instead of 62, thats a massive change, not a small one. Thinking about retiring in 2 years? Well think again, now its 10! | ||
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RFxhh.jpg) If we do nothing -- no new expenditures, no new tax cuts and Bush tax cuts expire -- there is no deficit: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NhF5I.jpg) | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
Before you pounce on me for being some sort of hardcore conservative, my main reasoning is that with the social security program, you get paid out what you get paid in. This is not a good way to run a "social security" type of program: those who need it should get paid out, while those who do not should not. Additionally, the wage cap in effect makes social security a regressive tax. The future menace of social security failure is averted, and we are then free to look at developing a more sustainable program to support those elderly who are financially unable to do so themselves. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:32 travis wrote: So then why is it wrong for Obama to make a plea to the country for help? Personally I have a feeling I would take Obama's plan over Boehner's, which I would assume involves slashing social programs? I think the vast majority of Americans would as well. I'm assuming you just watched his speech - he basically did just that. Hopefully americans will listen to him over boehner...but sometimes I completely lose faith in this country. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:32 travis wrote: So then why is it wrong for Obama to make a plea to the country for help? Personally I have a feeling I would take Obama's plan over Boehner's, which I would assume involves slashing social programs? Reid's plan, not Obama's. And yes, Boehner's plan is a failure: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3548 House Speaker John Boehner’s new budget proposal would require deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, the repeal of health reform’s coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans. The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history. This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. The mathematics are inexorable. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:34 Comeh wrote: I'm assuming you just watched his speech - he basically did just that. Hopefully americans will listen to him over boehner...but sometimes I completely lose faith in this country. Obama is quite possibly the most patient person of all time. If he quit smoking, he may actually be holy. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:34 Comeh wrote: I'm assuming you just watched his speech - he basically did just that. Hopefully americans will listen to him over boehner...but sometimes I completely lose faith in this country. Yeah I was replying to xdaunt and the other guy who said it was "disgraceful" for Obama to make a speech on tv about it. | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:33 Sentient wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but there isn't really a deficit. Theres a 14 trillion odd defecit. If you reduce spending to equal income you still have a debt to pay off and an interest charge to service. I'm not sure how you can think there isn't really a defecit. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37032 Posts
He said the debt is around 14 trillion dollars and the defecit is around (I can't remember.) Is this information accurate? T-T Poor Europe... | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:38 Deja Thoris wrote: Theres a 14 trillion odd defecit. If you reduce spending to equal income you still have a debt to pay off and an interest charge to service. I'm not sure how you can think there isn't really a defecit. 14 trillion debt, 8 trillion of which is not owed to the government itself. 1.5 trillion deficit. They are different words. | ||
|
_Major
United States107 Posts
Our representatives are playing the same games they've always played, 'the blame game'. As long as they make us believe that we have the same 2 choices on every topic, we'll never get anywhere. I'm generally a pretty liberal guy but I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want the rich to get a tax hike right now, if the rest of us aren't getting a tax cut? How does that solve the problem that our government is throwing extremely large sums of money away on ineffective programs and minimum interest payments on both sides of the aisle? Knowing this, why would we give them anymore money? They need to get back to getting it right. It doesn't matter how much you tax someone, they are going to try and get out of as much as they possibly can if they feel their money is wasted. And most Americans feel this way right now! | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
I completely understand your feelings, and your right we keep changing which party is in power without dealing with the underling problem, that the hyperpolitical atmosphere in washington has the initiative to just fight the party in power not actually solve the real problems. When in 2008 nancy pelosi won control of the house she said her biggest concern was getting more dems in office. When reps took the house they stated their main concern is to make sure Obama does not get reelected. If the rules of the game are not helping the average American, then the rules need to be written. The truth is that we got into this position by making extremely unwise decisions, mostly during the Bush years. We have a tax code that favors the rich without any promises that they will reinvest their savings into the economy. The government has grown to big and wasteful. We need to trim government to be sure, but we also need to do more than that, we need government reform. We need to institute changes to the way we do things, not just the person who is in charge. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:18 xDaunt wrote: It's a lie because there's $2.4 trillion in a special trust fund held by the treasury that exists solely to pay social security checks when there's a current account deficit in the social security program (ie, a default). In short, there's a shitton of money there for paying social security obligations. The trust fund has most likely been raided, lol. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:33 Deja Thoris wrote: No, you sound clueless. You can't tax individuals based on spending. Do you want the IRS to audit receipt piles for all individual tax payers? Yes, you can tax individuals based on spending (aka consumption). Income minus investment/savings. And under our current system, the IRS is far more likely to audit someone's receipt piles because sales tax is deductible, and so a lot of people itemize all their purchases. If you're already taxing consumption, no need for a sales tax. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On July 26 2011 10:33 Sentient wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but there isn't really a deficit. If we do nothing -- no new expenditures, no new tax cuts and Bush tax cuts expire -- there is no deficit: Sorta right. Health expenditures outpace GDP growth by quite a lot, so even with an economic recovery and expiration of the tax cuts, we'll still have a deficit in the future. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4338 Posts
On July 26 2011 14:00 domovoi wrote: Sorta right. Health expenditures outpace GDP growth by quite a lot, so even with an economic recovery and expiration of the tax cuts, we'll still have a deficit in the future. Not to mention repayments on the debt. Any sane person knows the only way for the US to balance it's budget is to stop the wars , stop the bankster bailouts and start cutting social programs that the USA could never afford. Of course the USA issuing it's own currency instead buying Bernanke bucks from a private banking cartel (Federal Reserve) would also go a long long way to helping that as well.... | ||
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On July 26 2011 14:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Not to mention repayments on the debt. Any sane person knows the only way for the US to balance it's budget is to stop the wars , stop the bankster bailouts and start cutting social programs that the USA could never afford. Or stop the wars, and raise taxes on the rich by a few percentage points. Hell, close the offshore loopholes, and cut corporate taxes while you're at it. Compensate with increased personal income taxes. Funny how according to you, the only sane solution, is to have the lower classes exclusively bear the burden of reducing debt. (While the wealth gap grows and grows...) | ||
| ||
