|
[B]
My take : Tax levels are at their lowest in years. GM pays exactly 0$ in tax. For some reason, people are suggesting that we reduce taxes on the rich. We need to both increase taxes and cut spending.
You can't tax the rich without hurting the poor that's a fact. Taxing the rich just means less jobs.
|
On August 06 2011 10:36 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 10:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If you notice, had Democrats listened to Republicans and stopped demanding more revenue as a last-second addition to the deal, we could have had about 3 trillion in cuts and 800 billion in revenues a week and a half ago. That was the deal Boehner had with Obama before Obama demanded 400 billion more in revenues or the deal was off and Boehner stopped negotiating with him and went back to Pelosi and Reid and got a bill hammered out.. So 1.2 billion in revenues and 3 trillion in cuts? Err...Republicans control one branch of Congress. How is this not a good deal? No, strike that. How on earth is this not the best deal ever for the Republican Party since Reagan?
Because Republicans follow the take-no-prisoners religion of "tax cuts always good, tax increases always bad".
|
On August 06 2011 09:51 DKR wrote:an interesting poll in the economist was quite revealing of who were the main (note main) culprits in not compromising on the debt ceiling/budget problems in general. http://www.economist.com/node/21524888
A frightening/illuminating picture from that article:
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20110730_USC300.gif)
|
On August 06 2011 10:37 FarmI3oy wrote:Show nested quote +[B]
My take : Tax levels are at their lowest in years. GM pays exactly 0$ in tax. For some reason, people are suggesting that we reduce taxes on the rich. We need to both increase taxes and cut spending.
You can't tax the rich without hurting the poor that's a fact. Taxing the rich just means less jobs.
The rich have done an awesome job so far with some of the lowest tax rates in years...
|
So 1.2 billion in revenues and 3 trillion in cuts?
Err...Republicans control one branch of Congress. How is this not a good deal?
Obama demanded the 400 billion additional revenue come from tax increases, reversing his compromise position with Boehner at literally the end of negotiations when there wasn't much left to do but shake hands and say "nice working with you." Knowing full well that Boehner was not going to accept tax increases as part of the deal. After working with Boehner for weeks and leading him on to believe that Obama was not going to demand tax increases.
Obama = amateur politician.
Because Republicans follow the take-no-prisoners religion of "tax cuts always good, tax increases always bad".
Capital is already deep, deep, deep in hiding thanks to the idiotic Big Government policies of this administration, let's encourage more companies to move out of America, more rich people to move their assets offshore, by raising taxes in a recession!
It's a brilliant religion, Democrats have, where you can tax your way out of a recession.
|
On August 06 2011 10:37 FarmI3oy wrote:
You can't tax the rich without hurting the poor that's a fact. Taxing the rich just means less jobs.
Oh, god, I thought you folks all died back in 1996 ><
|
On August 06 2011 10:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:The only reason there was a "crisis" was because the budget votes and debt ceiling votes were pressed up right against each other which was the entire point of the Democrats, so they could demagogue the Tea Party, and look how many people here fell for it  The budget votes could have been months ago and we could have had a battle about spending and taxes then, but Democrats wanted to scare people and blame the Tea Party.
The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011. There was a huge battle about spending and taxes then; I'm not sure what you're getting on about. If it had been passed the day Obama originally proposed his 2011 budget on February 10th, 2010 the exact same thing would have happened.
The Tea Party and everyone else didn't need the budget to mess with the debt ceiling; the debt ceiling must be raised independent of the budget and there is no conceivable budget that would have prevented the need for it to be raised, given the current economy. The "crisis" we have originated from the right deciding to demagogue the debt ceiling to a greater extent that had ever previously been done; for better or worse, the left would have happily left the budget discussion to the 2012 budget.
|
Maybe it's finally time to try capitalism? It's still *never* been tested in the history of mankind.
(In before people whose definition of capitalism is "the economic philosophy of the United States" reply, "OMG LOL YES IT HAS WHAT DEW U CALL TEH US?")
|
On August 06 2011 10:24 StrangrDangr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 10:22 Hawk wrote:
Does anyone have a good, objective source for general info about the whole debt crisis and negotiations?? i've only vaguely followed it, but it's kind of hard with the games going on on both sides Finding an objective source of information would be quite a feat. If you prefer an easy way out; it was the Demicrats fault, you can take my word for it.
I'd take your word for it, except that you can't spell Democrats which immediately makes your word worthless. It was both sides fault, I follow US politics very closely (mainly because its funny as hell from an outside pov) and both sides are useless atm.
Obama is the first president in my life time that ever had to fight for a debt ceiling increase, whether that be because of his skin colour or just because the batshit insane tea baggers don't know the first thing about mathematics, your politicians were playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun and this is the result.
US tax rates are amongst the lowest in the developed world and is the only country I know where its considered bad to tax the rich. In the UK, when the recession hit we jacked up the tax rate on the highest 1% of earners to 50% and guess what..... we were pretty much out of the shit within months. Yes we've had to do a lot and I mean a lot of cutting, many health services have had budgets slashed for instance, but we raised taxes first and then took another look at the situation.
|
Let's disregard everything and look at S & P along with the other rating agencies.
It's complete bullshit they are downgrading the USA's credit rating when before the financial crisis they consistently awarded AAA ratings to conglomerates of subprime loans and derivatives. If anyone has seen the documentary the Inside Job, they do a fairly decent job on showing how credit agencies like S & P fucked over our nation and consequently the world.
Sure, perhaps we deserve a downgrade after what happened, but S & P is a nasty, fucked up organization, along with Moody's. Honestly they are using this opportunity to pounce on the USA's credit rating so they can save face after inflating all those shitty loans to AAA several years ago.
|
On August 06 2011 10:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +So 1.2 billion in revenues and 3 trillion in cuts?
Err...Republicans control one branch of Congress. How is this not a good deal? Obama demanded the 400 billion additional revenue come from tax increases, reversing his compromise position with Boehner at literally the end of negotiations when there wasn't much left to do but shake hands and say "nice working with you." Knowing full well that Boehner was not going to accept tax increases as part of the deal. After working with Boehner for weeks and leading him on to believe that Obama was not going to demand tax increases. Obama = amateur politician.
Taking your statement at face value*, S&P demanded 4.2 trillion over the next ten years at the last minute, not 3.8. 3.8=/=4.2.
Once again, how is this not the best deal ever since Reagan?
*To be honest, I have some questions about your chronology, but I'm ignoring that. It's certain that your first numbers are probably accurate, but they hadn't even finished discussing where the cuts would come from, nor where the tax revenues would come from. They were still using different baselines, even before the deal broke down. How on earth was this a finished deal?
|
On August 06 2011 10:19 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 10:18 Deadlyhazard wrote:
What exactly does this mean? I'm not really familiar with this stuff......anything bad for day-to-day life in the U.S. for the future? In practical terms, not much. The market's been moving for about two days already, S&P's announcement is quite late. It's largely a symbolic gesture.
Uh, it's really not.
Anything that's backed by or associated with the government (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) will likely suffer reductions in ratings. It means, it will be more expensive to borrow money (i.e. higher interest rates) since it's more likely that the government won't pay it back.
|
On August 06 2011 10:37 FarmI3oy wrote:Show nested quote +[B]
My take : Tax levels are at their lowest in years. GM pays exactly 0$ in tax. For some reason, people are suggesting that we reduce taxes on the rich. We need to both increase taxes and cut spending.
You can't tax the rich without hurting the poor that's a fact. Taxing the rich just means less jobs.
Is it a fact though? Please provide your evidence with citations so that we can verify the alleged fact for ourselves. Thanks
|
[/QUOTE]
A frightening/illuminating picture from that article:
[/QUOTE]
I think its silly to vote for someone with certain values and beliefs and then have them change those values and beliefs when they get to washington. I want the person to do what I voted him in to do. You don't just vote people into office to get things done you vote them in to represent the people.
|
Sigh. Despite all the bitching and whining, the end result was the same: we had a deal made. Why can't politicians learn how to fuckin compromise? I mean is it really THAT much to ask for?!
|
Many important country ( China, Russia for example ) dont have the AAA note, so this dont mean a lot for USA
|
On August 06 2011 10:34 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 10:26 Yttrasil wrote:
I'm just speculating but it actually affects quite alot. Think of a bank having a 100% safe asset which AAA was, now that factor is reduced and thus it allows for less lending to the public and also less capital to be kept in stocks which are not certain assets. All this spreading and making some assets less worth is very alarming, especially after this weeks turbulance everywhere. Gold gonna skyrocket even more probably and people flee the stock market not just for the reason with the banks etc but the fear this creates. Going to be VERY BAD! I have absolutely no doubt that things are going to be really bad, but I think things would have been equally bad even if S&P hadn't downgraded US debt. As I said, the markets were well ahead of S&P for the past 48 hours. Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 10:27 Triscuit wrote:
I have a feeling.... that this will have no impact on any upcoming election. Politicians have a way of waving their hands, passing the buck to someone else, and basically distracting the American people to the point that each and every person that has led to this failure of a situation will get re-elected, or the reason they aren't elected has nothing to do with this. Currently, polls show that Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate, and Republicans in the Senate have dropped quite a bit of support. House Republicans have absolutely torpedoed their support. Obama's dropped by about 2% to 47%. Public approval of Congress in general is literally at a record low.
Markets as in stock traders maybe they were, but whatever formulaes etc with variables of safe and unsafe assets will have to be changed and that is not accounted for in the slightest since they want to be making money out of 100% of their capital. The markets response has been to a larger degree a response to the eurocrisis not a sudden or somewhat unexpected at least at this very moment lowering of the US rating. Again my guess is stocks falling at least 4% on monday after I don't know and gold up by maybe the same amount. Lets just say I wouldn't be wanting to have stocks now and I cannot for the love of god imagining anyone else wanting to own stocks at this moment.
Question is, is there going to be a burst of the obvious bubble we have now or is it for some other time. I'd give it a 30% chance of happening.
|
On August 06 2011 10:43 Rodiel3 wrote:
Many important country ( China, Russia for example ) dont have the AAA note, so this dont mean a lot for USA
Are you kidding me? There's a reason why countries without a AAA end up having to pay higher rates on things like debt payments, and domestically mortgage rates and all that jazz are hiked.
|
On August 06 2011 10:39 SgtWaffles wrote:
Let's disregard everything and look at S & P along with the other rating agencies.
It's complete bullshit they are downgrading the USA's credit rating when before the financial crisis they consistently awarded AAA ratings to conglomerates of subprime loans and derivatives. If anyone has seen the documentary the Inside Job, they do a fairly decent job on showing how credit agencies like S & P fucked over our nation and consequently the world.
Sure, perhaps we deserve a downgrade after what happened, but S & P is a nasty, fucked up organization, along with Moody's. Honestly they are using this opportunity to pounce on the USA's credit agency so they can save face after inflating all those shitty loans to AAA several years ago.
They had very little data to work with in terms of mortgage-backed bonds and their CDOs, and a lot of industry influences that strong-armed them into handing out AAA ratings.
Just because they fucked up before, doesn't mean they should purposely fuck up some more indefinitely into the future. I say good for S&P.
|
The Fed announced it won't change the risk weights.
On another note, S&P put out a statement saying the reason for the downgrade was because BOTH sides are fighting too much, and that the government wasn't properly look at cutting spending AND raising taxes. Not one, but both.
Yet even after that release, all you see here is one person after another blaming only the republicans, or only the democrats.
Amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
