Rating agencydowngradeS U.S. credit rating to AA+

[envivision]

Thank you, TEABAGGERS, YOU ^&^%^%^^&

[envivision]

We all got alittle bit poorer, thanks to those tea baggers.

[BellaBellucci]

You beat me to it. This is pathetic. For a downgraded rating, we didn't need to take on any more debt. In fact, arguments were made that there was enough money in the treasury to pay entitlement benefits, regardless of the debt ceiling. So now we're going on take on more debt we don't need at even higher interest rates than we were paying to begin with.

They shouldn't have voted to raise the ceiling at all. Many polls actually showed that a majority of Americans were against it (as was I), feeling that the downgrade was inevitable. We were right.

~BB~

[Erika1487]

Miss Ann Explains.....

http://www.popmodal.com/video/8696/

[BellaBellucci]

Miss Ann Explains.....

http://www.popmodal.com/video/8696/

When is she going to come out of the closet and represent her transsexual sisters? :?

~BB~

[Erika1487]

When is she going to come out of the closet and represent her transsexual sisters? :?

~BB~

Ummm no comment. lol

[BellaBellucci]

So let's see if I have this right: the market goes through a correction one day, the next day as the U.S. credit rating is downgraded, BofA, a leading mortgage lender, loses 7%, yet the market finishes up and the U.S. Government is disputing the rating, alleging that some indicators could be as far as 'trillions' of dollars off. Did anybody else notice that this all culminated just before the weekend?

Martha Stewart, eat your heart out!

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

~BB~

[airman]

putting all my usd into geoffery dollars

[MrsKellyPierce]

It was purely political - they are basically telling our government to stop being so dysfunctional - and to stop platforming

[collegeguy21]

It is not a material issue. To everyone institution around the world we are already AA+. Nothing is going to change and the smart money is staying domestic. So what if cost of borrowing goes up 60bps.... life goes on. I'm just glad the S&P had some balls.

[flabbybody]

It is not a material issue. To everyone institution around the world we are already AA+. Nothing is going to change and the smart money is staying domestic. So what if cost of borrowing goes up 60bps.... life goes on. I'm just glad the S&P had some balls.
S&P, Moodys, Fitch... they're all a fucking joke. They had an AAA rating on Lehman up until the weekend the poor slobs were clearing out their desks. The credit rating industry is a scam. The United States downgrade is a total non event.
The economy is certainly in the shit, but we don't need these overpaid assholes to tell us that.

[Jackal]

OK, so Standard and Poors has gone ahead with the threatened downgrade. It’s a strange situation.

On one hand, there is a case to be made that the madness of the right has made America a fundamentally unsound nation. And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency.

On the other hand, it’s hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the rating agencies. The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/sp-and-the-usa/

[russtafa]

so when are you guys having a garage sale =every thing must go , cheap ,cheap

[AmyDaly]

From S&P's press release regarding the credit rating:

Compared with previous projections, 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, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.



You can thank the bush tax cuts and the republicans

[MrsKellyPierce]

From S&P's press release regarding the credit rating:

Compared with previous projections, 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, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.



You can thank the bush tax cuts and the republicans
Oh no now all the Republicans are going to get you Amy lol

But you know they will twist and say Obama had his chance to get rid of it - he chose to extend it blah blah

[BellaBellucci]

This whole left/right dichotomy is false. There's only might/right. Ron Paul 2012.

~BB~

[Merkurie]

When the world market dropped this week, the market in US treasuries went up. People around the world flocked to by US debt because it is still the most secure investment in the world.

The worst thing that could have happened to confidence in US treasuries is not the S&P rating or the size of the national debt -- it is playing political games with the debt ceiling.

The Tea Baggers made a toy out of the debt ceiling and Obama let them get away with it.

[russtafa]

Aussie can buy one of your states at a bargain basement prices

[dbev]

It's all a big con from the usual bankers...

By the way, aren't this the same agencies telling everyone that Lehman Brothers and Parmalat were a great investement just the day before they went bankrupt?

Please be serious...

[gaffer]

The idea that the US Government is not the best possible credit for dollar-denominated debt is ridiculous, as market rates prove. The best place for "flight to quality" is still the dollar. Investors are now going as short as possible (cash) because of rational concerns that interest rates are heading up. But cash is simply very short-term US Government credit.

[envivision]

I am so pissed that I want to TEABAG a TEABAGGER !

[LittleGuy]

This whole left/right dichotomy is false. There's only might/right. Ron Paul 2012.

~BB~

Obama

[MrsKellyPierce]

I honestly feel bad for Obama - I personally think he has done some great things.

He reformed the healthcare bill - which president after president failed to do.

He defeated Bin Laden

The only thing I wish is - he'd stop being so friendly and passive aggressive towards the republicans and/or tea baggers.

He should tell them where to stick it.

[baller1987]

I really can't stand Obama. If he didn't spend so much money, we wouldn't have this problem.

Whoever said Ron Paul should be president, thats awesome.

[CORVETTEDUDE]

Moron politics at work!

[MrsKellyPierce]

I really can't stand Obama. If he didn't spend so much money, we wouldn't have this problem.

Whoever said Ron Paul should be president, thats awesome.
HE HE HE HE?? UMM BUSH BUSH BUSH ADMINISTRATION??

How easy people forget when convenient...

Bush raised the debt ceiling seven times during his reign...

He made tax cuts for corporations and the rich that SUPPOSEDLY was to make our economy better...WHICH IT DIDN'T.

Which is why our downgrade happened..Amy posted the press release!

When the Great Depression happened we had to spend money towards jobs etc by raising the debt ceiling to raise the economy. WHICH WORKED...

Everyone blames Obama for the 8 years Bush had messing it up..Clinton left Bush with a surplus The Bush Administration did a lot of wasteful spending and did it for 8 years. We were actually in the "black" when Clinton was in office...

You can't change what he did around in 3 years...

We wasted tons of money on this ridiculous war.......

Again how easy it is to forget

Obama now is hoping congress will help the Veterans and our soldiers coming home - so they aren't out of jobs.

Hopefully the congress will at least agree on this to create jobs...But with how the Republicans and Tea Party are going - I doubt it.

They are only for the RICH..not the average American...

[baller1987]

You're right! I kinda agree. I didn't like bush either, except that when he talked dumb i thought it was funny.

Yes the wars were dumb. And the rich don't need tax cuts, but you cannot make the case that Obama spends money wisely. It is absurd how much money we wasted on bailouts and are wasting on government programs that don't work.

Also, the poor dont get taxed hardly at all. (as it should be) Last year, my first year out of college I only worked part of the year. I made about fifteen grand. With my standard deduction and my low tax bracket, on average i was only taxed one percent. On fifteen grand I paid about two hundred some bucks. This country isn't "out to get" the poor.

By the way your very sexy kelly. Your husband is too.

Bush: "I believe human beings and fish can peacefully coexist" You have to agree with him on that one.

[LittleGuy]

I really can't stand Obama. If he didn't spend so much money, we wouldn't have this problem.

Whoever said Ron Paul should be president, thats awesome.

This post is clearly a joke! You need to stop

[MrF]

In the interviews with reps from S&P they say, quite plausibly in my opinion, that this is due the fact that our gov't can't agree on how to control deficits. For every $1 we spend, 40 cents are borrowed. I don't care how liberal or conservative you are, you should first of all be able to do arithmetic and realize that this won't work in the long haul.

Anyway, that must be a sweet job to be at S&P, wear a nice suit, sit around and drink coffee and issue ratings on countries and such ...

[Stavros]

so when are you guys having a garage sale =every thing must go , cheap ,cheap

I'll Take Manhattan..!

ps There is a Politics and Religion board for this topic.

[dbev]

I'm not a US citizen, but the only person telling almost all the truth is Ron Paul. And that's why he is so under attack or overlooked.

However, he should run as an independent, because both parties are only the cover for bankers (Govermment Sachs, Rotschild's). And if the runs as an independet, he could be as vice president Jesse Ventura, another one that is really fighting for the 1776 Constitution.

[BellaBellucci]

Obama

= Carter.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

I'm not a US citizen, but the only person telling almost all the truth is Ron Paul. And that's why he is so under attack or overlooked.

Amen!

~BB~

[Dino Velvet]

Add me to the list of people giving Ron Paul a serious look. Him and Dennis Kucinich are two of the very few honest, honorable public servants.

[lumberjack]

In a nutshell: Tea party say we need to cut the massive borrowing. US credit rating could be cut if current ways continue.

Petulant Democrats fight any attempts to cut spending. Wimpy Republicans cave. Smoke and mirros compromise, no real changes made.

Market crashes, US credit rating dropped.

Conclusion according to brilliant anlaysts on HA, it's the tea party's fault.

[AmyDaly]

In a nutshell: Tea party say we need to cut the massive borrowing. US credit rating could be cut if current ways continue.

Petulant Democrats fight any attempts to cut spending. Wimpy Republicans cave. Smoke and mirros compromise, no real changes made.

Market crashes, US credit rating dropped.

Conclusion according to brilliant anlaysts on HA, it's the tea party's fault.

cant tell if serious or troll
If you want to see why the credit rating was dropped, read the press release. I posted part of it earlier. Republicans not wanting to raise taxes on the rich parasites and the bush tax cuts did it. This isn't my opinion, its right out of the press release.

[Silcc69]

I liek Ron Paul but he's to old and would never win out. He's antiwar so that right there eliminates him from the majority of republican base. And his son is a real wacko.

[BellaBellucci]

I liek Ron Paul but he's to old and would never win out. He's antiwar so that right there eliminates him from the majority of republican base. And his son is a real wacko.

Ron Paul is as spry as Obama. On Rand though, I have to admit, he scares me a little. I mean, for starters, who the hell carpetbags to Kentucky? :lol:

~BB~

[trish]

In a nutshell. The April 18th S&P report indicated that no downgrades were in our immediate future, but warned that they expected us to do some deficit trimming by 2013. That's two years in the future. No crediting agency expected we would willingly renege on our debt payments given our current triple A rating. Now the Tea Party comes and holds our creditors hostage for political gain and blow up our economy (that's the definition of extortion btw) if we don't given in to their looney demands. What S&P never dreamed was danger, now became a distinct possibility, and as the deadline neared, a probability. So yes, it was the Tea Baggers (their original handle for themselves btw, which goes to show how in touch they are) who got us down graded. Thanks assholes. As Amy points out, it's all in S&P's most recent press release. They blame the politicking and brinksmanship with the debt ceiling. They also suggest both spending cuts and tax hikes. Read it.

[Dino Velvet]

Ron Paul is as spry as Obama. On Rand though, I have to admit, he scares me a little. I mean, for starters, who the hell carpetbags to Kentucky? :lol:

~BB~

The next time Michelle goes after Barack with a shoe we could be looking at President Biden.

[onmyknees]

From S&P's press release regarding the credit rating:

Compared with previous projections, 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, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.



You can thank the bush tax cuts and the republicans


Gurl... are you misguided....( I'm being polite) But the original poster is just ignorant.

First of all....are these the same rating agencies who completely missed the housing bubble, that was years in the making, never said a peep about the 1 trillion stimulus, and now suddenly you're placing some importance on what they say? Let's get real....

Having said that, Moodys and S&P warned of a down grade during the debt ceiling discussions. They wanted 4 trillion in cuts over 10 years, and the deal didn't come anywhere near that. So they did nothing more than follow thru on their threats.
And as far as Obama and the Bush Tax cuts ( the liberals excuse for all evil in the world today), you might recall he extended them, then just months later was calling for more taxes. You voted for the guy....so perhaps you can explain the bifurcation...because I sure the fuck can't. If they are the root of all evil...why did he extend them and compound the problem? But here's a question for ya....what would be the point of more revenue (aka taxes) if the government is just going to piss it away anyway. Isn't that money better in the hands of the folks who earned it? How about a little fiscal discipline and stop the spending binge?
Look....Obama took a bad situation and made it far worse. That's oversimplified, but it's also a fact. If he had implemented the correct fiscal policies, we'd be on our way to a healing economy rather than another recession, 17% real unemployment, and a S&P downgrade. Case closed. He's not, and never was ready for prime time....you made the mistake, but we have to deal with the mess.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Increased tax revenue wont do anything until they reform the tax laws. Until then the most lucrative pockets will continue to hire Harvards best and brightest to dodge as much as possible.

[BellaBellucci]

Increased tax revenue wont do anything until they reform the tax laws. Until then the most lucrative pockets will continue to hire Harvards best and brightest to dodge as much as possible.

Well said. I owned a corporation for years, and I paid far less in taxes in relation to income when I was making $100,000 a year than when I was delivering pizza as a teenager.

~BB~

[AmyDaly]

did nothing more than follow thru on their threats.
And as far as Obama and the Bush Tax cuts ( the liberals excuse for all evil in the world today), you might recall he extended them, then just months later was calling for more taxes. You voted for the guy....so perhaps you can explain the bifurcation...because I sure the fuck can't. If they are the root of all evil...why did he extend them and compound the problem?

Obama didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class. Only the wealthy. Republicans held the bill hostage and said that they wouldn't agree to that. He made the decision to cave in to the republicans demands to not raise taxes on the wealthy in order to not hurt the middle class even more.

[Dino Velvet]

He made the decision to cave in to the republicans

I hear many from the left mention he does this way too often. I wonder if they feel that he is a strong principled leader.

[Ben]

Thank you, TEABAGGERS, YOU ^&^%^%^^&

These TeaBaggers are the real deal, as it were. They wanna cut spending on, well, everything. From Medicare to, well, military expenditures. I think the military should be reduced to decrease the size of the deficit. 72 percent of Americans think that the deficit should be reduced by raising taxes on the rich. But they don't count. Policy is carried out by the owners. And the owners wanna cut grandma's social security checks -- ha ha! I wish it were funny. But it isn't. The cuts will impact the most vulnerable members in our society.
Anyway, the markets, as it were, are nervous because of the likelihood of government spending cuts. And the state &/or government sector plays a mighty big role in the economy. So, massive military cuts would impact the economy. So, the speculation is "growth earnings" will go down with the government retreating from the economy.
The problem with the economy is lack of demand. So, well, someone whether it be government or business (who are sitting on $2 trillion in cash) have gotta kick start the economy. (The very good conservative economist Paul Craig Roberts has said we're in trouble and will stay that way as long as we continue to offshore jobs to China, to Indonesia, to Japan. NOT ONLY do you offshore your jobs. BUT you also offshore your tax base and your economy. This is a huge problem for America.)

[Hebrew Hammer]

Well said. I owned a corporation for years, and I paid far less in taxes in relation to income when I was making $100,000 a year than when I was delivering pizza as a teenager.

~BB~

Lol most everyone I delivered pizza with in college only did it to launder their pot money.

[Ben]

How to Think About Standard and Poor's Downgrade

by Dean Baker (http://www.commondreams.org/dean-baker)

Standard and Poor's downgrade of U.S. government debt captured headlines across the country and around the world. It is a newsworthy event, but primarily as another colossal failure by a major credit rating agency.
First, it is worth mentioning the important background here. S&P, along with the other credit rating agencies, rated hundreds of billions of dollars of subprime mortgage backed securities as investment grade. They were paid (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/19/questions_for_sp_on_its_potential_downgrade_of_us/) tens of millions of dollar by the investment banks for these ratings. We know that concerns were raised by their own people about the quality of many of these issues. This was at the least astoundingly incompetent. It was quite possibly criminal.
This raises the question of whether S&P fears an investigation and possible prosecution. In such circumstances the desire to curry favor with powerful politicians could certainly influence their credit rating decisions. There are also rules affecting the credit rating agencies in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. The desire to have these rules written in a favorable way could affect the credit rating agencies' decisions. It would be nice if we could just assume that the credit rating agencies make their rulings on an objective assessment of the evidence, but we can't.
Let's look at the evidence. S&P made a big point of citing (http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563) the fact that the debt deal did almost nothing to slow the growth of Medicare and other entitlements, obviously alluding to Social Security. S&P surely knows that Medicare's cost growth is driven by projections of explosive growth in private sector health care costs. The projections it relies upon from the Congressional Budget Office show (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/ryan-medicare-plan-winners-losers) that the cost of providing health care to an average 65 year-old in the private sector will be almost $20,000 (in 2011 dollars) a year by 2030. Of course, this will make Medicare unaffordable if it proves true, but this projected explosion in health care costs will be devastating for the U.S. economy even if we eliminated Medicare and other public sector health care programs altogether.
If S&P were being honest, it would have written about the need to fix the U.S. health care system. Instead it talked about the need to cut Medicare. Of course, if U.S. health care costs were comparable to those in any other country in the world, then we would be looking at massive surpluses (http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html) in the long-term, not deficits.
The reference to Social Security also cannot be supported. The program is financed by its own designated tax. Under the law, if benefits exceed the money raised by the tax, then they are not paid. If S&P assumes that Social Security will add to the deficit in future years, then they are assuming that Congress will change the law in a way that no one is now proposing.
It is also worth noting that the projected increase (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3277&type=0&sequence=7) in Social Security as a share of GDP over the next 30 years is 1.6 percent. This is roughly the same as the increase (http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/05/house-moves-forward-on-2012-military-pay/) in the annual military budget since the days before September 11th. An unbiased credit rating agency would not be highlighting one increase while ignoring the other.
There are other problems with the S&P downgrade. U.S. government debt and its derivatives (e.g. the $5 trillion of mortgage backed securities issued (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/business/11ripple.html?ei=5124&en=8ad220403fcfdf6e&ex=1373515200&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1312649442-FXDxH4kMjA9czkPXZtufKg) by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are the backbone of the U.S. financial system and indeed the world financial system. If U.S. debt is in fact less creditworthy, then all the banks and financial companies that rely on its value should also be less creditworthy. Yet, we didn't hear of J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and the rest being put on the watch list for a downgrade. Why not? Perhaps this is because S&P doesn't take its own rating seriously.
Finally, what does the risk of default on U.S. government debt mean? The debt is issued in dollars. That means it is payable in dollars. The U.S. government prints dollars. This means that if some reasons the government was unable to tax or borrow to raise the money to pay its debt then it could always print it. This may carry a risk of inflation, but S&P is not in the business of making inflation predictions, they are in the business of assessing the likelihood that debt will be repaid. (Of course if they are worried that inflation will erode the value of U.S. debt, S&P would also have to downgrade all debt denominated in dollars everywhere in the world.)
In short, there is no coherent explanation that can be given for S&P's downgrade. This downgrade was not made based on the economics. We can only speculate about the true motive.


© 2011 Huffington Post

[onmyknees]

Again....let's put this in perspective and not try to make political points out of this because frankly you sound ignorant doing so....This is the same rating agency that thought it was a good idea not only to peddle mortgages to people who could never pay them, but to also bundle them together, and allow Big Wall Street Brokerages and Banks to sell them as investments, and thus collapse the US economy....then thought it was a good idea we bail those same banks out...starting to get the picture? So let's be careful pointing to them as though Moses is sending us a message from the heavens....Here is what an official from S&P actually said for what it's worth....When you libs have nothing to offer with what you've done for the economy, by all means play the blame game..it worked so well for you in the 2010 elections ! And notice that Mr. Chambers references the Ryan budget ( yea that Tea Bagger) and the President's much touted Boles-Simpson commission that he completely discarded...so who ya gonna blame now? Some of you really need to take some night courses in economics. Read what S&P actually said....


A top official at Standard & Poor's pushed back Saturday against the Obama administration's criticism that their decision to downgrade the nation's credit rating was based on "flawed" math.
The administration had tried to prevent the downgrade announced late Friday by telling S&P that the agency had made a $2 trillion error in its calculations about the downgrade, But John Chambers, managing director and chairman of S&P's sovereign ratings committee, explained to Fox News on Saturday that the downgrade was "motivated by a number of factors."
Related StoriesU.S. Loses AAA Credit Rating From S&P (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/05/us-official-says-sp-reconsidering-us-credit-downgrade/)

"One was the political gridlock in Washington, which make us think that it's going to be difficult for elected officials to put the fiscal profile of the U.S. government on a long-term sustainable path," he said.
"And part of it was because of the fiscal path itself," he said, explaining that U.S. debt accounts for 75 percent of gross domestic product and will "trend up over the next decade unless we get additional fiscal measures than what we have on the table right now."
The agency was also worried that the eleventh-hour budget deal reached last weekend fell short of S&P's expectations, he said. S&P was seeking $4 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade. But Congress passed a plan on Tuesday that slashes up to $2.4 trillion in cuts over that time.
"If you get to the $4 trillion figure -- which had been mentioned by the Bowles-Simpson commission, which had been mentioned by the president in his April 13 speech, which had been mentioned by Paul Ryan in his alternative budget -- that, if you have decent growth behind it,would have done the trick," Chambers said.
Some Democratic lawmakers reacted to the downgrade by attacking S&P's credibility.
"I find it interesting to see S&P so vigilant now in downgrading the U.S. credit rating," said Sen. Bernie Sander, a Vermont independent who votes with Democrats.
"Where were they four years ago when they, and other credit rating agencies, helped cause this horrendous recession by providing AAA ratings to worthless subprime mortgage securities on behalf of Wall Street investment firms?" he said. "Where were they last December when Congress and the White House drove up the national debt by $700 billion by extending Bush's tax breaks for the rich?"
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said that the rating agencies have a horrible record and people should pay no attention to them.
But Chambers said the agency's record speaks for itself.
"Standard & Poor's, if you count its predecessor companies, has been ratings bonds since the 1920s. We have a long track record of over 100 years," he said, adding that none of the sovereign bonds that have received one of the top ratings in the U.S. since 1975 have defaulted.
S&P is the only one of the world's three major credit rating agencies to downgrade U.S. debt. But Moody's and Fitch have issued warnings of possible downgrades.
The White House said Saturday that President Obama in the coming weeks will "strongly encourage" members of Congress to "put our common commitment to a stronger recovery and a sounder long-term fiscal path above our political and ideological differences."

[onmyknees]

Obama didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class. Only the wealthy. Republicans held the bill hostage and said that they wouldn't agree to that. He made the decision to cave in to the republicans demands to not raise taxes on the wealthy in order to not hurt the middle class even more.



Really? What do you consider "wealthy"? I think you're probably wealthy Amy...are you doing your share? Again his ability to demagogue knows no bounds...he talks about "millionaires and billionaires" and corporate jet owners, but his threshold is 250 K. In New York, and I suspect California that's a working couple of a high school principal and a police captain...or a union welder, and mid level manager.....that's hardly a billionaire. And please understand that a portion of those at that 250K threshold are small business filing as individuals...and those at the 250-300K level greatly outnumber those "millionaires and billionaires"
You see with Obama...it's never really what he says...

So let's do the math....let's say a Doctor meets the 250K threshold...that means gross, not net. He pays....( and these are approximate , but close enough for HA math )

35 % Federal Income Tax
10 % State income tax
5% NYC tax
8% SSI
3% Medicare Tax

If he lives in an apartment, he gets no mortgage deduction....plus he has to pay all his insurances...Do the math sweet Amy. How much of his pay would you and the libs be happy with? If you're calling for higher taxes, you need to answer that question.

And may I remind you...you might not call it a tax, but I sure the fuck do...my health insurance has gone up exponentially , and will continue to go up to support all the new mandates of Obama Care. That's a tax baby by any other name. How about you stop spending before you start asking other Americans to kick in 75% of their hard earned money?

[Silcc69]

I hear many from the left mention he does this way too often. I wonder if they feel that he is a strong principled leader.

I am assuming he doesn't want to looked upon as an angry black man

[Hebrew Hammer]

Really? What do you consider "wealthy"? I think you're probably wealthy Amy...are you doing your share? Again his ability to demagogue knows no bounds...he talks about "millionaires and billionaires" and corporate jet owners, but his threshold is 250 K. In New York, and I suspect California that's a working couple of a high school principal and a police captain...or a union welder, and mid level manager.....that's hardly a billionaire. And please understand that a portion of those at that 250K threshold are small business filing as individuals...and those at the 250-300K level greatly outnumber those "millionaires and billionaires"
You see with Obama...it's never really what he says...

So let's do the math....let's say a Doctor meets the 250K threshold...that means gross, not net. He pays....( and these are approximate , but close enough for HA math )

35 % Federal Income Tax
10 % State income tax
5% NYC tax
8% SSI
3% Medicare Tax

If he lives in an apartment, he gets no mortgage deduction....plus he has to pay all his insurances...Do the math sweet Amy. How much of his pay would you and the libs be happy with? If you're calling for higher taxes, you need to answer that question.

And may I remind you...you might not call it a tax, but I sure the fuck do...my health insurance has gone up exponentially , and will continue to go up to support all the new mandates of Obama Care. That's a tax baby by any other name. How about you stop spending before you start asking other Americans to kick in 75% of their hard earned money?
Even though I consider myself independent I lean too the right often enough on economic issues. However, anyone who makes that much coin for a living and doesn't have the common sense to hire a decent accountant doesn't deserve to make the money they're "giving" to the government. Even if you live in a high tax state such as Cali or NY if you pull money down in the maximum tax bracket there are more than enough loopholes in the system. When I was active duty in the military making in the range of 38ish after the pay check was all said and done with extras, you can bet your ass I wrote off enough shit to drop my into the next lower tax bracket. If you pay the government the money your "supposed" to pay you need a better a tax preparer. With a well reformed tax system taxes wouldn't needed to be raised, if the majority of the loop holes were erased there'd be plenty of revenue for social programs, military spending, and the congressman's stash of blow. But asking for any kind of reform from the government is like asking for jack in the box taco's from burger king...shit ain't happening.

[Nicole Dupre]

Even though I consider myself independent I lean too the right often enough on economic issues. However, anyone who makes that much coin for a living and doesn't have the common sense to hire a decent accountant doesn't deserve to make the money they're "giving" to the government. Even if you live in a high tax state such as Cali or NY if you pull money down in the maximum tax bracket there are more than enough loopholes in the system. When I was active duty in the military making in the range of 38ish after the pay check was all said and done with extras, you can bet your ass I wrote off enough shit to drop my into the next lower tax bracket. If you pay the government the money your "supposed" to pay you need a better a tax preparer. With a well reformed tax system taxes wouldn't needed to be raised, if the majority of the loop holes were erased there'd be plenty of revenue for social programs, military spending, and the congressman's stash of blow. But asking for any kind of reform from the government is like asking for jack in the box taco's from burger king...shit ain't happening.LMAO! lol

[AmyDaly]

Really? What do you consider "wealthy"? I think you're probably wealthy Amy...are you doing your share?

Pshhh I am a Transsexual Porn star for a living. You think I am wealthy? I've never made more than 60K a year in my life and I work my ass off for it. I pay my taxes and I pay what ever is asked of me. That 20% of my pay that I lose from taxes or whatever it is, is makes a huge difference to me and my lifestyle. To someone making over $250,000 a year, oil companies and other large corporations making billions and billions of dollars a year, asking for them to pay the same proportion of my income that I have to pay isn't asking much. It will also make a huge huge difference. I am sure those rich people can live with one less car or lavish luxury that they have while the rest of us are just trying to afford basic shit.

[robertlouis]

Pshhh I am a Transsexual Porn star for a living. You think I am wealthy? I've never made more than 60K a year in my life and I work my ass off for it. I pay my taxes and I pay what ever is asked of me. That 20% of my pay that I lose from taxes or whatever it is, is makes a huge difference to me and my lifestyle. To someone making over $250,000 a year, oil companies and other large corporations making billions and billions of dollars a year, asking for them to pay the same proportion of my income that I have to pay isn't asking much. It will also make a huge huge difference. I am sure those rich people can live with one less car or lavish luxury that they have while the rest of us are just trying to afford basic shit.

:iagree: and heartily too, Amy. Poor people pay their taxes, rich people avoid them. It's the same here in the UK.

It's not only demonstrably unfair, it means that governments never get the tax take they expect to run the services that they provide, so they have to cover the shortfall by cutting those services. And who suffers most from that? Come on, guess.....

[AmyDaly]

Look at the data.

[russtafa]

that's because us poor working people have our heads down trying to make a living .i love it when the rich and powerful push it too far e.i the French revolution and i want to pull the lever for the blade

[evilernie]

Nice Illustration, but as other have said you don't really pay these when you use accounting tricks.

35 % Federal Income Tax
10 % State income tax
5% NYC tax
8% SSI
3% Medicare Tax

I do agree with Amy. If you open your mind to what others are saying, it's not spending that drove the deficit.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=412610

[Dino Velvet]

I am assuming he doesn't want to looked upon as an angry black man

He should keep dressing like this then. Might help keep the Independent vote.

http://www.glennbeck.com/images/news/2009/03/030909pod1.jpg

[evilernie]

Obviously, you guys don't want to discuss things seriously and just here to troll for attention. Besides, why is this topic here, shouldn't it be in politics? Unless you are no getting any on the other thread.

I am asking the moderator to move it to the appropriate thread.

[dbev]

http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/27/bush-economic-policies-are-triggering-dangerous-economic-and-social-polarization/

[dbev]

‘To see how different labor relations were under the Treaty of Detroit from their state today, compare two iconic corporations, one of the past, one of the present. In the final years of the postwar boom General Motors was America’s largest private employer aside from the regulated telephone monopoly. Its CEO was, correspondingly, among America’s highest paid executives: Charles Johnson’s 1969 salary was $795,000, about $4.3 million in today’s dollars – and that salary excited considerable comment. But ordinary GM workers were also paid well. In 1969 auto industry production workers earned on average almost $9,000, the equivalent of more than $40,000 today. GM workers, who also received excellent health and retirement benefits, were considered solidly in the middle class. Today Wal-Mart is America’s largest corporation, with 800,000 employees. In 2005 Lee Scott, its chairman, was paid almost $2 million. That’s more than five times Charles Johnson’s inflation-adjusted salary, but Mr. Scott’s compensation excited relatively little comment, since [sic] wasn’t exceptional for the CEO of a large corporation these days. The wages paid to Wal-Mart’s workers, on the other hand, do attract attention, because they are low even by current standards. On average Wal-Mart’s nonsupervisory employees are paid about $18,000 a year, less than half what GM workers were paid thirty-five years ago, adjusted for inflation. Wal-Mart is also notorious both for the low percentage of its workers who receive health benefits, and the stinginess of those scarce benefits.’ (139-140) The Conscience of a Liberal, by Paul Krugman

[dbev]

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/094408-2011-08-08-stunning-ron-paul-video-that-will-wake-up-america-please.htm?From=News