Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
It comical to watch the clowns on both sides of this play the blame game.
It's pretty simple. America has had a problem living within its means (meaning having a balanced budget) since 2001. Quite frankly, America has ALWAYS had a problem living within its means - we've only had a surplus for 12 years since 1940. But with access to cheap capital, shortsighted policymaking and the promise of seemingly unlimited earning power (we've never had any real threat to our economic dominance until the rise of Asia), it was never a concern.
Bring on 2002-Present when we've continually outdone ourselves with more and more spending we can't afford, but not our seemingly unlimited earning power has proven an illusion. We have a spending problem. It is obvious.
We also have a mountain of debt that needs to be paid off. That's a revenue problem. What America needs is not just a balanced budget, but a surplus budget so that we can reduce out debt burden. It's going to take bigger spending cuts than this BS Debt Deal plan. It's also going to take increased revenue. It's time to pay off our debts, America. We rung up the tab, now it's time to pay - not leave the problem for future generations to figure out.
I see you don't understand who they are. They are not a stock. the S&P index is just a group of stocks used as an indicator. I would say they are pretty qualified to rate individual investments and securities. No conflict of interest, if that's what you worry about.
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
LOL... You're the idiot, always assuming. After 6 minutes... Guess what... I was already on the road on my way to work!
How about we simply remove the loopholes the some of the rich enjoy to reduce their taxes. It's not fair that not all the rich get these loopholes now is it?
I think we need both. Less exceptions and higher taxes. Obviously, that goes along with some spending cuts.
BTW, I'm not sure why you quoted my post to put that link up. It still doesn't address that the 15% dividend tax is among the cheaper out there, and trickle-down is a bunch of baloney.
You mean raise the amount of money that they are taxed?
So you said that if we raise taxes, S&P would downgrade us again. So now you are saying that when they say 'raise revenues' that they want us to close loopholes but if they raise the rates they would down grade us.
Thats not even semantic tapdancing. Thats just sheer stupidity once again on display from a parts bin in the Great Northwest.
Idiot.
I didn't edit the structure of the sentence for a reason. Notice the lack of ellipses. IOW, i did not change the meaning of the sentence.
What they said clear as day is that we are a bunch of fuckups that they cannot count on to reduce spending and increase income to solve this problem like they had once thought we would.
I just pointed out the revenue portion that was used by the conjunction because to show cause. You are just rearranging sentences for fun.
What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?
Other than mindless and obviously partisan ad hominem do you have an empirical basis for deriding their accounting methods. I really do not know.Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
Oh, and something NOT from a PAC please.
5%
It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.
[IMG]China demands U.S. 'live within its means'[/IMG]
"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,"
In addition to holding about $1.2 trillion in treasuries, an estimated two-thirds of China's $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves is estimated to be in dollars.
China's central bank must jettison trillions of incoming foreign exchange to ensure the yuan remains low. For the most part, U.S. treasuries represent the only destination large enough to accommodate China's holdings. Officials have periodically pledged to diversify China's reserves, but few alternatives exist.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,3901161.story
=======
nobody forced China to invest in dollars. And China is screwing the world by keeping its currency pegged to dollar an fixed rather than floating rate.
Fuzzy...
Please notice I specified not to increase "tax rates."
What I fail to understand is how the poor can afford to smoke.
The semantic tapdancing is weak in this one.
Well then by your little tapdance then removing discounts does not change the base rate either.
Look, dipshit. If they had wanted to be specific then they would have been specific. You have no basis whatsoever for your asinine interpretation.
Lets ask the everyone. Who here thinks that WC is right and that S&P by revenues meant all revenues but tax increases?
We all know what DC politicians are talking about when they say they want to raise taxes. They raise the tax rates, then add more loopholes that they and their friends can use.
Thats so cute you characterize poor people as drunks to make yourself feel better for these positions.
I'm not a partisan and who are these 'friends' and the 'left.' You throw the latter out so much that it means very little. i just take it to mean registered democrats.
But 5% is so little. If they don't make much, how much would they feel it?
The point is that everyone needs skin in the game. Even if its small.
Now would us not paying our debts be justification for them going to war? i know that when creditors don't get paid they start seizing assets. Is not that kind of what that would be?
Cannot seize unsecured debt.
Legally in the United States sure. My point is that these are the types of things that countries go to war for.
You're joking, right?
They would go to war, and spend far more money than we owe them? Get real.
You mean a third...
Just as applicable.
Clausewitz stated that war is just the ultimate form of politics. Its not about the cost as much as its about cost-benefit and your bush league personal finance interpretation of the accounting really does not bring much to the table.
it certainly would not be the first time countries went to war over debt.
govt could cut spending, how about the subsidies it hands out each year, humanitarian aid and shit
This has been discussed extensively before. Foreign aid needs to go for the time being, IMO. All of it, including Israel. You can't be helping somebody else when you have problems of your own.
...and neither will lenders....
It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.
Ahh, machismo in policymaking is just as good as oversimplification. What I am saying is that the system that was about to be dismantled makes it profitable to not mess with our interests over there.
If the hole things takes a shit then what is to prevent them from making moves on all of their territorial interests in the area. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the Indochina peninsula states for awhile now, have had a long history of wanting to move on Taiwan and an even longer history of fucking with the Japanese and Koreans.
Right now they are good they can buy natural resources from Australia, lend us money building up debt, steal our IPR. and employ their workforce by manufacturing the lions share of what we consume.
If we do not pay our debts then the entire system of exchange collapses. that impetus to make moves for territorial security and securing natural resources is there still.
Like I said counties have gone to war for less and geographically NATO is not in position to really control what they do in their own geographical region.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
