No risk of a downgrade? No risk.

[NoDayJob]

Originally Posted by Mike at A+

Once again my theory is as good as gold. While we waited for Obama to come out of hiding to make his speech (he was almost an hour late), the Dow lost almost 100 points. And DURING his speech, it lost another 50. He is a disgrace. Nothing of substance ever comes out of his mouth. It's always all about blame and it's never his fault. The guy is clueless and anyone who still supports him is even more clueless.

Mike,

I don't know about you, but I plan to vote for President Obama, should he
run for a second term. He's good for me. I've made a considerable sum of
money because of him. He's my man! Hopefully he'll continue with his
policies. They may not be good for America, but I luv'em. I'm glad Mr.
Geithner and Mr. Bernanke are on his team. They inspire me.

Save your stock certificates boys, the DJIA might rise again.

[Mike at A+]

Originally Posted by NoDayJob

Mike,

I don't know about you, but I plan to vote for President Obama, should he
run for a second term. He's good for me. I've made a considerable sum of
money because of him. He's my man! Hopefully he'll continue with his
policies. They may not be good for America, but I luv'em. I'm glad Mr.
Geithner and Mr. Bernanke are on his team. They inspire me.

Save your stock certificates boys, the DJIA might rise again.

You must have big balls to be in 100% gold. I wish mine were as big as yours. I'm only about 20%. Congratulations on your testicular endowment.

[NoDayJob]

Originally Posted by Mike at A+

You must have big balls to be in 100% gold. I wish mine were as big as yours. I'm only about 20%. Congratulations on your testicular endowment.

Mike,

I bought my gold in Jan. - Mar. 1976--- I'm talking about the stock &
commodities market.

[skate]

Originally Posted by mostpost

On page four of the S&P report it says,


One of the major obstacles to an agreement was that the Tea Party refused to consider raising taxes. Democrats were always willing to cut spending. The agreement they finally came up with was insufficient to solve the problem, because it did not raise revenues. Standard and Poors in its report says that the Downgrade occurred because the political system was broken and it had no confidence that Congress and the Administration would be able to work out a solution using the special committee. On page four S&P says that Republicans will continue to resist raising revenues. Throughout the report S&P continues to emphasize the importance of a balanced approach. This is why Democrats and thinking people everywhere blame the Tea Party.

Dear Toasted;

I'm begging you, can you show ANY Relation between what you said here, what S/Ps said and the Tea Parties beliefs.

LOOK, gees....i think that what you say is very confused with the FACTS.
You have everything right here in your own statement.

Get THIS Please...when S/Ps says "RAISE effin Revenue" that does Not Say Raise TAXES ....Boing!

I've posted many times on this...i give up on you, but the proof and fact is this== When you lower Taxes on these Corporations You receive MORE MORE MORE (as in higher receipts) Revenue...go it...cause i'm over and doubt.




Quote:
Originally Posted by skate
Not close to a TV...so what i heard was that MSNBC Made comments saying that the-OWEBama/Congress were at fault for the downgrade from Standard and Poors.

sick to see the Dems trying to blame the Tea Party, we see the very same tactics on THIS Board.



On page four of the S&P report it says,
Quote:
our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,


You MostPost, add the above which says nothing by itself. you took part of statement.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by mostpost

On page four of the S&P report it says,


One of the major obstacles to an agreement was that the Tea Party refused to consider raising taxes. Democrats were always willing to cut spending. The agreement they finally came up with was insufficient to solve the problem, because it did not raise revenues. Standard and Poors in its report says that the Downgrade occurred because the political system was broken and it had no confidence that Congress and the Administration would be able to work out a solution using the special committee. On page four S&P says that Republicans will continue to resist raising revenues. Throughout the report S&P continues to emphasize the importance of a balanced approach. This is why Democrats and thinking people everywhere blame the Tea Party.

If we are gonna quote S & P people, how about the guy who says the downgrade could've been avoided if they used Ryan's plan? I see you didn't mention that.

http://yourdaddy.net/2011/08/08/stan...dit-downgrade/

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Valuist

If we are gonna quote S & P people, how about the guy who says the downgrade could've been avoided if they used Ryan's plan? I see you didn't mention that.

http://yourdaddy.net/2011/08/08/stan...dit-downgrade/

What John Chambers said is that there were several plans, which if enacted, would have avoided the downgrade. The key words are "if enacted." There was never any chance that the Ryan plan, and its take no prisoners approach to Medicare, would ever be enacted. Same with cut, cap and balance. Same with any Obama plan.

The only possible solution is a compromise solution. Democrats were willing to compromise. Tea Party was not.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by skate

Dear Toasted;

I'm begging you, can you show ANY Relation between what you said here, what S/Ps said and the Tea Parties beliefs.

LOOK, gees....i think that what you say is very confused with the FACTS.
You have everything right here in your own statement.

Get THIS Please...when S/Ps says "RAISE effin Revenue" that does Not Say Raise TAXES ....Boing!

I've posted many times on this...i give up on you, but the proof and fact is this== When you lower Taxes on these Corporations You receive MORE MORE MORE (as in higher receipts) Revenue...go it...cause i'm over and doubt.




Quote:
Originally Posted by skate
Not close to a TV...so what i heard was that MSNBC Made comments saying that the-OWEBama/Congress were at fault for the downgrade from Standard and Poors.

sick to see the Dems trying to blame the Tea Party, we see the very same tactics on THIS Board.



On page four of the S&P report it says,
Quote:
our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,


You MostPost, add the above which says nothing by itself. you took part of statement.

Copied and pasted from the "More Federal Waste" thread. It is my post so I don't have to pay royalties.

What I love most about posting here is the lack of memory of the conservative posters. You keep posting how tax receipts were higher under Bush than under Clinton, and I keep explaining why that does not matter. So, here it is again because I love typing the same thing over and over to no avail.

Revenues always go up. They may not go up every year (Although there are very few years when they don't), but they will always go up over the course of a presidency-especially a two term presidency. They go up because the population increases, the economy grows. Bush cut taxes and revenue went up. Of course it went down for three consecutive years at the start of his term and also the last year. But, overall, it went up.

How does the increase in revenue match up with previous eight year periods?
We can start with 1969 to 1976 when revenues increased 92% over the previous eight years From 1977 to 1984 the increase was 128%. from 1985 to 1992 it was 78%. Bill Clinton increased revenues by 66% over the previous eight years. Finally we have George W. Bush. During his watch revenues increased by 38%-28 points lower than any period in our survey.

What we haven't determined is what those revenues would have done had tax rates remained the same. I say they would have been higher.

Surprise me with an intelligent response.

[The Judge]

"Folks, whatever you think of Standard & Poor’s, when a Wall Street firm run by rich people recommend higher taxes on rich people, they might just know what they’re talking about.



http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=32...s%20Commentary

- CBS Radio Commentator David Ross

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by mostpost

What John Chambers said is that there were several plans, which if enacted, would have avoided the downgrade. The key words are "if enacted." There was never any chance that the Ryan plan, and its take no prisoners approach to Medicare, would ever be enacted. Same with cut, cap and balance. Same with any Obama plan.

The only possible solution is a compromise solution. Democrats were willing to compromise. Tea Party was not.

What Obama Plan was he referring to? I was unaware of any that he proposed... Wasn't he for transparency? How come in two years with supermajorities he couldn't get a budget through?...

What Plan Mostie?

Or was it like HCR where we don't get to see it until after its passed?

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Raising taxes is not the only Democratic plan to deal with the national debt, but it is the best part of their plan. .

If it was so great, then why didn't the dems pass the tax hikes when they had the WH, House AND the Senate to themselves for 2 whole years? Don't give me the "the repugs blocked us" crap, it didn't stop National Healthcare passage. It didn't have the necessary # of votes to pass either.

You need to face the fact- -- Obama never intended to raise taxes on the so-called rich. Neither did Reid. They had their chance, stood and watched 3 fastballs sail over the plate without as much as taking their bat off their shoulder.

Adding to this, if they wanted to "tax them rich paiple" then they'd come with a higher threshold for a minimum....150k isn't "wealthy" in NYC or the west coast or Boston. etc etc....Hike it up to 400k or more, then you have a real negotiating point to start with. As is no one will start negotiations that low....and the Dems know it.

The "issue" of taxing the rich is a good rallying point for dem high steppers, but step back and take a long look at the situation please. It's plain to see the Dems are no more looking to tax the rich than the pubs are.

The proof is in their record for passage of legislation

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Judge

"Folks, whatever you think of Standard & Poor’s, when a Wall Street firm run by rich people recommend higher taxes on rich people, they might just know what they’re talking about.



http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=32...s%20Commentary

- CBS Radio Commentator David Ross

I'll be wildly charitable and say that you can have your tax increase on the wealthy, and even guarantee that it brings in additional revenue of $200 billion a year -which is way high.

Our current debt is $14 plus trillion, and yearly deficit is $1.3 trillion. The $200 billion brings the deficit all the way down to the manageable level of $1.1 trillion, assuming it doesn't put us into a depression.

So, since the tax incrrease barely moves the needle, what is the next move? If you don't have that figured out the $200 billion goes right down the black hole that all of the current spending goes into.

What is taking people so long to realize what should be as plain as the nose on their faces? The federal government is going to have to be cut in real terms.

I've said it before the tax rate issue is boob bait for bubbas, and is being mentioned in a strictly political fashion in order to distract people from the real issues.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by ElKabong

If it was so great, then why didn't the dems pass the tax hikes when they had the WH, House AND the Senate to themselves for 2 whole years? Don't give me the "the repugs blocked us" crap, it didn't stop National Healthcare passage. It didn't have the necessary # of votes to pass either.

You need to face the fact- -- Obama never intended to raise taxes on the so-called rich. Neither did Reid. They had their chance, stood and watched 3 fastballs sail over the plate without as much as taking their bat off their shoulder.

Adding to this, if they wanted to "tax them rich paiple" then they'd come with a higher threshold for a minimum....150k isn't "wealthy" in NYC or the west coast or Boston. etc etc....Hike it up to 400k or more, then you have a real negotiating point to start with. As is no one will start negotiations that low....and the Dems know it.

The "issue" of taxing the rich is a good rallying point for dem high steppers, but step back and take a long look at the situation please. It's plain to see the Dems are no more looking to tax the rich than the pubs are.

The proof is in their record for passage of legislation

Republicans aren't the only idiots in Washington. The Democrats should have allowed the Bush tax hikes to expire. The Republicans could not have stopped them.

I kind of agree about the 400K threshold. My idea would be to return to the rates of the Clinton Presidency. Then add a few brackets to the top. I would break at $1M and $5M But that could all be negotiated.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Republicans aren't the only idiots in Washington. The Democrats should have allowed the Bush tax hikes to expire. The Republicans could not have stopped them.

I kind of agree about the 400K threshold. My idea would be to return to the rates of the Clinton Presidency. Then add a few brackets to the top. I would break at $1M and $5M But that could all be negotiated.

This sounds reasonable to me.

Personally I'd like to see the 250k and below types keep their tax rates in place. Reasons are ..

-a lot of sales types have windfall years in between their usual 'barely getting by' years. They earn / win /start big accounts and have huge paydays, but in most cases their commissions will trail off significantly after 1-2 yrs...by taxing these people HARD for those years of sweet commissions, which came from hard work usually, would be tragic. Let them have their 1-2 yrs of 200k or so salary taxed at the current rate.

The people that have 400k of sustained earnings are OK for tax hikes in my opinion. Not excessive taxes mind you, but a compromise can be had here.

As for corporations, I'd let the current structure stand at least for now. Co's are hoarding cash for good reasons. I'm doing the same, as others are. The future doesn't look so great

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'll be wildly charitable and say that you can have your tax increase on the wealthy, and even guarantee that it brings in additional revenue of $200 billion a year -which is way high.

Our current debt is $14 plus trillion, and yearly deficit is $1.3 trillion. The $200 billion brings the deficit all the way down to the manageable level of $1.1 trillion, assuming it doesn't put us into a depression.

So, since the tax incrrease barely moves the needle, what is the next move? If you don't have that figured out the $200 billion goes right down the black hole that all of the current spending goes into.

What is taking people so long to realize what should be as plain as the nose on their faces? The federal government is going to have to be cut in real terms.

I've said it before the tax rate issue is boob bait for bubbas, and is being mentioned in a strictly political fashion in order to distract people from the real issues.

If you look at the graphic Bigmack is so fond of posting, you will find that while the deficit is $1.3T now, in a few years it is projected at $600B to $700B. The 200B a year extra does not solve the problem but it does help.
Link to BM's graphic. Table 1.1
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html

No matter what you believe, I don't think we can solve this problem just by raising taxes. But I also don't think we can do it by just cutting spending.

As for your worry that raising taxes will lead to a depression, don't worry.
I looked at the 14 times we lowered taxes since 1930 and compared the growth in GDP for the following year. In other words if taxes were raised in 1930 I looked at the % GDP growth in 1931.
The average GDP growth for those years was 2.66%
I did the same for the 11 years we raised taxes. The Average GDP growth was 8.04%. Kind of kills the theory that higher taxes hurts the economy.
Oh, and that 11 years includes one year during the Great Depression when GDP dropped by 13.1%

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by ElKabong

This sounds reasonable to me.

Personally I'd like to see the 250k and below types keep their tax rates in place. Reasons are ..

-a lot of sales types have windfall years in between their usual 'barely getting by' years. They earn / win /start big accounts and have huge paydays, but in most cases their commissions will trail off significantly after 1-2 yrs...by taxing these people HARD for those years of sweet commissions, which came from hard work usually, would be tragic. Let them have their 1-2 yrs of 200k or so salary taxed at the current rate.
Wouldn't it be a good idea for people who work on commission and have wildly fluctuating earnings to allow them to amortize or spread their tax liability over several years. So they would pay the average rate rather than top rate one year and a low rate the next.

The people that have 400k of sustained earnings are OK for tax hikes in my opinion. Not excessive taxes mind you, but a compromise can be had here.

As for corporations, I'd let the current structure stand at least for now. Co's are hoarding cash for good reasons. I'm doing the same, as others are. The future doesn't look so great

We seem to kind of agree here. I'm going to go to bed and pull the covers over my head.