We're so scrooed

Martial Media, Culture and Other Arts Off Topic
21

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1120996]I read the story about the credit rating downgrade on Yahoo first. And I always read a few user comments for fun. Some guy put it this way:

We had one Party who wanted to CUT spending, CAP the debt limit, and BALANCE the budget.

And the other Party said “No”

It’s really that simple.

That guy said it better than even I could have. ;)[/QUOTE]

Um…President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. The debt limit was already capped. Increasing it was for paying for things already incurred. The budget was balanced in 2000 without any gimmicks such as a balanced budget amendment. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, were all placed on the nation’s charge card, greatly increasing the national debt and blowing a hole in the budget.

22

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121014]Who used it as a bargaining chip? The Republicans. Who is willing to do so again? The Republicans.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. Sticking by your word and refusing to raise the debt limit or taxes because those were your campaign promises is not playing politics in any way. It’s just being honest, something the community organizer has no clue about.

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121014]Clearly the S&P regards the Republicans intransigence over increasing revenues as a “bad” thing.[/QUOTE]

They aren’t too fond of the spending and lack of cuts either:

“S&P was looking for $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. The deal that passed Congress on Tuesday would bring $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion in cuts over that time.”

Source: (complete article)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SP-officials-defend-US-credit-apf-685948715.html?x=0

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121014]An upwards revision to “stable” from “negative” is contingent on the Bush tax cuts expiring.[/QUOTE]

Then they are wrong. Please cite any example of a society taxing itself into prosperity.

Here are a few examples of tax cuts INCREASING revenue:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

And as an added bunes, in all 3 of those instances “the rich’s” share of the tax burden actually increased:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Source: (complete article)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

So now that I’ve shown that tax cuts increase revenue and increase the tax burden on “the rich”, please explain why cutting taxes right now is a bad idea.

23

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121015]Um…President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. [/QUOTE]

LMFAO!!! Next you’ll be trying to explain to us how the Earth is flat.

If he was willing to cut spending, please direct me to his budget proposal doing just that. I’ll actually be curious if you can find ANY budget proposal he put forward at all during the negotiations. I know I can’t.

FYI, while the Democrats controlled Congress, they did not submit a budget for over 2 years. Of course the law says it must be done every year, but they just brushed that aside. We only got a budget when the GOP took over the House. And these are facts that cannot be refuted.

And yes, the budget was balanced in 2000. That’s a fact. And what Party controlled the House and Senate when that budget was passed?

24

From July 11th:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.

We have agreed to a series of spending cuts that will make the government leaner, meaner, more effective, more efficient, and give taxpayers a greater bang for their buck. That includes defense spending. That includes health spending. It includes some programs that I like very much, and we—be nice to have, but that we can’t afford right now. And if you look at this overall package, we could achieve a situation in which our deficits were at a manageable level and our debt levels were stabilized, and the economy as a whole I think would benefit from that. Moreover, I think it would give the American people enormous confidence that this town can actually do something once in a while; that we can defy the expectations that we’re always thinking in terms of short-term politics and the next election, and every once in a while we break out of that and we do what’s right for the country.

From April 13th:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/remarks-president-fiscal-policy

So today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission that I appointed last year, and it builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table – but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

From July 2nd:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/02/weekly-address-cutting-deficit-and-creating-jobs

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

…

And over the last few weeks, the Vice President and I have gotten both parties to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts.

From July 19th:

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/19/remarks-president-status-efforts-find-balanced-approach-deficit-reductio

We have a Democratic President and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts, modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include a revenue component. We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach. And we’ve got the American people who agree with that balanced approach.

I guess the Earth is flat. :rolleyes:

25

When the facts change, blue, so should your opinion.

If actual numbers such as what RC presented don’t give you pause and don’t effect your stance, then there is no point arguing it with you. You’re just spinning. You have presented no real facts that apply to our actual current situation.

Your kind of naivet’e is whats fueling the discord. The tea party is running with unproven ideas that they think wouldn’t effect them. Its ludicrous.

“Burn the system down” might work in Fallout: New Vegas, but it doesn’t work if every one is still alive and wanting to live. If anything, Obama has come out of his initial ideals as a Democrat and faces the juggling act that every President finds himself doing. He’s not the king of America. Anybody that has ever taken a civic class knows this. He HAS to work with congress. He HAS to work with republicans. THEY are the ruling party in the house. THEY must now carry the burden of the downgrade. Since THEY chose this rather routine debt issue to blackmail the whitehouse. Its borderline treason.

26

[QUOTE=Kansuke;1120938]Get ‘control’ of what? The House, right? But not the Senate or the Executive, right? Right?[/QUOTE]

control of the executive branch, wtf you think im talkin bout son?

27

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1120995]Because it wasn’t. When the meltdown happened Bush was President, yes. But the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House.

Ask yourself this, why do liberals who blame Bush always bring up his last 2 years in office, but forget about the first 6 years? And who controlled Congress during the 6 years of economic growth?[/QUOTE]

right… by that logic, anything that happens today is the republicans fault cause they control the house… and thats bullsh1t… republicans and democrats love pointing fingers, but both are just as responsible as the next…

28

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121015]Um…President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. The debt limit was already capped. Increasing it was for paying for things already incurred. The budget was balanced in 2000 without any gimmicks such as a balanced budget amendment. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, were all placed on the nation’s charge card, greatly increasing the national debt and blowing a hole in the budget.

[/QUOTE]

from now on, whenever blue says anything, im gonna just quote this post… :wink:

29

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1121017]LMFAO!!! Next you’ll be trying to explain to us how the Earth is flat.

If he was willing to cut spending, please direct me to his budget proposal doing just that. I’ll actually be curious if you can find ANY budget proposal he put forward at all during the negotiations. I know I can’t.

FYI, while the Democrats controlled Congress, they did not submit a budget for over 2 years. Of course the law says it must be done every year, but they just brushed that aside. We only got a budget when the GOP took over the House. And these are facts that cannot be refuted.

And yes, the budget was balanced in 2000. That’s a fact. And what Party controlled the House and Senate when that budget was passed?[/QUOTE]

did bush put out a balanced budget every year??? or any budget EVERY year? is it just democratic presidents that p1ss all over the rules when it doesnt suit their own personal political agenda??? not one president in the last 50 years hasn’t been a piece of sh1t waste of skin scumbag… thats my word… swallow it… its the truth… your system is SEVERELY broken… political and financial…

30

[QUOTE=Syn7;1121086]control of the executive branch, wtf you think im talkin bout son?[/QUOTE]

The current President is a democrat, is he not?

31

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121015]Um…President Obama was more than willing to cut spending. The debt limit was already capped. Increasing it was for paying for things already incurred. The budget was balanced in 2000 without any gimmicks such as a balanced budget amendment. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, were all placed on the nation’s charge card, greatly increasing the national debt and blowing a hole in the budget.

[/QUOTE]

I also love this graphic, it says it all…well almost all. The key point that it shows that no one mentions at all, is that Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have been in place now for about 12 years…these are the people that the Fox News types like to call the ‘Job Creators’…well the reality is that they have been getting richer, much wealthier in fact, the divide between the richest Americans and the middle classes has continued to deepen under this policy. Its a famous fallacy from Reagan’s “Trickle Down” theory…ask some one when last time a wealthy person’s trickled down some dough to them.

I’m still waiting for this influx of job creation by lower taxes of the rich. It never happens unless you get a job working as a domestic in their households…but then you’d probably have to be undocumented worker. You know what people, we had deregulation of corporations, no unions, no pensions, no medical care, no social security, and little taxes for the rich…you know what we were working 12-16hrs a day for pennies, your kids were forgoing school to work at an early age, and we had Robber Barons running the country…your Rockefellers…it was late 19th century early 20th and life really sucked for the common man. Let the Right Wing Teabaggers get their way and its really going to suck unless you’re rich.

Let me footnote this by saying I’d much rather see a flat tax rate for all americans and elimination of tax credits, loopholes, tax code, etc…its a nightmare.

32

S&P was the ONLY one who made the downgrade on US credit rating from AAA to AA+

They then made a statement that essentially blame the republicans.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/

Other banks have NOT downgraded the US.

the problem is 100% political and it is essentially frame worked around some kind of weird values/morals/class war that is happening in the states as the divide of money and no money grows wider and wider.

American people are the power and are the money of the country.
American people DO NOT have unity and therefore are locked in this battle where they have what amounts to self serving politicians speaking on no one’s behalf or in their best interest.

So, yes, you are screwed. If you cannot get the people together, you won’t get anything together. That’s how a country is strongest and right now, it would appear that the market manipulations will make you weak because of small greedy factions within your gates.

33

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121047]I guess the Earth is flat. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

It isnt. And you didn’t post any budget the community organizer put forth. Do you know why you didn’t? Because he never did, and he himself hasn’t denied this[ Nor has he shown a propsal either.

Now he did comment on others proposals, as you posted above. But never did he roll out a proposal of his own.

Do you have a video or something of him rolling out a proposal? I know he wanted to increase taxes (he called it “revenue”). Since you’re familiar with this supposed proposal, what taxes did he propose to raise in this alleged proposal?

And I noticed you can’t refute the fact that for over 2 years the Democrat-conrolled Congress failed to even pass a budget as required by law. If they had such brilliant budget ideas, why didn’t they enact them when they had huge majorities in Congress?

34

[QUOTE=Lebaufist;1121052]When the facts change, blue, so should your opinion.[/QUOTE]

How so?

I’ve been consitant that tax cuts stimulate economic growth, that we need to cut regulations, and that the stimulus and bailouts would be failures. Can you show where I’ve called for more taxes, more regulation, or said the stimulus and bailouts would be successful?

[QUOTE=Syn7;1121086]control of the executive branch, wtf you think im talkin bout son?[/QUOTE]

So the Party that holds 1 House of Congress is responsible now?

Dude, the Democrats had 2 years with a huge majority in both Houses of Congress, and some time where they even had a filibuster-proof Senate.

[QUOTE=Syn7;1121087]right… by that logic, anything that happens today is the republicans fault cause they control the house… and thats bullsh1t… republicans and democrats love pointing fingers, but both are just as responsible as the next…[/QUOTE]

So please show Bush and/or GOP polices enacted during the Bush years caused the mess we are in.

35

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1121259]It isnt. And you didn’t post any budget the community organizer put forth. Do you know why you didn’t? Because he never did, and he himself hasn’t denied this[ Nor has he shown a propsal either.

Now he did comment on others proposals, as You posted above. But never did he roll out a proposal of his own.[/QUOTE]

From February 2011:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Looks like a budget to me.

RE: The debt ceiling hostage negotiation

From July 20, 2011:

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Id=1669588

Poll Shows Majority Support Obama’s Debt Ceiling Proposal

The poll showed that 58 percent support the president’s proposal, which would cut the deficit by $4 trillion by cutting federal spending, increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and reducing the level of spending on Medicare.

From April 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/politics/14obama.html

Obamas Debt Plan Sets Stage for Long Battle Over Spending

President Obama made the case Wednesday for slowing the rapid growth of the national debt while retaining core Democratic values, proposing a mix of long-term spending cuts, tax increases and changes to social welfare programs as his opening position in a fierce partisan budget battle over the nations fiscal challenges.

After spending months on the sidelines as Republicans laid out their plans, Mr. Obama jumped in to present an alternative and a philosophical rebuttal to the conservative approach that will reach the House floor on Friday. Republican leaders were working Wednesday to round up votes for that measure and one to finance the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. Obama said his proposal would cut federal budget deficits by a cumulative $4 trillion over 12 years, compared with a deficit reduction of $4.4 trillion over 10 years in the Republican plan. But the president said he would use starkly different means, rejecting the fundamental changes to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by Republicans and relying in part on tax increases on affluent Americans.

The president framed his proposal as a balanced alternative to the Republican plan, setting the stage for a debate that will consume Washington in coming weeks, as the administration faces off with Congress over raising the national debt ceiling, and into next year, as the president runs for re-election.

36

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1121270]Dude, the Democrats had 2 years with a huge majority in both Houses of Congress, and some time where they even had a filibuster-proof Senate.[/QUOTE]

The Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during President Obama’s term.

37

[QUOTE=Syn7;1121088]from now on, whenever blue says anything, im gonna just quote this post… ;)[/QUOTE]

Go ahead, it’s inaccurate. Right off the bat I saw it left out the cost of the Libya war he started.

"A Pentagon memo whose content was revealed today by the Financial Times shows that the cost of Americas involvement in the war in Libya is around $2 million per day, putting the cost well ahead of previous estimates of $40 million a month to more like $60 million a month.

Despite the growing opposition and two resolutions from both houses of Congress chiding the administration about the war, officials insist it will continue. Admiral Michael Mullen insisted NATO has no clue when the conflict will end, but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates assured that US troops would still be involved whenever that is."

“The Pentagon reports that through March 28, the U.S. military operation has cost $550 million. The bulk of that is for munitions. The cost for the 199 Tomahawk missiles fired alone is somewhere between $220 to $298 million.”

Sources:
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/06/09/pentagon-memo-costs-of-libyan-war-soaring/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/29/6367905-libya-war-cost

[QUOTE=Syn7;1121091]did bush put out a balanced budget every year??? or any budget EVERY year?[/QUOTE]

I doubt all were balanced. Heck, maybe none were. But he at least signed a budget into law, and passed by Congress, every year of his 2 terms.

[QUOTE=Hebrew Hammer;1121100]I also love this graphic, it says it all…well almost all.[/QUOTE]

LMFAO at “almost all”. Yeah, just leave out the war he started. And when do the trillions of new Obamacare spending kick in? Be sure to repost updated graph when those costs kick in. 10-1 it will make Bush look like a miser.

[QUOTE=Hebrew Hammer;1121100]The key point that it shows that no one mentions at all, is that Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have been in place now for about 12 years…these are the people that the Fox News types like to call the ‘Job Creators’…[/QUOTE]

Where you were you around the year 2000? You are aware we were heading for a recession due to the dot-com bubble burst before Bush took office? FYI, those tax cuts prevented a recession. Too bad the community organizer didn’t learn from history, or we might be having 5.2% unemployment like we did under Bush instead of the 9.37% we have now.

And again, you have economists saying both things. Some say the tax cuts were successful and more than paid for themselves, and some say they cost us money. We should leave it at that, and not turn this into a battle of who can type their side’s date/sources more than the other.

But no one can argue unemployment averaged 5.3% under Bush. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton’s term of office. It’s averaged 9.37% under the community organizer.

Sources:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Economy_Under_George_W_Bush
http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/ (includes graph)
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

[QUOTE=Hebrew Hammer;1121100]well the reality is that they have been getting richer, much wealthier in fact, the divide between the richest Americans and the middle classes has continued to deepen under this policy. Its a famous fallacy from Reagan’s “Trickle Down” theory…ask some one when last time a wealthy person’s trickled down some dough to them[/QUOTE].

Actually I’ve shown more than once that the tax burden paid by “the rich” increases EVERY TIME tax cuts are encated. Do you not get this? Or have you just been lied to so much and for so long you can’t admit (or comprehend) this fact? Maybe Goebbels was right in this case.

[QUOTE=Hebrew Hammer;1121100]I’m still waiting for this influx of job creation by lower taxes of the rich. [/QUOTE]

So am I. And it will happen when taxes and regulations are cut. It will not happen under the current Administration’s policies. Mark my words.

[QUOTE=Hebrew Hammer;1121100]You know what people, we had deregulation of corporations, no unions, no pensions, no medical care, no social security, and little taxes for the rich…you know what we were working 12-16hrs a day for pennies, your kids were forgoing school to work at an early age, and we had Robber Barons running the country…your Rockefellers…it was late 19th century early 20th and life really sucked for the common man. Let the Right Wing Teabaggers get their way and its really going to suck unless you’re rich.[/QUOTE]

You know what else we didn’t have at that time? Record national debt.

And I’m not even stipulating what you said is true. If it was so bad, why was the economy growing during that time? FYI, consumer speding is the biggest factor in our economy. If we were all working for peanuts and living hand-to-mouth, consumer spending would have fallen through the cellar and wrecked the entire economy.

[QUOTE=Hebrew Hammer;1121100]Let me footnote this by saying I’d much rather see a flat tax rate for all americans and elimination of tax credits, loopholes, tax code, etc…its a nightmare.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%

And this is true too: If we did do as you suggest, none of the arguing we’ve done would matter a hill of beans. No one would be arguing about how the rich cheat, or who pays more, or how the poor pay nothing, or who gets away with using loopholes, etc. It would solve so many problems, and alot of people on the left and right who fight like cats and dogs on so many issues agree on this. So why won’t a flat tax pass? Because the politicians have tremendous power with the current tax code. And no one wants to give that power up. Of all we should demand from our Government, this should be one of the first. So will you be voting for candidtates who support a flat tax?

38

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121273]The Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during President Obama’s term.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure of that? :wink:

39

[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1121275]Are you sure of that? ;)[/QUOTE]

Yes. Currently, there are 51 Democratic Senators, with 2 independents who caucus with them. In the last Congress there were 57 and 2. A filibuster-proof majority would require 61.

40

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121273]The Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during President Obama’s term.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1121280]Yes. Currently, there are 51 Democratic Senators, with 2 independents who caucus with them. In the last Congress there were 57 and 2. A filibuster-proof majority would require 61.[/QUOTE]

It actually requires 60.

"After months of recounts and legal challenges, Democrat Al Franken has been declared the winner of the Minnesota Senate seat previously held by Republican Norm Coleman, after the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Coleman’s legal appeal and he resigned from the race.

The Franken win gives Democrats in the U.S. Senate 60 votes, which means they can prevent the Republicans from filibustering bills – an important stalling tactic that can stop bills from becoming law."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/july-dec09/franken_07-02.html

"Washington confronted a new world order Thursday as the Democrats’ supermajority died, taking with it much of President Barack Obama’s agenda and any certainty of his party maintaining control of Congress.

Republican Scott Brown took over the seat of the late Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on Thursday, vowing to be an independent voice in a bitterly divided Senate."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35235106/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Al Franken took office on July 7, 2009. Scott Brown took office on February 4, 2010.

So they had a filibuster-proof Senate for 7 months.

So will you man up and admit you were incorrect or will you be like Jamieson and repeatedly refuse to, even when shown you were actually incorrect?