The gap in the ability to pay is at historic levels. Simpleminded egalitarianism of sacrifice hits some much harder than others.
Printable View
The gap in the ability to pay is at historic levels. Simpleminded egalitarianism of sacrifice hits some much harder than others.
At the top of the scale you don't have wage earners for the most part anyway. It's apples and oranges.
If you doubled the amount of taxes for all those currently paying taxes, we'd still fall short. That leaves ?? as the problem.
standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...
They are regulated by congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
Frum has a good piece on this. i'm glad to see there are still some reasonable conservatives left: http://www.frumforum.com/sp-makes-cl...ce#more-100486
Everyone, but the fucking moron republicans in congress seem to agree revenues are going to have to be part of the equation.
"if hyper inflation kicks in"
yep, there's a real risk of demand pull inflation:
Luxury Goods Begin Flying off the Shelves Again
http://www.care2.com/causes/luxury-g...ves-again.html
With real household income stagnating/decreasing, 1M+ homes near/in foreclosure, 25M mal/unemployed/non-participating, there'll be no demand-pull inflation for years.
Commodity price-push maybe but that's out of US control, from drought reducing human and animal food, oil prices up (esp if neo-cons bomb Iran, Iraq tears apart(a certitude)).
Well if we are going to edit sentences then they straight up saidQuote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Quote:
related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements...will remain a contentious and fitful process.
Darrin's graph LIES, as it's intended to do, and as expected from Heritage VRWC stink tank.
The graph is absolute numbers, not federal spending as percentage of GDP. That %age is about the same as the late 70s. There is no "runaway spending". That's the main lie behind the Repugs bogus debt limit "crisis".
Tax revenues, at all levels, have clearly dropped due the VRWC/Banksters' Great Depression, AND also the VRWC's constant, successful push for 30+ years to cut tax rates on the wealthy and corps, aka "starve the beast", resulting in US wealth and salary inequalities being at record levels and matching some extemely poor corrupt countries.
Keep setting up your LIES, and I'll keep knocking them down.
Source: White House Office of Management and BudgetQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
:lmao
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins (10:23 Pacific)
LOL... You're the idiot, always assuming. After 6 minutes... Guess what... I was already on the road on my way to work!Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins (10:29 Pacific)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisk
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisk
Other than mindless and obviously partisan ad hominem do you have an empirical basis for deriding their accounting methods. I really do not know.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Oh, and something NOT from a PAC please.
5%Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
The semantic tapdancing is weak in this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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.