U.S. credit rating cut for first time ever

Thank You Mr. President!

It should be AA- What the world's investors seem to ignore is that the U.S. is existing far beyond its means. The U.S. dollar will be devalued by at least 5% over the next 3 months. Watch and invest wisely - outside the U.S.

OMG! I did not think S&P would, but they did. OMG!

Are we ready for a rough roller coaster ride on Monday morning? I will close my eyes. The Bank of Japan should be ready for this BY Monday, I hope.........

Thank You Mr. President!

yanee -- nonsense. If you were actually following the goings-on in Washington over the past couple of months, you would know that Obama was adament on getting a "big deal" done, which would have included the $4 trillion in cuts S&P was looking for. But Boehner could not deliver the needed Republican votes, since Obama was insisting on some revenue/tax increases as well. Blame the Tea Party, who look at everything too simplisticly, if you want a villian.

Well that pretty much makes it official, Obama is without a doubt the worst president in American history. Even the Russians are kicking sand in your face. Get a clue Mr. President, central planning, government wealth redistribution, and progressive politics are incompatible with sound economic policy. You are driving America out of the ditch - only to take the country over a cliff.

This is what happens when you have years and years of incompetent leadership by the White House and the Congress

I just hope that I don't see Americans whining about how evil the credit rating agencies are tomorrow, like the Europeans did.

Were the markets open when this happened,

Farmboy, It was just released. This is a Friday eve in US, and the market here is already closed for the weekend. At least they are kind enough to let other countries to get ready for monday morning. Japan should be able to align market strategy ahead of us. We are day behind you. This is a money bomb.

awl, the way I understand it is they have not made a decision as of this time. I'm sure it'll be a cut, but for how long and how deep, no one knows for sure at this time.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize Obama was not going to succeed. Just listen to him talk and understand that he planned to - and current is - repeating the same kinds of mistakes that doomed collectivists for the past 80 years. It's just common sense. Besides, it was Joe the plummer that first warned us about Obama. He was right.

And still the Keynesians sputter that the problem is we haven't spent enough borrowed money yet, another trillion or two and everything will be ok.

S & P , in 2009, raised the credit rating of Texas. Something Obama and like-minded collectivists should look into.

Infighting caused this, no one is looking out for America they are just looking out for themselves.

I thought they said that if we didn't get the debt limit raised, that the markets would fall and we would loose our high credit rating. Well we passed the debt limit, and what they said would happen if we didn't pass it did when we did pass it. I guess this was just like the stimulus and the "shovel ready jobs" that was promised.

Still, I have to draw up some suspicion on S&P themselves. Weren't they the ones saying that all of those investments and firls were giving high ratings before the housing market crashed?

Blame the Tea Party, who look at everything too simplisticly, if you want a villian.

It has come to this - - Leftists vilifying ordinary patriotic Americans who exercise their constitutional rights to protest the way those in government elected to serve the people are derelict in their duties.

Thank you massive bush tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded loser wars for this downgrade and the embarrassment of the tea party loons taking the US economy to the brink and then beyond it. Markets down 10% based on the republicans bashing their own country like Benedict Arnolds that they are.

Any who votes for the tea bag party is signing their own termination form and driving the US economy into a deeper depression. History is repeating itself, todays republicans are repeating the actions of Hoover who pushed the US into the last great depression.

Obama and the democrats are the only thing preventing the top 1 percent in they US from owning 90 percent of the wealth and the rest of Americans working as wage slaves for next to nothing. Thanks republicans for turning the US into a banana republic. And to their voters who vote against their own financial interests.

Still, I have to draw up some suspicion on S&P themselves

Alphaape, you've got it. Fed Chairman is supposed to appear in front of Finance Committee on next monday. They probably raise question about QE3. FED still have few tools left to stimulate US economy.

The markets had an idea this was coming, so If there's such an impending financial disaster, why are US bond yields at such low levels? The answer for all you America and Obama bashers is that no matter how you try to spin it US debt is still a safe investment.

If you were actually following the goings-on in Washington over the past couple of months, you would know that Obama was adament on getting a "big deal" done, which would have included the $4 trillion in cuts S&P was looking for. But Boehner could not deliver the needed Republican votes, since Obama was insisting on some revenue/tax increases as well. Obama was too busy looking for tax increases from an already overburdened population instead of just making budget cuts as the USA NEEDS to do to do the right thing. I for one pay enough taxes to the Government and they give nothing in return except bigger Government. The USA need to cut ALL Government by 10 percent across ALL budgets. Obama cause this by spending Trillions on "Shovel ready jobs" that never existed nor came to fruition.

I don't care who you feel like blaming at this moment in time because it hardly matters now. This is going to get really really ugly.

S&P has zero credibility regarding anything. Alas, it seems everybody will ignore that.

"the problem is we haven't spent enough borrowed money yet, another trillion or two and everything will be ok"

This pretty much summed up the Bush administration's attitude towards war. Probably 40% of all the money used by the US to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years was borrowed from foreigners. How come the right-wing deficit hawks weren't complaining then?

"Something Obama and like-minded collectivists should look into."

I'll never understand how right-wing Americans who take such a dim view of collectivist thinking end up living for decades in Japan, of all places.

It has come to this - - Leftists vilifying ordinary patriotic Americans who....

Most Americans think the Tea Party-ers are bats**t crazy. And they're right.

Had the loony tunes TeaBParty not blocked a routine debt ceiling increase, this never would have become a story.

How come the right-wing deficit hawks weren't complaining then?

Let me venture an answer: Because they're lying, lunatic hypocrites.

Again I'll ask the question, if there is such impending doom, why have US bond rates gone DOWN this week?

RIP America, nobody will miss ya. lol

RIP America, nobody will miss ya. lol

Don't worry. We'll be sure to take you down with us. = )

We'll see what happens. My guess is not much. People knew the situation before the cut. And it's not like people are going to invest in the Euro with the uncertain future. The lack of options can counter a lot.

Europe is already leading the charge against credit rating agencies. With the US on board it might sideline them altogether.

Paulinusa....that's my thinking as well. Nothing seems to dent bond rates.

In the end we shouldn't lose sight of the most important thing....which is that taxes won't be raised on wealthy Americans.

From CNN.com:

"He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said."

and

"Congress should shoulder some of the blame, he said. "The first thing it could have done is to have raised the debt celining in a timely manner so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with, as it had done 60 or 70 times since 1960 without that much debate."

Gee, which party do you think he's talking about?

Another campaign point for the Omaba De-election next year.

Ha ha "Omaba", Freudian slip. Obama, Pelosi and all the other hand-outs-before-pay-check crowd = the O-mob-as.

In a way I am glad this happened. Washington DC has been dysfunctional for a long time and maybe this "kick in nads" will wake the parties (Dem, Rep, and even Tea) and they will start thinking more about the people than just themselves or the SIGs. Then again, we may be in the middle of the beginning of the end. Who knows?

Zurcronium

Thank you massive bush tax cuts for the rich

Obama enlisted Bill Clinton to inform the American public he would renege on yet another campaign promise and renew the so-called Bush tax cuts. Barack Obama Renewed the George W Bush tax cuts for da evil rich. I knows you remember this, son. Obama played all of you.

and two unfunded loser wars for this downgrade

2 wars Obama promptly kept going. In fact, Barack Obama increased troops in Afghanistan. How is Obama's adventure in Libya going? Gitmo is still open. How does it feel, as one of the supposedly anti-war crowd, to know that on this matter you also got played like a cheap ukulele?

and the embarrassment of the tea party loons taking the US economy to the brink and then beyond it.

Right. Right. just like ordinary Japanese are the ones responsible for the 'lost decade' here.

Devoting the bulk of their national wealth into armaments during the Cold War bankrupted both the US and the Soviet Union. The US had a chance at recovery, but then came 9/11 and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as the straws to break the camel's back. Osama bin Laden can certainly declare "mission accomplished."

1) it's stupid for a country to have a debt ceiling - only 3 country have such a thing. 2) Congress should make deals about the budget when they are PASSING the budget. - Still have started on 2012 which starts in 1 1/2 months. 3) The debt is a problem because the GDP is down. Why is the GDP down, JOBS.

As for the rest of the world, since the US is the largest economy in the world... When the US sneezes, the rest of the world get a cold. Then there is the European debt problem.... Interesting that Japan's debt problem doesn't seem to matter. 200% of GDP. In GDP terms, #1. Not a good thing.

Forgot the debate about the debt ceiling in congress, cost the US 1.3 Billion in added interest and since they didn't do anything about FAA since June... altogether, it should come to $3.6 Billion by when congress comes back from their 5 week vacation to work Tuesday - Thursday. If they work a 3 day week, should the rest of the US?

The Japanese government alone has over 700 trillion Yen in assets, so Japan isn't that indebted. There is still demand for Japanese debt, while 80% of American debt is now being bought by the Federal Reserve. Honestly, in my opinion, US debt is junk debt.

Well that pretty much makes it official, Obama is without a doubt the worst president in American history

No way is President Obama solely responsible for this. The United States is a lightly taxed country, and the wealthy in the US are very lighly taxed indeed. The government spending has been increasing in recent times at rates that far outweigh the county's ability to sustain it with such light taxes. Obama has tried to lobby for taxes on the people who can most afford it - the wealthy. But the Republicans oppose it. Happy to further burden the low income earners, but unwilling to shoulder any of the responsibility themselves. That's disgraceful.

time to legalize pot

Obama has tried to lobby for taxes on the people who can most afford it - the wealthy. But the Republicans oppose it.

Do you follow the news at all? President Obama, with majorities in the House and the Senate, renewed the tax cuts 'for the rich'. He has implemented massive taxation via other methods, like through the EPA .

The United States is a lightly taxed country, and the wealthy in the US are very lighly taxed indeed.

The OECD - hardly a bunch of rabid 'neo-liberals' - declared before Obama took power that the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population."

"Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries," Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008. p. 112.

Treasury Sec "Turbo" Timmy Geithner, April of this year:

"There is no chance that the U.S. will lose its top credit rating."

Do you follow the news at all? President Obama, with majorities in the House and the Senate, renewed the tax cuts 'for the rich'.

Yeah, I do. Do you? Here is President Obama quoted on the BBC last week: "But you also can't solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share - or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don't get."

has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population."

That doesn't mean they are taxed at a fair rate though. Earn $373 651 and over and you income tax maxes out at 35%. In Australia and Germany that is 45%. Great Britain and France, 40%. Many of these countries also have a Goods and Services, or VAT tax as well.

Even downgraded to 'AA+', somewhat an insiders' window-dressing arrangement, it does not help ensuring the world community of the US financial standing & its sustainability over time..one has its own rating in their mind derived from recent developments & common sense. We are all hostages !

No way is President Obama solely responsible for this. The United States is a lightly taxed country, and the wealthy in the US are very lighly taxed indeed.

Federal taxes, State taxes, Property Taxes, Sales taxes, Gasoline tax, Payroll taxes, unemployment tax, corporate tax, customs tax, user fee tax, hotel room tax, local city taxes, DMV fees (tax) alcohol and tabacco taxes, airport landing fees (tax).............etc

Lightly taxed? I can't think of one thing that isn't taxed to some extent.

So will funds that are required to only invest in AAA rated stuff have to dump treasuries now?

I tend to lean conservative/libertarian but people really do seem to have short term and/or selective memories. My fellow Americans tend to get way to caught up in party politics to the point where people on both sides will willfully ignore the faults of their own side and bicker about the other. The fact is George Bush was a terrible president and so is Obama. I read way too many comparison to Bush and claims of "where was the tea Party when Bush was in office" what many critics fail to realize is that many people were disenfranchised even with Bush at the helm and they felt that their own party had been taken over.

Not only the U.S. government lives beyond its means but so due the majority of Americans. Buying houses and cars they can't afford, putting holidays on the credit card etc. There needs to be real entitlement cuts and everybody not just the rich is going to have to pay their fair share. Also I should mention that sitting on massive reserves of coal, natural gas and oil and refusing to tap into while seriously seriously exploring for alternative energy has to be one of the most moronic moves ever.

tamarama

That doesn't mean they are taxed at a fair rate though.

People like you cannot or are unwilling to define what you mean by 'fair.'

Earn $373 651 and over and you income tax maxes out at 35%.

Earn 373 thou/yr or more and chances are you have your own business and are subject to a whole separate set of taxes in operating it. LOL. You sound like the type that would actually argue for a cap on the number of new businesses or entrepreneurs a nation can allow.

Many of these countries also have a Goods and Services, or VAT tax as well.

The VAT tax. You kind of make my point for me. If taxation is so good, why does the government that is taking your money from you need to resort to basically hidden taxation like a VAT? And let's not forget the VAT is levied several times along the way - upon the producer as well as the consumer.

For those that still say the rich don't pay their fair share i ask what constitutes a "fair share"? Is it fair that many pay zero tax at all? The top 50% of wage earners in the U.S. make up just over 96% of the taxes. Very few people ask the government to stop spending money instead they call for more taxes. I really don't get this line of thinking. Regardless of how much money the government has they will always find a way to spend it regardless of the amount. From toad tunnels in California to the rubber rooms of New York and three senseless wars, tax payer money is being squandered.

Many of these countries also have a Goods and Services, or VAT tax as well.

Greece's VAT is a whopping 21 percent.

How has that worked for Greece - and the rest of Europe ?

Greece's VAT is a whopping 21 percent.

NOT TRUE

The VAT tax in Greece is 4.5% to 23%. For all goods not belonging to any special category, the VAT is 23%. For Category 1 goods the VAT is 13%, and for Category 2 goods it is 4.5%. On some islands there is a VAT reduction for Category 1 goods to 13%.

Brietbart

However you want to chew the gristle my friend, your country's phobia for taxes, and your Government's fondness for spending, has left your economy crook as a dog. How's that double A credit rating working out for you these days?

Obama and the Dems own the downgrade.

tamarama

However you want to chew the gristle my friend,

Since I am right I'm doing more savoring than chewing

your country's phobia for taxes,

My country's traditional 'phobia' for taxes, in the so-called era of the Robber Barons in particular, brought us and damn near everyone else on the planet a rise in living standards the likes of which the world had never and may never see again.

and your Government's fondness for spending,

People like you never see the link - gov't expenditure invariably rises to meet the income they receive via taxes, or is calculated to exploit to the utmost a central bank or federal reserve's legalized counterfeiting of fiat currency.

has left your economy crook as a dog.

If Obama were out of the picture i would dare you and every non American here to bet against us. Unfortunately he still has plenty of time to do even more damage.

Dear TEA Party members, thank you……

Thank you for your intransigence, your immaturity and your lack of statesmanship that resulted in this downgrade and consequent insult and damage to your country…..

Thank you for showing that the Republican party is no longer the party of Big Business, but the party of fiscal irresponsibility…..

Thank you for making the US political process the laughing stock of the world…

Thank you for reducing America’s influence, stature and prominence……

Your brothers in thought and deed; Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, et al…….we’re looking forward to seeing more of your good work in the future!!!

Unintentionally hilarious:

"Dear TEA Party members, thank you

"Your brothers in thought and deed; Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, et al…….we’re looking forward to seeing more of your good work in the future!!!"

No, thank you, lincolnman.

So what? Sky didn't fall when Japan's rating was downgraded by Moody's., Nations with 'junk' rating are also surviving.

No way is President Obama solely responsible for this. The United States is a lightly taxed country, and the wealthy in the US are very lighly taxed indeed.

I am not sure I get this. So you are saying that it should be normal for the US to be highly taxed? May I as for what. Take a drive around San Francisco. The roads are a shamble full of pot holes around a major tourist attraction like the Golden Gate Bridge or other tourist spots. But the homeless bums get free needles and condoms.

As far as being lightly taxed in the US, in 1987, the richest 1 percent paid roughly one quarter (25%) of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid 6 percent.

But just 20 years later, the richest 1 percent were paying 40 percent of all income taxes and the bottom 50 percent were paying just under 3 percent.

Obama's plan for 2012 is to get the vote, but by making sure that there are more people on the government dole who would not want to vote anyone into office that would end some of the "entitlements" that they receive.

I believe in helping those who need it, but right now we need to refocus and get more jobs back into the US, and get those on the dole off of it.

We can thank the uncompromising Tea Partiers for creating the budget impasse that last until the last second.

Alphaape: As far as being lightly taxed in the US, in 1987, the richest 1 percent paid roughly one quarter (25%) of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid 6 percent. But just 20 years later, the richest 1 percent were paying 40 percent of all income taxes and the bottom 50 percent were paying just under 3 percent.

How does that compare with the changes in the distribution of wealth over the last 20 years?

Normally, I'd agree with you. It would be difficult to find any post I've made over the years that calls for more taxes. But that ideology ran right into a brick wall that is the national debt. If you feel strongly about making the temporary tax cuts for the rich permanent then you've lost all credibility about wanting to reduce the debt. If that's the way you want it, then great. But personally I don't.

BreitbartVictorious: Obama enlisted Bill Clinton to inform the American public he would renege on yet another campaign promise and renew the so-called Bush tax cuts. Barack Obama Renewed the George W Bush tax cuts for da evil rich. I knows you remember this, son. Obama played all of you.

So I guess you'd have to say you supported one of Obama's decisions....? Well, technically you don't have to say it. You could get around it by attacking Obama supporters instead of Obama and hope no one notices. I'd hate to think the company you keep might throw you off of the nearest bridge if you actually came out and said, "I agree with you on this one, Mr. President."

Brietbart

Since I am right I'm doing more savoring than chewing

LOL, to quote you.

My country's traditional 'phobia' for taxes, in the so-called era of the Robber Barons in particular, brought us and damn near everyone else on the planet a rise in living standards the likes of which the world had never and may never see again

Jeez, arrogant AND narcissistic. You obviously haven't travelled much.

People like you never see the link - gov't expenditure invariably rises to meet the income they receive via taxes

I'm sorry?! The exact opposite has happened in the US. Government spending has far outstripped income received from tax. hence the problem. Right?

Alphaape I

am not sure I get this. So you are saying that it should be normal for the US to be highly taxed?

No, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying that one of the solutions, along with obviously cutting spending, is taxing people in the US - particularly the more wealthy, at a rate that is considered relatively 'normal' in the developed world. At the moment it is comparatively low.

The US is a country where the system of government has fallen firmly into the hands of the elite. An unruly and aggressive militarism set in motion two costly wars in the past 10 years. Society is not only divided socially and politically -- in its ideological blindness the nation is moving even farther away from the core of democracy. It is losing its ability to compromise.

Brace yourselves folks. Leave the political nonsense aside. We are heading to a near global depression of the likes not seen since the "great one". Following this we will likely see a large scale world war. War makes $$$.

Breitbart, the US is only 23rd in standard of living. We're not even in the top 20, let alone number one.

I'll never understand how right-wing Americans who take such a dim view of collectivist thinking end up living for decades in Japan, of all places.

@MASSWIPE, they are at right place.

The employment here is 9.1% (many already gave up trying to find jobs and they are not included to this data) and all soldiers from Iraq and Afganistan are coming back, it is very tough to find a decent paying job here.

Many good people with highly skilled, good working history and higher education (4 yrs or more) cannot find job.

I just want to add an important issue for them to think about. These working outside US have been excused to pay tax to the US government. They should not cry when they are getting older, they are not contributing anything to SSI and Medicare. The minimum qualification criteria will be soon changed, and it will be getting harder to earn it if SSI and Medicare last.

The best method for solving the deficit crisis is to elect a Republican president. That's not to mean that such would lower the deficit - indeed, history over the last fifty years indicates the opposite would happen - it is that Republicans are gifted at barking "Look! Squirrel!" to their supporters, and like good doggies, they obediently chase the bone tossed for them. Don't take my word for it; the illustrious vice president of the previous administration,Cheney, put it such, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

They don't, apparently, for Republican administrations.

Add one more that was not included to my previous post, I do hope they are all someone like a billionaire Jim Rogers living in Singapore who does not need SSI and Medicare. Good luck.

Looks like the U.S. may have to cut foreign aid. I hear China STILL gets U.S. aid, can you believe that?

Yabits

Most Americans think the Tea Party-ers are bats**t crazy. And they're right.

lol, you mean wanting the country to live within its means is batst crazy? Heh, sorry, but the loony libs are the only ones who think this. And they're so batst crazy, they don't even matter to anyone but the nuts in the press. You know, those who keep pushing the idea that more then half the country, (the half with a brain) the ones that think we shouldn't spend more then we bring in, that those people are crazy.

Let me venture an answer: Because they're lying, lunatic hypocrites.

Have you not heard the deficit hawks screaming about this? You do understand why so many Republicans in both the House and Senate opposed it.

lincolnman

Dear TEA Party members, thank you…… Thank you for your intransigence, your immaturity and your lack of statesmanship that resulted in this downgrade and consequent insult and damage to your country…..

lol, so its the Tea Party that insists on spending trillions more then it takes in? Methinks you checked your brain at the door.

Thank you for showing that the Republican party is no longer the party of Big Business, but the party of fiscal irresponsibility…..

Wanting to cut spending is irresponsible? Oh, and wait, who was the party in power while the deficits exploded the past 4 years? Hmm. Yeah think you got the R confused with the D.

breitbart

No, thank you, lincolnman.

Easily one of the most hysterically idiotic posts I've seen in awhile.

Speed

We can thank the uncompromising Tea Partiers for creating the budget impasse that last until the last second.

Since Republicans caved and passed the 'compromise', which nearly every single tea party member opposed, I think you can thank those of both parties who voted for the boondoggle. Be they Republican or Dem. Though mostly I think you can thank Obama for the downgrade.

Tamarama

Jeez, arrogant AND narcissistic. You obviously haven't travelled much.

And correct. You're obviously not very well informed.

On a positive note it is nice to see Republicans back and posting again. During the last week of the debt ceiling crisis it seems they all took some time off.

Raising tax rates on the rich is useless unless the revenue raised goes directly to paying off the debt. Which means revenue raised does nothing for the Democrats if it was put that part of our fiscal mess. Republicans and those that are part of the Tea Party understand that. They also understand that giving Govt more cash in the form of a tax increase results in Govt squandering the cash and spending it on exactly what it promised not to. The last thing you do is give an alcoholic more booze, or a spendaholic a cash and expect a different result. The issue is pretty simple when you get past all the political talking points. We as a nation have lived on easy credit for to long and bluffed our way to pay it back. The folks that lend us money are tired of "I will gladly pay back Tuesday for a hamburger today" to qoute Wimpy from the Popeye cartoons. Until we show as a nation that we are really serious about getting our spending under real control and our Govt back to being a responsible steward of the revenue it receives we deserve a downgrade in our credit rating, why............Because we earned it.

So what? Sky didn't fall when Japan's rating was downgraded by Moody's., Nations with 'junk' rating are also surviving

some14some, nott really. Italy, Spain, Greece..as well others are having tough time. We are all in global pissing game with tons of debt for survival. .

lol, you mean wanting the country to live within its means is batst crazy?

Yes and no. The analogy of a country and a family budget is a foolish one. Besides, families are technically not living within their means when they receive a mortgage upon buying a home. Usually, they are saddled with a debt that is several multiples of their annual income. The annual income of the USA is upwards of 12 to 15 trillions.

Secondly, believing that you can better live within your means by ruining your credit rating -- proclaiming to the world that you're going to take the path of the deadbeat -- is bats**t crazy.

On a positive note it is nice to see Republicans back and posting again. During the last week of the debt ceiling crisis it seems they all took some time off.

Yup. They were waiting for the "Look! Squirrel!" command, without which they cannot operate.

Raising tax rates on the rich is useless unless the revenue raised goes directly to paying off the debt.

This was the debate of election year 2000. The Democrats wanted to keep tax rates as they were and use the projected surplus money to pay down the national debt. Fed Chairman Greenspan actually issued a warning against paying down too much of the national debt too soon. What a problem to have.

The Republicans, on the other hand, did not want to consider the overall debt in their yearly budget. Bush considered the surpluses an "overcharge" that had to be returned to the people. When challenged on that, Bush claimed he could give the tax cuts, shore up Social Security, and maintain enough surplus to pay down the debt. The smart people knew then Bush's numbers didn't added up.

Republicans and those that are part of the Tea Party understand that.

The Republicans, and especially those that are part of the Tea Party, understand nothing beyond their overly simplistic, knee-jerk ideology.

Until we show as a nation that we are really serious about getting our spending under real control

Bill Clinton showed them. He deeply cut the military budget and raised taxes, and then worked with Congress at cutting a lot of domestic programs. The growth of government slowed and then reversed itself under the president who said "The era of big government is over."

So much for the phony canard that Democrats can't cut spending.

To those US citizens living in Japan;

Does anyone know if you are qualified to open 401k, Roth IRA and IRA when you are excuted to pay tax to US Gov? I have not studied hard enough to know the rule and regulations on this. Please let me know. Thanks.

Lightly taxed? I can't think of one thing that isn't taxed to some extent.

@sailwind: What is in the tax book and what is actually paid are two different things.

US corporates are not paying taxes. If I remember it correctly The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would be about 15% of G.D.P. in 2011. So yeah, there are taxes "in theory" but corporates are not paying a dime thanks to their subsidiaries in tax havens or lower tax jurisdictions. Consequently giving more tax breaks or on the contrary raising more taxes will not have any effect on the current job situation in the US.

President Obama is in over his head. Raising taxes and increasing regulations on those that generate jobs is all his narrow collectivist ideological worldview will allow him to consider. He has no answers - everything he has tried via his Keynesian orthodoxy has caused a stunted economic recovery, a scary business environment, and a reduction in the nations credit rating.

Every president back to FDR has a hand in this credit rating reduction. But no one can match Obama's economic ineptitude - not even Carter. The worst that could be said of Reagan and Bush is that they ran annual deficits in the billions. Obama's annual deficits are in the trillions. America borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends - pure insanity.

I am now an independent because Bush started the Medicaid prescription drug program. Democrats complain about it all the time but they actually wanted to spend more on the program than Bush did! Despite what some here would like to think, there are plenty of conservatives that were upset with Bush's spending. Despite the dot com bust inspired recession and the Enron scam that he inherited from Clinton, 9/11, and the two wars that were agreed upon by Congress on bi-partisan votes (yes, go check the record), he failed to reform Social Security and didn't even try to reform Medicaid and Medicare.

So in this environment, Obama comes into office and does what? Spends like a drunken sailor and does not reform the real drivers of the annual deficit and the cumulative debt - entitlements. In fact, instead of focusing on the economy and jobs, he does the opposite. He adds a new entitlement that is larger than them all - ObamaCare - increases regulations on private sector job creation, and talks incessantly about raising taxes.

President Obama has earned America's downgraded credit rating and the title of "worst president in history".

Considering that the country was almost bankrupt last week, I wonder why the rating agency gave it an AA+. Shouldn't that have been a C-?

On the other hand, what do the rating agencies benefit from by overthrowing whole states into bankruptcy? They can not really win in this game, the consequences are incalculable.

Kronos, offshore investments are excused from tax code.

This is all the fault of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Republican-controlled House.

45.8 million Americans are now on food stamps per US Dept of Agriculture info released today.

They are not paying tax at all. The job growth is a key to improve credit rating. That's how I see it for the problem. We need to get jobs back from China.

Then there is the European debt problem.... Interesting that Japan's debt problem doesn't seem to matter. 200% of GDP. In GDP terms, #1. Not a good thing.

ka-chan, this is my big concern too. 200% of GDP/DEBT ratio is not including a big debt to restore Tohoku. Japanese voters are partially to be blamed for this financial mess by approving blank checks to the LDP (a good time charlie). There are still 19 other countries with AAA ratings. We all need to learn from them.

I hear China STILL gets U.S. aid, can you believe that?

Serrano, would you please find the source? I would like to read it. If it is true, we need to stop that PRONTO.

US corporates are not paying taxes. If I remember it correctly The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would be about 15% of G.D.P. in 2011. So yeah, there are taxes "in theory" but corporates are not paying a dime thanks to their subsidiaries in tax havens or lower tax jurisdictions.

No offense but....Duh......They sheltered their money, as if that was some kind of a shocker. The " Rolling Stones" did the same thing to avoid Britain's tax rate. Do you really think if tax rates went up for the wealthy they haven't already sheltered the money?

This was the debate of election year 2000. The Democrats wanted to keep tax rates as they were and use the projected surplus money to pay down the national debt

Fail.... then and now.

Again I'll ask the question, if there is such impending doom, why have US bond rates gone DOWN this week?

paulina, Our political and financial systems are still all in tact and are safer even though we are downgraded unlike Japan.

Fail.... then and now.

Yes, the majority of the nation did the right thing and voted for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Ultimately the nation failed the test of Florida -- which ushered in 9/11 and a decade of complete economic reversal.

I am just posting this to make sure everyone gets this message. We are in MARKET CORRECTION.

The Dow broke 200 moving average, oil price down, commodity down; Eurozone with liquidity problem; Japan with the 3/11 problem and the US downgraded without tax reform and job growth, China still with fix currency......Oh well, we are all heading to a global slow down. It is not my business how you play, but certainly, I will stay sideline until the bottom find a big "W" on technical chart.

I just want to add an important issue for them to think about. These working outside US have been excused to pay tax to the US government. They should not cry when they are getting older, they are not contributing anything to SSI and Medicare. The minimum qualification criteria will be soon changed, and it will be getting harder to earn it if SSI and Medicare last.

@globalwatcher: I live and work in Japan, and I lean to the right on some issues. But I do pay US taxes. I work for the US Govt, so my income is taxed, and highly. I ahve been putting into SS since the age of 17.

What is really sad is that during the lead up to the debt ceiling vote, Obama made the comments to the press that he was not sure that the SS checks will go out in August. I was surprised when no one in the media asked him, why should that be a problem. After all, we are told that youi should get back what you have been putting in into SS. So the fact that I ahve been paying for over 30 years into a system, that they now tell me I may not be able to get any money back is really starting to get to me.

It just shows that the US Govt has a problem when dealing with the money it receives from taxpayers.

Imagine, I put money into a plan (mandatory), and when it comes time for me to draw it out, they get to tell me how much of the money I get to have. If I decide to work while I am drawing the money I put in, they can limit the amount I get. Yet, people who come to America illegally, are "entitled" to receive money, without ever having to put in any.

US corporates are not paying taxes. If I remember it correctly The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would be about 15% of G.D.P. in 2011. So yeah, there are taxes "in theory" but corporates are not paying a dime thanks to their subsidiaries in tax havens or lower tax jurisdictions. Consequently giving more tax breaks or on the contrary raising more taxes will not have any effect on the current job situation in the US.

Look at GE. In 2010 they made $5 billion in the US, but paid $0 in corporate taxes. I guess withtheir CEO Immelt being the "Jobs Czar" for the Obama administration sure helps.

Personally I hope the folks who voted for all the Tea Party candidates that kept any reasonable compromise from being reached are the ones with the Adjustable Rate Mortgages and high credit card debts -- since those will be among the people most effected by this. Leaders of their own party warned them of the possible reprecussions of being so blindly dogmatic, but they ignored the warnings. But they'll just believe the sound-bites coming from their leaders and continue to blame Obama anyway.

I Yet, people who come to America illegally, are "entitled" to receive money, without ever having to put in any

Alphaape, I am glad to hear that you are doing exactly what you are supposed to do. I hear you. You are a US gov employee stationed overseas. Thanks to you!

Alphaape, here I am talking about people (US citizens) who are getting paid in Yen while they are teaching English in Japan. As far as I understand they are not contributing any to the US (SSI, MEDICARE, retirement investments IRA, ROTH IRA, 401k). Some of them are living there more than decades. Their whole Japanese income are not taxed. I hope they are not going to ask these benefits upon returning to US.

I would like to read the info that illegal immigrants in US are getting paid. Where should I go and read it? Thank you for serving the country.

Consequence is unavoidable regarding that the global market is on the downhill. The US should be lucky for keeping its head above the waters. Let's hope this country is still wise enough to avoid the worse case scenario made by a country who incurred a huge bad debt by hoarding billions of hosouing morgage bonds in the economic bubble era(1986-91).

Consequence is unavoidable regarding that the global market is on the downhill.

Agree, this is a wake up call for all Americans. Thick or thin, we all need to unite and think hard what we can do to restore this country as it used to be.

It is very interesting when it comes to budget cut, they all say, "you can cut this and that, but not mine!"

When it comes to tax hike, " yeah, go ahead, but not me I am paying already too much."

When it comes to spending, "yeah, go ahead and cut, but do not cut a budget to repair my street."

There ain't any free lunch, folks. It is not so hard to figure that out.

sailwind: Raising tax rates on the rich is useless unless the revenue raised goes directly to paying off the debt. Which means revenue raised does nothing for the Democrats if it was put that part of our fiscal mess. Republicans and those that are part of the Tea Party understand that. They also understand that giving Govt more cash in the form of a tax increase results in Govt squandering the cash and spending it on exactly what it promised not to. The last thing you do is give an alcoholic more booze, or a spendaholic a cash and expect a different result. The issue is pretty simple when you get past all the political talking points. We as a nation have lived on easy credit for to long and bluffed our way to pay it back. The folks that lend us money are tired of "I will gladly pay back Tuesday for a hamburger today" to qoute Wimpy from the Popeye cartoons. Until we show as a nation that we are really serious about getting our spending under real control and our Govt back to being a responsible steward of the revenue it receives we deserve a downgrade in our credit rating, why............Because we earned it.

Please hurry and make a choice. No new taxes and a massive deficit and debt, or let the tax cuts expire on the rich and reduce the deficit. You're making stuff up to create a fantasy world with unicorns and the ability to reduce the debt without new sources of revenue.

Alphaape,

"Look at GE. In 2010 they made $5 billion in the US, but paid $0 in corporate taxes. I guess with their CEO Immelt being the "Jobs Czar" for the Obama administration sure helps."

Wow. If you genuinely believe that corporations and wealthy skipping out on their tax obligations is something only Democrat-supporters do, then you are painfully, abysmally, unforgivably stupid. Corporations and the wealthy follow one political philosophy and one alone: The philosophy of money. And they'll back whomever keeps the most promises to help them keep their wealth, be it a Republican, a Democrat, or a Pumpkin Patch Party candidate.

The mess the U.S. is in is the fault of everyone at the table. EVERYONE. Starting from the wealthy who seem to think their ability to amass wealth happens in a vacuum, dependent solely on their fortune to be born to wealth or in the right place at the right time, and completely independent of a political, social, and economic system (otherwise known as the United States) that creates the very environment in which they can thrive, all the way down to a huge segment of the ever-growing demographic of poor Americans who seem to feel that the best expression of success in life comes not from working harder, studying better, and taking responsibility for oneself, but rather in the acquisition of flat screen TVs, game consoles, cell phones, and the myriad of other junk that are trappings of wealth without the income to justify them, i.e., wealthy lifestyle via overextended credit.

Oh, yes, we've been hearing both sides of the argument for years, and you know what? Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Unmitigated selfishness and stupid pride prevent us from making honest efforts to truly understand this, but at the end of the day, these arguments, when you strip down the rhetoric and vitriol, are all based in real truths. The sooner were get to understanding this cooperatively, the faster we can get back on our feet.

But continuing to clinging to the convenient but inaccurate "let's blame the other guy" cliche isn't going to get us there any time soon.

Alphaape: After all, we are told that youi should get back what you have been putting in into SS. So the fact that I ahve been paying for over 30 years into a system, that they now tell me I may not be able to get any money back is really starting to get to me.

Well everyone knows it's the Democrats who have long championed cuts in social security. It's not like you're a Republican siding with the party that guarantees that couple making over $250,000 a year keep their tax breaks while you lose your social security. Keep fighting the good fight. You're on the right side.

Wow. If you genuinely believe that corporations and wealthy skipping out on their tax obligations is something only Democrat-supporters do, then you are painfully, abysmally, unforgivably stupid.

Oh...you don't know how right-on target you are with that one. You only left out "hopelessly."

You make a lot of great points in your post. For an example of a place where I see it being carried out, turn to California and the measures put in place by Governor Jerry Brown.

Brown's budget fills a $26 billion deficit left to him by Governor Schwarzenegger with $12.5 billion in program cuts and another $12 billion or so in additional taxes. The new governor walks the walk: The guy lives in a modest house, walks to work, travels coach with no entourage, and has stripped down the luxuries put into place by Arnold. The people of California are responding with resounding approval.

We are also seeing promising changes taking place in Wisconsin, where scummy politicians on the take -- folks who'll drop what they're doing to receive calls from out-of-staters like the Koch brothers -- are being recalled and will be replaced by those dedicated to serving the people.

We are also seeing promising changes taking place in Wisconsin, where scummy politicians on the take -- folks who'll drop what they're doing to receive calls from out-of-staters like the Koch brothers -- are being recalled and will be replaced by those dedicated to serving the people.

You forgot to mention, where after passing the controversial legislation, Wisconsin's budget is now correcting itself. Where school districts are throwing off the union mandated shackles, and saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Money that can go to capital improvements and hiring new teachers. So really, it is all for the children. As opposed to those who fought the bill, who were working, not for the kids, but for the unions and their lapdogs.

Out of curiosity, how many of the Flee-baggers are going to lose their seats?

Wow. If you genuinely believe that corporations and wealthy skipping out on their tax obligations is something only Democrat-supporters do, then you are painfully, abysmally, unforgivably stupid. Corporations and the wealthy follow one political philosophy and one alone: The philosophy of money. And they'll back whomever keeps the most promises to help them keep their wealth, be it a Republican, a Democrat, or a Pumpkin Patch Party candidate.

@LFRAgain: I am well aware that corporations that back GOP as well as Dem politicians try to avoid paying as much taxes as possible. THey are only looking after themselves and their bottom line.

I bring it up for one simple reason, all during "W's" term we kept hearing about the evil Haliburton, and that they were behind the push for us going to war in Iraq and Afgh so that they can get a higher bottom line. How they moved their corporate HQ to the MIddle East, and all of the other rants we kept hearing. Funny, I don't seem to be hearing about the same coporate evils of GE doing the same thing.

The same GE that owns NBC/MSNBC so that they get nothing but favorable press, or the same GE that was backing this adminstrations "green" energy plans. Or the same GE that decided to move their X-ray macine division from Wisconsin where it has been for over 100 years, to Shanghai, which will cost 2,000 jobs, and their promoise to invest $2 billion in China to make sure that they will have the brightest students become engineers. All this from the company that Obama's "jobs Czar" is the CEO. The man who is supposed to be looking out for Americans and their jobs.

Brown's budget fills a $26 billion deficit left to him by Governor Schwarzenegger with $12.5 billion in program cuts and another $12 billion or so in additional taxes.

@yabits: I lieten to talk radio from LA. The budget that was submitted by CA is not really going to make the savings that they claim, the one reason why it was passed was because the CA comptroller actually upheld a law that stated lawmakers would not get paid unless a state budget was submitted ontime. It wasn't at first, and they had to go back and actually do a budget. The problem with the budget they have submitted was that the revenues that they believed were going to be coming in was based on how much that they would be getting from the Federal govt, and those numbers are off.

You forgot to mention, where after passing the controversial legislation, Wisconsin's budget is now correcting itself.

Wisconsin's budget was on a trend towards correction since 2009, when then governor Jim Doyle (D) inherited a deficit projection of $5.9 billion over two years. By the time Walker took office the projected deficits were cut down to less than $3 billion. So, again, the budget was already on a trend towards correction before Walker took office.

There have been no school districts "throwing off union-mandated shackles." Walker is getting more money by increasing taxes on public sector workers -- including a 6% mandate for their pensions and 12.6% for their health care, in addition to state and federal income taxes.

As for the recall elections, which will take place this week, the Republicans need to win 4 of 6 seats to maintain control of the state senate. The Democrats are heavily favored to win 2 seats and have decent leads in two others. It is doubtful, therefore, that the Republicans will win the 4 they need. Walker will be thrown out next year.

S & P says the country is looking at a second downgrade.

Politico:

"One day after lowering the nation's platinum triple-A credit rating, Standard & Poor's analysts warned Saturday that the U.S. government could face a second downgrade if the economy continues to struggle and the government fails to make the cuts outlined in the debt ceiling agreement."

Will be interesting to see how the 'journo-list' members and the MSM will coordinate on this one. Do they try and discredit these agencies with a selective review of past performance, or in full panic mode do they reach once again for the same silly old cudgel and impotently denounce S&P as "racists" ?

Please hurry and make a choice. No new taxes and a massive deficit and debt, or let the tax cuts expire on the rich and reduce the deficit. You're making stuff up to create a fantasy world with unicorns and the ability to reduce the debt without new sources of revenue.

OK, that will pay down 0.5% of Americas debt. What about the other 99.5%? I hope you are enjoying the unicorns in your anti-capitalist LaLa land. How about a flat tax with no loopholes and an exemption for the first $16K (or where ever the poverty line is). You treat every person the same so it is fair to everyone. It broadens the tax base. The amount of taxes you pay is directly proportional to your income. For example, someone earning 10 times more than someone else will pay 10 times more in taxes (minus the exemption on the first $16K or so earned). Such a plan would raise revenue while simultaneously lowering rates. Lower rates mean more compliance. Lower rates mean a greater proportion of money in the hands of taxpayers to spend and/or invest as they choose. This is much more efficient then having the government choose winners and losers and minimizes distortions in the economy.

S & P says the country is looking at a second downgrade

@breit, AAA to AA to downgrade to B student? I am allegic to the grading system. Why do I have to go through this again. I am done with school long, long time ago..

I have just heard S&P made 2 trillion dollars accounting mistake, not $20 mistake. I do not know what $2 trillion looks like. I wonder how heavy it is, just curious.....

OK, that will pay down 0.5% of Americas debt. What about the other 99.5%? I hope you are enjoying the unicorns in your anti-capitalist LaLa land. How about a flat tax with no loopholes and an exemption for the first $16K (or where ever the poverty line is). You treat every person the same so it is fair to everyone. It broadens the tax base. The amount of taxes you pay is directly proportional to your income. For example, someone earning 10 times more than someone else will pay 10 times more in taxes (minus the exemption on the first $16K or so earned). Such a plan would raise revenue while simultaneously lowering rates. Lower rates mean more compliance. Lower rates mean a greater proportion of money in the hands of taxpayers to spend and/or invest as they choose. This is much more efficient then having the government choose winners and losers and minimizes distortions in the economy.

@Wolfpack: I wish you would pass that on to D.C. that soiunds reasonable. But it will probably not get any traction simply because people (mainly on the left) will say that the plan is not being "fair" to those who don't make as much. I fully get your plan, those who amke a lot will be paying more, simply based on the percentage. They will say that those who make more money can afford to pay a flat rate, while those who make less will feel the affects more. Mainly because they will loose all of those exemptions and tax credits that gives them money back at tax time. If your proposal were to get debated, the one group that will firecly rally against it will be the taxprepares, who specialize in the "tax loans" that prey on the poorer people since it will cut into their business.

But if at least both parties came up with a solution, and actually discussed its merits based on the facts other than trying to please some special interest group, I would welcome it. One thing about Obama during the debt ceiling crisis, he kept saying he has a plan, but never presented a plan. Only said that other plans presented by the GOP would not work, but never did provide his plan.

How about a flat tax with no loopholes and an exemption for the first $16K (or where ever the poverty line is). You treat every person the same so it is fair to everyone. It broadens the tax base.

You're on the right track, however, social security and Medicare need to be separate as they currently are, and Medicare needs to be expanded to include everyone. The flat tax would not be drawn against income but against accumulated wealth. It would be a wealth tax, primarily levied against land. It's nothing new: Henry George proposed such a tax over 130 years ago. His "single tax" program has never been tried.

The "single tax" was to be a property tax, on land but not on improvements, at a rate high enough to provide adequate revenue to the government. These tax payments would represent the "rent" those who use the land owe to the public. At the same time, taxes on labor income and on capital earnings would be eliminated.

Individuals and firms should own entirely whatever results from their efforts to make the land productive, however, whether by farming it or building a factory on it. They should also own entirely whatever profit they can create through the investment of accumulated capital. (In other words, George was not a socialist.)

You're on the right track, however, social security and Medicare need to be separate as they currently are, and Medicare needs to be expanded to include everyone.

@yabits: THey could factor that into the percentage you are taxed at. They just need to say that for everyone's tax bill, at least 3% of that goes to SS. Therefore everyone pays. As it stands right now, you may be paying at the highest rate for SS tax, but whenit comes time to get your benfits, you may not be getting that much. Also, from personal experience, when a spouse dies who is on SS and the surviving spouse is on SS, the surviving spouse doesn't get the full amount, they were both getting. They take away the decased SS and only give you a small portion. Never mind, you have paid all of the tax over a 50 year period, they just decide to take it away and not give it to your surviving spouse. That is why I am for privatizing SS.

That is why I am for privatizing SS.

Alphaape, I would say "No" to that. They can run with our money and file bankruptcy. Do you remember what had happend in 2008? That's one of the reason we could not let AIG to go bankruptcy. Too many state pensions are still tied with AIG. No from me, Alphaape.

You're on the right track, however, social security and Medicare need to be separate as they currently are, and Medicare needs to be expanded to include everyone. The flat tax would not be drawn against income but against accumulated wealth.

No government entitlement program should force everyone to participate, including retirement or health care programs. Why should the government take away choice for its citizens most important personal decisions? Anyone who wants to participate can participate but as you say, these programs should be separate from the rest of governments non-entitlement related budgets. Ideally, the government would not be involved at all. Those interested should start up a non-profit and pool their resources for the benefit of all that would like to participate.

The idea of taxing accumulated wealth is a horrible idea. When someone earns income they pay the government a tax. Why should it be continuously taxed thereafter? Same goes for property. When you buy a piece of land it is taxed by the government. Why is it necessary to continually tax it thereafter? It's as if you are being charged "rent" for the priviledge of owning property. The government should also want to encourage people to pass on their property to succeeding generations in order for citizens to be able to accumulate wealth - however modest it may be. Continuously taxing it makes that more difficult to the detriment of succeeding generations.

They take away the decased SS and only give you a small portion. Never mind, you have paid all of the tax over a 50 year period, they just decide to take it away and not give it to your surviving spouse. That is why I am for privatizing SS.

In my opinion this is the worst thing about the current government run pension system in the US (besides the fact that it is poorly designed and administered and is unsustainable in it's current form). It makes it difficult for people to accumulate wealth to pass on to succeeding generations.

If people like the way the current social security system works, their can be a government pension plan choice that they can contribute to. Optionally, like-minded individuals can form their own association and contribute to it for the benefit of all members. There are tons of people that like the current system and privatizing it should allow them the choice of banding with others in a "collectivist" type system or allocate their pension money to more traditional investments in their own personal accounts. The most important thing is choice and respecting the rights of individuals to look after the fruits of their own labor in a manner that best suits them, their families, and future generations.

"No government entitlement program . . . "

Would you be so kind as to stow the cutesy word play?

"Entitlement Program?"

Medicare is payed for entirely by the peope who use it in the form of payroll taxes collected over the course of a person's working lifetime.

You throw around the word 'entitlement' as if it means people are demanding something which they haven't earned, but the truth of the matter is that's it's their money to begin with. You can relate to that, right? After all, isn't that the battle cry of conservatives who want to shirk their tax responsbilities? And most people work on average 40 long years to get it back. Your suggestion that it isn't their money is ignorant and offensive.

The idea of taxing accumulated wealth is a horrible idea. When someone earns income they pay the government a tax. Why should it be continuously taxed thereafter?

You are obviously not thinking.

If a person takes their after-tax income and buys a piece of land, and in 10 years time the land shoots up in value, it is 99% certain that the reason for the increase in value will have more to do with governments have done (providing services, roads, zoning for businesses, etc.) than what the owner of the land did -- often having done nothing to improve it. So why would the person be entitled to all of the increase in value made possible by forces he had nothing to do with?

It's as if you are being charged "rent" for the priviledge of owning property.

As long as you do something with the land that provides you with an income -- whether by farming or building a plant where things are made -- why would charging rent be worse than taxing the income?

The government should also want to encourage people to pass on their property to succeeding generations in order for citizens to be able to accumulate wealth - however modest it may be.

No one is entitled to receive wealth from another person without it being subject to taxation. It's another form of income to the person receiving it. Governments have to exist and they have to levy taxes in order to do so. A tax on wealth received is more fair than a tax on someone making a meager income. The person receiving wealth still has enough of it besides whatever they are getting as income to do something to increase it.

If a person takes their after-tax income and buys a piece of land, and in 10 years time the land shoots up in value, it is 99% certain that the reason for the increase in value will have more to do with governments have done (providing services, roads, zoning for businesses, etc.) than what the owner of the land did -- often having done nothing to improve it.

LOL. Yeah. And when the gov't forces renters in your neighborhood to accept section 8 felons as tenants and your prop value dives or your community is torn apart then it's 'capitalism' that has failed us.

And when the gov't forces renters in your neighborhood to accept section 8 felons as tenants

You told readers you had been living in Japan for "decades." It is therefore very likely that you are completely out of touch with the reality of the property market in the U.S.

The massive destruction of personal property values that has occurred over the past five years in the U.S. has more to do with unregulated capitalism than it has with Section 8 programs. It wasn't poor people who concocted the financial instruments like derivatives and credit default swaps -- although they were certainly felons of a major kind.

It wasn't poor people who concocted the financial instruments like derivatives and credit default swaps -- although they were certainly felons of a major kind.

Right you are. It was the same Wall St fatcats who made it possible for Clinton and his wife, ten years out of office, to have a net worth of seventy million or more. Not bad for a good ol boy from Arkansas.

Right you are. It was the same Wall St fatcats who made it possible for Clinton and his wife...

Yes, I was right about the government's role in providing the infrastructure which increases property values as well as the role played by unregulated capitalism in destroying them. Bringing up the Clintons is just your way of admitting you can't counter either point with something intelligent.

As it relates back to a tax system, it is clear that conservatives who lack basic integrity could never be trusted to come up with a fair one. Any plan they call a "fair tax" is 100% certain to be nothing of the kind.

LOL. Yeah. And when the gov't forces renters in your neighborhood to accept section 8 felons as tenants and your prop value dives or your community is torn apart then it's 'capitalism' that has failed us.

Boy, they really must have you running scared over there in wester Japan. Did'ja check under the tatami for boogie monsters?

Taka

The massive destruction of personal property values that has occurred over the past five years in the U.S. has more to do with unregulated capitalism than it has with Section 8 programs.

Lets not forget the role played by Barney Frank and his lack of oversight committee. Ya know, the one that pushed banks to lend to those who couldn't afford the loans. And who then only weeks before the collapse, said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the system. Government was the problem. Bad government, and bad rules can both harm the economy.

As it relates back to a tax system, it is clear that conservatives who lack basic integrity could never be trusted to come up with a fair one. Any plan they call a "fair tax" is 100% certain to be nothing of the kind.

Let me see, right now, half the people in the country pay no income tax. How is that fair exactly? That is after all, the Dems influence, so what you call 'fair' doesn't exactly instill me with confidence.

As it stands right now, you may be paying at the highest rate for SS tax, but whenit comes time to get your benfits, you may not be getting that much. Also, from personal experience, when a spouse dies who is on SS and the surviving spouse is on SS, the surviving spouse doesn't get the full amount, they were both getting. They take away the decased SS and only give you a small portion. Never mind, you have paid all of the tax over a 50 year period, they just decide to take it away and not give it to your surviving spouse. That is why I am for privatizing SS.

They also tax the money they give to you for social security. As if, this wasn't money you've already been taxed on, multiple times. However the courts upheld the taxes, as idiotic as they are, and neither side has been willing to rip them out. Privitization makes a lot of sense. It would mean, that the money we pay in, and that our spouses pay in, we actually get back. And it would mean a better return on our investment. Rather then just paying the money in, we could have it earn interest over time. That makes a lot more sense then the current government trough. But then the Dems wouldn't have their entitlement piggybank.

I thought the rating would be cut further considering how clueless they are at managing their spending. Liars and crooks don't know how to run the system or rather they don't care. They aren't the ones who will be shouldering the burden of the growing deficit.

Lets not forget the role played by Barney Frank and his lack of oversight committee. Ya know, the one that pushed banks to lend to those who couldn't afford the loans.

Yes, you have forgotten that the whole point -- which you tried bringing up several times over the years -- has been proven bogus each and every time. Countrywide was one of several private lenders -- not subject to federal directives -- that lent heavily to unqualified borrowers. (Why do you continue to stupidly bring it back up again?)

The reason that lenders allowed unqualified borrowers to obtain loans had nothing to do with Barney Frank. He's just a convenient target for the ignorant and dishonest. No, the reason was that lenders totally bought into the belief that US home values would never decrease -- AND that they needed these transactions to bundle up to feed the hot market for derivatives.

Let me see, right now, half the people in the country pay no income tax. How is that fair exactly? That is after all, the Dems influence, so what you call 'fair' doesn't exactly instill me with confidence.

It is completely fair. If you believe taking income tax out of a person making a poverty wage, you have no sense of fairness whatsoever. (The poor pay the payroll, sales and a host of other taxes.) Intelligent people would not be surprised that you would not have confidence in a truly fair system.

Cheers everyone, the world is finally waiking up from being under USA hypnoses! God's speed, as They say.

"half the people in the country pay no income tax."

It's not half, but still, a startling number of Americans qualify for tax exemption based on their annual income. The question shouldn't be one regarding fairness, but rather why such a large portion of the American population lives at or below the poverty line.

That should cause greater concern than anything else.

For your information: U.S. Treasury Bonds are only payable in Federal reserve Notes. Not us Treasury Notes, Their is nothing backing Federal Reserve Notes. They are just printed paper. When you go to treasury and turn in a dollar they just give you another worthless Federal Reserve Dollar. Sorry Sucker. Do the math. The U.S, Government has issued 847 trillion dollars. Their 300 million people are responsible to pay for them.. There is no way that can happen in my great-great-great grand children's life time. The 847 Trillion is on record do your research if you do not believe me

"unregulated capitalism"

'Capitalism' is what you get when governments leave people alone. We don' t have 'capitalism' in America. We have interventionist chaos.

S&P is the same credit rating agency that gave gold star credit ratings to the banks and institutions that caused the 2008 economic meltdown.

I find it strange that conservatives overlook the hypocrisy of a party that wants to "balance the budget" while also financing two extraordinarily expensive wars with no increased revenue. 60% of the money we used to fund those wars, month after month, is borrowed. Those wars, and the inflated defense budget for R&D on military technology that we will never use, are a significant factor in our debt.

That's okay, we'll just introduce some corporate tax holidays so corporations can bring home their money in overseas banks and create jobs. Oh, what's that you say? The last time we did that, all of the top earning corporations actually laid off hundreds of thousands of workers?

And tax cuts for the rich? Yeah, that'll sure work. It's elementary economics that the rich have a tendency to sit on their money while the poor and middle class actually spend their incomes. Since Bush pretty much destroyed the middle class, I don't know where you tea partiers, libertarians and Republicans think you're going to get the money that actually drives the economy. Give corporations all the money they want. If no one is buying anything, those corporations aren't going to last long.

Oh, and Armen, can you please back up your anti-America hate speech with some facts once in a while?

The reason that lenders allowed unqualified borrowers to obtain loans had nothing to do with Barney Frank. He's just a convenient target for the ignorant and dishonest

Except that vids of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and other Dems are all over the net. And in these vids it is these Democrats who are defending Freddie and Fannie M and the federal gov't forcing banks to extend loans to 'underrepresented' members of the community.

has been proven bogus each and every time.

lol, every time I hear your pathetic and desperate attempt to deflect blame from the Dems, I just go back and rewatch Bawney defending Fannie and Freddie, and the subprime mortgages. Then I just laugh, and laugh and laugh...

The massive destruction of personal property values that has occurred over the past five years in the U.S. has more to do with unregulated capitalism than it has with Section 8 programs. It wasn't poor people who concocted the financial instruments like derivatives and credit default swaps -- although they were certainly felons of a major kind.

@yabits: Go do a search on the problems with Section 8 housing in LA. I believe the area is Lancaster (I may be mistaken) but the home owners decided to rent out their houses to section 8, mostly blacks (and I am black too) who have decided to move from South Central since the rise in the hispanic and illegal populations. As a result, Lancaster property values have gone down, and residents there are seeing a rise in petty theft problems and other situations that were not there before.

Also, the same thing is happening in Detroit. Poorer blacks on Section 8 are moving into the suburbs that middle class blacks have moved into, causing problems between the two in regards to property upkeep, and as they say, "bringing the hood" out to the suburbs.

Cheers everyone, the world is finally waiking up from being under USA hypnoses! God's speed, as They say

@Armen Aslanyan: Please tell me how wonderful it is in countries that seem to be orbiting the China or Russia (USSR) sphere are doing? I guess there are no poor in either countries, and they have an equal chance to get as much as they want out of life.

So what - my credit has been in the crapper for years. Bad credit is the American way. I'd still rather live here than any other of the many crap-holes that exist in our not-so-free world. Let someone else take over as world dominator/protector/scapegoat for a while. We had a good run.

But did all the geniuses who constructed the economic system that most of the free world balances upon really think that such a thing would work indefinitely? A bunch of lunatics standing around in huge rooms on the phone with ringing bells and general chaos watching monitors and screaming at each other in an attempt to understand, monitor and administer to a market that can take a down-turn if an aircraft crashes in Zimbabwe. On what planet is that a good idea?

Except that vids of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and other Dems are all over the net. And in these vids it is these Democrats who are defending Freddie and Fannie M and the federal gov't forcing banks to extend loans to 'underrepresented' members of the community.

So, it is the right-wing's position that "under-represented" equals "minority" equals "unqualified." That is all you are stating here. Banks for years engaged in a process called "red-lining," which denied loans to qualified borrowers who happened to be of a certain "demographic." In no way was any government agency forcing any bank to loan to unqualified borrowers.

The proof of this lies in the basic fact that, by far, most problem loans were made by financial institutions not subject to federal regulations. Countrywide is but one example. Also, the fact is that, when Waters and Frank were members of Congress, they were in the minority party. For a better example, how about the speeches of President Bush -- including one prominent SOTU -- where he advocated home-ownership for every American?

Go do a search on the problems with Section 8 housing in LA....

Please go back and read the point to prevent the kind of foolishness your anecdotes represent.

The massive devaluation in real estate values that destroyed so much wealth in the U.S. had nothing to do with Section 8 housing in LA, Detroit, or any other city. Go do a search on derivatives in the mortgage security industry, and credit default swaps, and then tell readers what Section 8 had to do with that.

The financial industry treated property as something whose value could never come down -- a classic bubble.

There is also no comparison between the marginal decrease in land values in some areas due to section 8, when contrasted with the far greater historical increase in valuations in MOST places due to government improvements and services.

Obama and the Dems own the downgrade.

Funny, Page 4 of Standard & Poor's downgrade report specifically cites the Republican attempt to delay the debt ceiling vote as the primary cause for the downgrade.

yabitsAug. 11, 2011 - 04:29AM JST The proof of this lies in the basic fact that, by far, most problem loans were made by financial institutions not subject to federal regulations. Countrywide is but one example.

Doesn't matter. The federal regulations were never enforced to most banks. Before B of A acquired Countywide in 2008 for $4 billion, they had 8 percent of outstanding home loans in the U.S., and regardless of federal regulations, which was almost non existant anyway, the B of A had relax rules in lending that was similar to Countrywide. They wanted quanitity. The acquisation of Countrywide made B of A made them own 25 percent of the total loans in the U.S. Other large banks such as Wells Fargo had problems similar to B of A which accelerated the downturn of the bad loans.

BreitbartVictorious,

"And in these vids it is these Democrats who are defending Freddie and Fannie M and the federal gov't forcing banks to extend loans to 'underrepresented' members of the community."

And yet no one forced banks to bundle up this risky debt as tradable assets to bounce around the financial markets in a game of hot potato, trying to make as much money as quickly as possible before the bottom fell out. That was the banks' decision and theirs alone based purely on unmitigated greed.

So-called fiscal conservatives love to pin the blame on the government for forcing banks to make it easier for the American Dream to not be so exclusive, but these same conservatives stare off into the distance with a glazed look when asked to explain how banks could behave so irresponsibly with such toxic assets.

Do you have an answer? After all, you do seem to fashion yourself a master of all things economic here.

Meanwhile, your obvious disdain for "underrepresented" (gee, who could that thinly-veiled racist barb possibly be aimed at?) members of the community doesn't quite jibe in the face of reality. Credit cards companies have spent the past 30 years raking in untold billions by pitching their products at those underrepresented people. Why? Because they understand that the vast majority of those with trouble paying back debt still make honest efforts to do so, which translates into guaranteed profit garnered not only from payments made on the principal, but also from outrageous interest rates and crippling late fees.

Companies like CitiGroup, which posted $3.3 billion in profits in 2011, wouldn't play this game with the "underrepresented members of the community" if it weren't profitable. And the proof in the pudding is that credit card companies aren't mandated by federal law to extend credit to people who shouldn't be getting it. Oh, no. They choose to do it because they know there are huge profits to be had.

If consumers defaulted on their credit card debt with anywhere near the frequency necessary to make your "let's blame it on the poor" a legitimate defense, credit card companies wouldn't be in the business of throwing their cards at anyone with a pulse. They do it because it's where the money is at.

Banks extending loans to people who are unqualified operate on the same principle. And go one better by rolling that risky debt up into assets that can be traded on the understanding that huge profits can still be squeezed out of late- or slow-payers in the form of fees, fees that roll straight into company coffers as separate from the unpaid principal. It's a game perfected and played for the better part of four decades, to the glee and delight of stockholders and board members alike.

You want a fall-guy? Look at banks, the flagship of this unregulated capitalism you seem to champion, and start asking yourself how those SOBs got -- much less deserved -- to be bailed out with our tax dollars, despite exhibiting financially irresponsible behavior that would make the worst home loan defaulter look like Mother Theresa.

Doesn't matter. The federal regulations were never enforced to most banks.

Thank you for proving my point. It was not Barney Frank forcing banks to lend. Frank only arises as a villain because right-wingers can't accept their gigantic part of the responsibility with their entire philosophy attacking regulations -- pertaining to banking and everything else.

And yet no one forced banks to bundle up this risky debt as tradable assets to bounce around the financial markets in a game of hot potato, trying to make as much money as quickly as possible before the bottom fell out. That was the banks' decision and theirs alone based purely on unmitigated greed.

A 60 Minutes report this past Sunday highlighted one of the manifestations of banking greed and incompetence: the fact that they've lost -- or simply cannot find -- legal mortgage documents for hundreds of thousands of home purchasers. So some of the largest banks have turned to document mills which are fabricating phony mortgage documents.

It doesn't matter how long Obama and the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, this downgrade is the result of the mess left behind by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Republicans who control the House.

It doesn't matter how long Obama and the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, this downgrade is the result of the mess left behind by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Republicans

Standard & Poor's made the downgrade. In their report which outlined their reasons, they specifically put the main reason as the Republicans' refusal to consider collecting additional revenues and tying up the debt ceiling process.

These are the same conservatives who want us to believe they support "original intent" of centuries-old founding documents. The S&P document is barely a week old and they either can't or won't read it.

But I doubt that anyone saw S&P’s downgrade and realized for the first time that the U.S. government has racked up an alarming amount of debt and has yet to implement no plans to begin reining in said debt. Again, this is not news. The tea party sounded this alarm bell almost two and a half years before S&P got to ringing and, irony of ironies, is now getting the blame for the downgrade in many quarters. If there is some good to come out of S&P’s move, it will have to be a sharpening of focus and attention in Washington to make tough choices sooner than later. There may be greater public pressure on members of Congress to do something bold in the way of reforming the tax code and entitlements.

"Entitlement Program?"

You may not like the term, but even Medicare's most ardent supporters concede that it is an entitlement program.

Medicare is payed for entirely by the peope who use it in the form of payroll taxes collected over the course of a person's working lifetime.

Your suggestion that it isn't their money is ignorant and offensive

It's not offensive or ignorant, it is a simple fact that Medicare is broken and doesn't work as we were led to believe. The money that individuals contribute to the program is not placed in an account with their name on it. Some people get much more back in benefits than they contribute while others get little or nothing back.

It is due to the condition of entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that Americas credit rating was cut. These programs have promised much more in benefits than they can be provide. So basically, people are not contributing the amount necessary to fund their promised Medicare benefits. So, I'm sorry but you are wrong,

Medicare, like Social Security, is increasingly being paid out to current retirees from the money contributed by those still in the work force. The money that current retirees contributed has long since been spent on the previous generation of beneficiaries. Medicare is currently projected to be insolvent in 2024. How can that be when supposedly the future retiree has contributed over their lifetime for their health care needs? Well, it can not.

But I doubt that anyone saw S&P’s downgrade and realized for the first time that the U.S. government has racked up an alarming amount of debt and has yet to implement no plans to begin reining in said debt.

The United States is 235 years old, and has seen sufficient history to form some conclusions. First off, government spending didn't really become a major part of the economy until the 20th century. Prior to that, there were plenty of terrible economic times and panics -- and so government deficits can't be blamed for those.

Secondly, the US government racked up a stupendous amount of debt during WWII -- much greater as a percentage of GDP than today's debt. Nevertheless, that debt -- along with a 90% marginal tax rate -- did nothing to spur the economic growth which helped create a balanced budget by the 1950s.

WolfpackAug. 11, 2011 - 08:38AM JST. It is due to the condition of entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that Americas credit rating was cut. You may not like the term, but even Medicare's most ardent supporters concede that it is an entitlement program.

There are some common misconceptions related to the definition of an entitlement program. Many people believe that any program where the government gives people money is an entitlement program, but this is not the case. People actually give money to the Social Security program during their years of work, so they are actually paying to gain access to that program, and it doesn’t necessarily qualify as an entitlement. Medicare is similar, although there are actually parts of both programs that could technically be called entitlement program elements. An example of Medicare and Social Security being used as entitlement programs would be when someone is disabled and they can’t work. People in this situation are given access to Social Security funds, along with government medical insurance. These people don’t actually have to pay into the program to get a benefit, and this is what separates them from normal Medicare and Social Security recipients.

If a person takes their after-tax income and buys a piece of land, and in 10 years time the land shoots up in value, it is 99% certain that the reason for the increase in value will have more to do with governments have done

That may or may not be true but it is irrelevant, why would the government be entitled to the increase in value of a private individuals property? Does the government have to pay the private individual if his property value goes down due to something that it has done or approved? Your reasoning fails the test of logic.

As long as you do something with the land that provides you with an income -- whether by farming or building a plant where things are made -- why would charging rent be worse than taxing the income?

Regardless of whether a persons land or other property contributes to his/her income, it is wrong to annually tax something when the tax was paid when it was purchased. The income itself should be subject to tax but not the value of the property for which taxes have already been paid.

No one is entitled to receive wealth from another person without it being subject to taxation.

Wow! What an amazing attitude you have with regards to the wealth of others. It's as if you believe the government has a greater claim than a deceased person's relative! The fact of the matter is, the wealth is being transferred to a relative - not a stranger. The estate tax is therefore immoral. When a old man dies, his widow doesn't have to pay taxes on half of the wealth they had at the time of his death. The assets are simply placed wholly in her name.

Certainly the government requires money to function, but the same money shouldn't be taxed more than once and the rules should be applied uniformly to all citizens regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or social class.

Frank only arises as a villain because right-wingers can't accept their gigantic part of the responsibility with their entire philosophy attacking regulations -- pertaining to banking and everything else.

Yeah, the regulations that Rep. Frank and like-minded socialists imposed on the banking industry. These regulations also led to huge bonuses for the former Clinton administration executives at Fannie and Freddie.

Wolfpack writes:

It is due to the condition of entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that Americas credit rating was cut.

Wolfpack should read the S&P report. It does not mention those programs as being the cause. It does mention the Republicans refusal to take any steps to raise additional revenues. The budget issue will not be solved by cutting alone, and cutting will not bring the job growth needed to get the economy back into higher growth mode.

That may or may not be true but it is irrelevant, why would the government be entitled to the increase in value of a private individuals property?

First of all, it is true. Almost nothing raises real estate values more than the close proximity to a top-rank public school -- to give but one of many examples. Secondly, the government is not entitled ALL the increase, but certainly a percentage of it -- so please don't try to confuse readers by presenting a false issue.

Does the government have to pay the private individual if his property value goes down due to something that it has done or approved?

Ironically, it is the hypocritical conservatives who leap on this one. They have long maintained, and I agree, that there is a principle that should be upheld when the government enacts an environmental regulation that they perceive as lowering the value of their property -- which they regard as a "taking." Conservatives like yourself are hypocritical (or ignorant) because you don't seem to be aware of this long-held conservative position against takings. Where the loopy conservatives take it to the extreme is when they try to claim losses because the land didn't increase in value as much as other pieces of property in the general area.

Regardless of whether a persons land or other property contributes to his/her income, it is wrong to annually tax something when the tax was paid when it was purchased.

That makes no sense at all. There is nothing at all "wrong" to tax property on a yearly basis. It's exactly the same kind of principle -- though in reverse -- of a depreciation allowance. The government has to provide services to the land, including protecting it against fire, flooding, or other calamity, and to the extent those services are being improved, the land has to be taxed to reflect that. It would be stupid not to do it.

Wow! What an amazing attitude you have with regards to the wealth of others. It's as if you believe the government has a greater claim than a deceased person's relative!

Something has to be taxed. It is actually far less imperious and oppressive than taxing the income of someone barely scraping by -- as a the supremely unfair "flat tax" would certainly do.

The government should not care if the person receiving relatively massive wealth for doing nothing is a son, brother, 5th cousin or total stranger. (Realizing the inheritance tax is only applied to multi-million dollar estates.) We the people are certainly entitled to consider taxing a portion of vast inheritances as a form of "income" to the receiver. Nobody should care what the relationship to the dead person was. They are dead.

The estate tax is therefore immoral.

LOL!! How are conservatives who would pick the pockets of poor people with a very high sales tax in any position to talk about morality?

Certainly the government requires money to function, but the same money shouldn't be taxed more than once

The same "money" is not being taxed more than once. That is the ultimate misunderstanding of the conservative. A person can simply avoid the tax by not buying the land but renting it from the actual owner. Oh, but you'll be paying the tax as a passthru in the rent. So what? It's not your wealth that's being taxed more than once. It's just a monthly rent payment to you, right? Those who want to own land have to agree to the terms society has set up for legal ownership -- a right guaranteed to people by the very government conservatives like yourself seek to destroy.

"Wolfpack should read the S&P report. It does not mention those programs as being the cause. It does mention the Republicans refusal to take any steps to raise additional revenues."

So-called fiscal conservatives won't touch the S&P document in any other capacity than to wave it around proclaiming, "See what Obama did?" Never mind the actual content which points a finger of blame almost exclusively at Republicans.

Apparently, the 'responsible' part of fiscal responsibility got left behind somewhere along the way to getting filthy, filthy rich. US corporations posted a record $1.68 trillion in profits last year while the nation stumbles along. And it's the same champions of these corporations that had the gall to hold unemployment benefits under the gun while trying to enact some piddling bit of moral legislation.

At the end of the day, it isn't the wealthy who are hurting at all in the current economic climate. They have little to worry about while the rest of the United States battles a 9.1% unemployment rate caused in part by these same rich folks who, while STILL* enjoying the benefits of Bush era tax cuts, somehow can't seem to find the cojones to invest into their own companies to create jobs.

And they go one step further by outsourcing an OBSCENE number of jobs overseas, all in the name of maintaining profitability, and cap it all off with the punchline of blaming federal regulations, unions, or a poorly educated work force for their decision to effectively betray a diligent and dedicated American workforce to who they owe a debt of gratitude for putting them in a positon high enough from which to urinate all over that same workforce -- all in the name of profits.

And imagine our surprise when we find out these same "fiscal conservatives" exploit loopholes in or ignore the federal regulations, seek to weaken unions further, and lambaste the public education system, working tirelessly to de-fund it and push a wholly inadequate "voucher system" that will all but ensure that only the wealthiest Americans have access to a proper education. Gee, who could feel any anger or acrimony over that?

And imagine our greater surprise when fiscal conservatives are called to task for their obvious failure to hold up their end of the Supply Side Economics bargain with questions of why they continue to outsource, why they aren't investing in their companies, why they aren't paying their taxes, why they are crying poor-mouth when their Bush-era taxes are more than intact and profits are the best they've ever been.

Their answer is always the mealy-mouthed refrain, "Who, us? Well, Democrats control the Senate."

You can only pass the buck for so long before the onus of responsibility comes home to roost. The question is whether Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to accept their responsibility in the current mess. My bets are on no, judging by how well they steered the US into an S&P downgrade with their childish intransigence.

LFRagain

So-called fiscal conservatives won't touch the S&P document in any other capacity than to wave it around proclaiming, "See what Obama did?"

A failed 800 billion stimulus package, a year wasted ramming Obama Care down our throats, his budget shot down 97-0 in a Dem-controlled Senate, I'd say Obama pinned it on himself. Of course, if you really supported the guy you would take him at his own word. He long ago said he would take responsibility for things.His flaks,like Geithner, declared no downgrade would come...

Apparently, the 'responsible' part of fiscal responsibility got left behind somewhere along the way to getting filthy, filthy rich. US corporations posted a record $1.68 trillion in profits last year while the nation stumbles along.

The truest,most sincere part of LFRagain's screed - dripping with envy and resentment for the 'filty rich.'

These same rich folks who, while *STILL enjoying the benefits of Bush era tax cuts,

I have pointed out at least three times in the last 2 weeks that the Bush cuts are still in place because Obama extended them. Bush is gone. Obama enlisted Clinton to tell all the sentimental 'liberals' that Barack just really isn't in to you....

imagine our surprise when we find out these same "fiscal conservatives" exploit loopholes in or ignore the federal regulations,

Biggest corporation in America is GE. They paid zero in taxes last year, because they saw getting on board with the ridiculous green economy Obama wants imposed on us would be the most profitable choice. That is crony capitalism, pure and simple.

and lambaste the public education system, working tirelessly to de-fund it and push a wholly inadequate "voucher system" that will all but ensure that only the wealthiest Americans have access to a proper education

. Sorry, but here I have to ask what school system it is you speak of.It's not the American one from what I can tell. Have you been through the US system?

At the end of the day, it isn't the wealthy who are hurting at all in the current economic climate. They have little to worry about while the rest of the United States battles a 9.1% unemployment rate caused in part by these same rich folks who, while *STILL enjoying the benefits of Bush era tax cuts, somehow can't seem to find the cojones to invest into their own companies to create jobs.

LFRAgain, you are onto something here.

We can look at our fellow human beings as talented generators of wealth -- or as chattel and a liability. It requires, in my opinion, somewhat skilled management and leadership to bring the potential out of people who are willing to give their best efforts to work. One can look at the vast numbers of unemployed as grossly wasted potential. So my question is why would the decision-makers who tolerate and contribute to this condition be rewarded for it?

If the unemployed represented a drag on the wealth of the "job creators," they would have greater incentive to find another course than the one you've described.

Brietbart,

I think LFRAgain is talking about conservative attempts to privatize the education system.

Also, I don't understand how it is you manage to attack Obama for both his conservative policies and his liberal ones. What exactly are you, a libertarian? I hope not, because most serious economists consider libertarianism a punchline.

Also, GE paid zero in taxes last year because they keep their money in tax havens and exploit loopholes. Where'd you get this green economy idea? Obama promised that but never delivered on it.

They have little to worry about while the rest of the United States battles a 9.1% unemployment rate

False picture. But it is the kind of mistake you would expect from proponents of central planning and opponents of greater sovereignty for states. Texas (Repub governor) has created more new jobs these last few years (non-governmental, I mean...) than any state in the union. North Dakota (Repub governor) has a strong economy, low unemployment. Ohio (Repub governor) recently saw its SnP rating raised.Mitch Daniels, (Repub governor)has done amazing things in Indiana. Last - - and I know yabits is vitally interested in this one - - Wisconsin, with its new Republican governor Scott Walker, created half the new jobs in the freakin country in June. That is why voters in that state yesterday, contrary to yabits' prediction, chose to keep a Repub majority in the state senate.

The unemployment rate in Texas is about the same as that of New York, plus Texas is expected to post a 25 billion dollar budget deficit within the next two years. Education is the next public service on the chopping block in Texas, which is already 47th in the nation for literacy. It also leads the nation in number of residents without health insurance. So I wouldn't really point out Texas as a supposed economic success.

Education is the next public service on the chopping block in Texas, which is already 47th in the nation for literacy.

What is the ranking adjusted for the state's massive legal and illegal immigrant population ?

It also leads the nation in number of residents without health insurance.

It's the second most populous state in the union, and the fastest-growing. I won't mention the illegal aliens...

So I wouldn't really point out Texas as a supposed economic success.

And yet, more and more companies are relocating there, from California in particular. In the end I am persuaded by the choices that individuals and entrepreneurs make, not stats cooked up for talking points.

Come on, now. You're not suggesting illegal immigrants are participating in the census, are you?

It's also the fastest growing state in the union because of its cut-rate land and property values, not because people specifically agree with the state's policies. This also explains the job growth.

But Texas is facing a massive budget deficit, and they have some of the lowest taxes in the country. They have no fat left to trim. They will need to raise revenue or cut a huge variety of public services in the near future. Do you want your kids living in a state with no textbooks?

Standard & Poor's made the downgrade. In their report which outlined their reasons, they specifically put the main reason as the Republicans' refusal to consider collecting additional revenues and tying up the debt ceiling process.

And it had absolutely nothing to do with the Dems stubborn refusal to cut spending. No, its all the Republicans fault for not agreeing to immediately continue blowing through money we don't have. Thats why they downgraded us. Heh, the sh/t you're shoving is getting pretty deep there yabits. And its getting pretty rank too.

Education is the next public service on the chopping block in Texas, which is already 47th in the nation for literacy.

At some point in time, you have to realize, that throwing good money after bad, won't make a difference. To put it another way, the US has increased spending on education for years. Every state in the country has done so. And yet the test scores do not correspond to the increased spending. In fact, some of those states, which extremely low per capita spending have much higher test scores then those spending more per pupil. To say it again, money does not equal a quality education. Frequently all it means is higher paid teachers who cannot be fired regardless of performance. No education shouldn't simply be dropped. But it definitely needs an overhaul, and performance should determine whether or not a teacher is retained or not. Consider everyone else. If we don't perform in our jobs. If all we do is show up and punch a time clock, how long do you think we'd remain employed? Why should teachers be any different.

Anyway veering a bit off topic there so I'll digress.

Come on, now. You're not suggesting illegal immigrants are participating in the census, are you?

Are you serious? Do you know anything about the census, or are you just being facetious?

And it had absolutely nothing to do with the Dems stubborn refusal to cut spending(?).

This is like saying it was the fault of the parents for not paying the ransom demanded by those holding their child hostage. No debt ceiling adjustment in history was ever held hostage to the demands of a minority of fringe lunatics who have many of their mainstream Republican colleagues running scared. The lunatic Republicans were willing to sacrifice the good faith and credit of the United States if their demands were not met.

Since the Republicans took over the House in January, Congress has never been more despised by the American people. This is truly the Tea Party Downgrade. They own it.

Thats why they downgraded us.

Standard & Poor's explains that the reason was because of the Republicans failure to act responsibly on the debt ceiling issue as well as their refusal to consider hiking revenues. You should take it up with them if you don't like their reasoning. See, lot's of Tea Party imbeciles and other Republicans have signed Grover Nordquist's pledge not to use their own minds and judgment when it comes to tax increases. The result is the downgrading of the United States credit rating. Congratulations to the Republicans for that.

Wisconsin is calling, yabits.

Got an answer?

"In fact, some of those states, which extremely low per capita spending have much higher test scores then those spending more per pupil."

And some states where there is high per-capital-spending due to a higher tax base also see higher test scores. Correlation does not imply causality. The contradiction in your argument is that private school do well specifically because they can throw a whole lot of money at the challenges of educating children. And clearly it pays off.

It also helps when private schools can restrict their student body rolls to only those students who can A) perform well on standardized tests, and B) afford to attend. Nothing beats stacking the deck.

You're right: Education funding can't simply be dropped. If conservatives wanted to see an explosion in the "welfare state" they so revile and fear, then effectively eviscerating education funding for the non-wealthy, non-bright demographic of the country -- which is the majority, let's be honest here -- would be the fastest way to that end.

I absolutely agree that reforms are needed. But starting the dialogue regarding reform with the premise that fleeing and circling the wagons are the best options is a poor way to get things done.

Re: Wisconsin

Nearly half of the 9,500 jobs created were in the tourism, hospitality and food services indistry, which are overwhelmingly temporary, low-pay positions with few, if any, benefits. Meanwhile, it turns out your claim that Wisconsin led the nation in new job creation in June, was (not surprisingly) wrong.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (and not a conservative rag of a website), Texas, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Massachusetts, in that order, all came out ahead of Wisconsin as far as net job creation is concerned.

Wisconsin saw unemployment rise from 7.4% in May to 7.6% in June and is still a long way from replacing the 171,000 jobs lost to the 2008-9 recession.

And since you so enjoy playing tit-for-tat:

#2 California's governor: Democrat#4 Minesotta's governor: Democrat#6 Massachusetts' governor: Democrat

Which isn't to say that Democrats have a better handle on how to create jobs. But rather that Republicans don't. Otherwise, we'd have seen far greater gains under the unwavering solidarity of Republican governors who would never withhold the secrets to their success from fellow conservatives.

In other words, job creation comes down to (how did you put it?), "the choices that individuals and entrepreneurs make, not stats cooked up for talking points."

This is like saying it was the fault of the parents for not paying the ransom demanded by those holding their child hostage. No debt ceiling adjustment in history was ever held hostage to the demands of a minority of fringe lunatics who have many of their mainstream Republican colleagues running scared. The lunatic Republicans were willing to sacrifice the good faith and credit of the United States if their demands were not met.

Such nonsense. And your analogy is ludicrous. A more accurate analogy would be, one of driving. The Dems and the President announce their plans to drive the car off the cliff, and then get upset when Republicans want to get out of the car, rather then continue on the suicidal path. The credit downgrade is about the continued insistence on spending. And something you are conveniently ignoring, is the other point raised in that report. That of the failure to agree on 4 trillion in cuts to the deficit.

Since the Republicans took over the House in January, Congress has never been more despised by the American people. This is truly the Tea Party Downgrade. They own it.

Sorry, saying it is so, does not in fact make it so. This is the Obama economy, and the Obama downgrade. He is the leader, and when it comes down to it, its his spending policies and incompetence that have led us to this point.

The contradiction in your argument is that private school do well specifically because they can throw a whole lot of money at the challenges of educating children. And clearly it pays off.

And they can fire teachers that aren't performing. Thats an important caveat as well.

It also helps when private schools can restrict their student body rolls to only those students who can A) perform well on standardized tests, and B) afford to attend. Nothing beats stacking the deck.

A fair point, and one I grant you are correct on.

I absolutely agree that reforms are needed. But starting the dialogue regarding reform with the premise that fleeing and circling the wagons are the best options is a poor way to get things done.

And yet thats precisely what the teachers unions and Democrats seem to be doing. Even bringing up the subject is almost taboo. As those who try are accused of being 'against the children'.

A more accurate analogy would be, one of driving. The Dems and the President announce their plans to drive the car off the cliff, and then get upset when Republicans want to get out of the car, rather then continue on the suicidal path.

LOL!! Bush and the Republicans already drove the thing over the cliff. You're wayyy too late.

Secondly, putting the full faith and credit of the United States at risk by holding up a routine debt ceiling vote is in NO way related to "getting out of the car." The way to get out of the car is to abstain from voting, and let whoever feels they want to vote on the measure vote on it. The Republicans holding up the process of the debt ceiling raise was what S&P cited as a primary reason for the downgrade. They mentioned nothing about spending. That is you making things up.

As for the deficit, S&P cited the Republicans unwillingness to raise revenues. S&P, and any other sane person knows, that you can't cover the deficit with spending cuts alone. I wish the Republicans would have gotten the hell out of the car; and the hell out of town.

Sorry, saying it is so, does not in fact make it so. This is the Obama economy, and the Obama downgrade.

You should read your own words. S&P -- the "downgrader" -- has specifically said that the fault lies with the Republicans in Congress, not President Obama.

Every Republican candidate in Iowa last night -- every single one of them -- proved Standard & Poor's judgment was correct as it regards the Tea Party Downgrade.

S&P's essentially claimed that the Republicans would not compromise when it came to raising revenues to bring the deficit back under control. And the Republicans proved them right when all of them raised their hands when asked if they would walk away from a deal that would match just ONE dollar of tax hikes with TEN dollars of spending cuts.

You can't have a AAA rating and insane people like these Republicans anywhere the levers of power.

LOL!! Bush and the Republicans already drove the thing over the cliff. You're wayyy too late.

Heh, if our economy was this way under Bush, imagine the analogy Obama could be using today... Bush left Obama a troubled economy. He will be leaving his successor, a disaster. Way to dismiss the analogy btw. Guess you realized it was too apt and wanted nothing to do with it.

They mentioned nothing about spending. That is you making things up.

So bringing up the 4 trillion in cuts they specifically pointed to, is making things up. Good to know.

S&P's essentially claimed that the Republicans would not compromise when it came to raising revenues to bring the deficit back under control.

Interesting way to phrase things. I note you're still desperate to call it the Tea party downgrade despite its properly being referred to as the Obama downgrade. Whats amazing, my blind friend, is that you seem to think the only solution is to increase revenues, rather then decrease spending. This narrow view is part of the problem. The solution is not more government, nor more government spending. But to decrease the spending. Washington has proven they cannot handle money well. If you were an alcoholic, giving you more wouldn't be a good thing. In the same way, giving Washington more money is not a good thing.

The most pathetic thing about the discussion taking place in Washington, is that the representatives there haven't even considered cutting spending. They've only considered cutting how much they increase spending. The sad truth is, that if they kept spending this horrific amount, for the next 10 years, the end result would be a balanced budget.

yabits is bang on, Molenir.

"Heh, if our economy was this way under Bush, imagine the analogy Obama could be using today... Bush left Obama a troubled economy. He will be leaving his successor, a disaster."

As yabits said, bush and the Republicans drove the car off the cliff already -- you can't get out mid-flight and say, 'Good luck at the bottom' and blame the next guy. As has been pointed out NUMEROUS times the Republicans in Congress were the cause of the downgrade, but you guys seem to want to conveniently forget that.

Whats amazing, my blind friend, is that you seem to think the only solution is to increase revenues...

What is amazing is how you continually concoct delusional statements like that. I never said anywhere that the only solution is to increase revenues. Rather that the best way to deal with the deficit is to make wise cuts and increase revenues. This is not just my opinion; it's Standard & Poor's.

But most of the Republicans won't compromise an inch to raise revenues. That's why S&P's downgraded. Last night, the Republicans to a person rejected even a 10-1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases.

The Republicans have sworn allegiance to Grover Nordquist, and America isn't even Number Two to them. That's why this downgrade debacle is solely the doing of the Republican/Tea Party loonies.

yabitsAug. 13, 2011 - 06:09AM JST. Rather that the best way to deal with the deficit is to make wise cuts and increase revenues.

How are you going to do that? The largest expense in U.S. annual budget is entitlements. The second largest is defense spending. Republicans like Graham often go to great lengths to point out that defense doesn't really cost that much. Yet when these same Republicans are asked why the size of government and debt doubled under President Bush, what's their typical answer? We were fighting two wars. They can't have it both ways. Yet to date, Republicans have. In supporting the U.S. intervention in Libya, encouraging one in Syria, and advocating a permanent U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Graham is certainly one of the more hawkish Republicans. But the extent to which his party agrees with him on foreign policy is a primary source of our debt problem, and if you asked each Republican who opposed the Paul budget their reason for doing so, chances are you would get an answer similar to Graham's.

Let's not forget

" Obama inherited a triple AAA plus rating from Bush. "

Reports today say consumer confidence in America lowest it has been in 31 years.

That would be the Carter era.

Obama is a disaster.

How are you going to do that? The largest expense in U.S. annual budget is entitlements.

Multiple ways. Since rising health care costs are the primary factor, give a hefty annual tax credit to people who can demonstrate they are physically fit. For example, a person who can swim a mile in under 25 minutes (about 10 minutes off the world record) is not likely to need expensive health care. This ties the program started by President Kennedy to solid tax benefits.

This is not a quick fix, but within ten years it should start to pay off significant benefits.

The second largest is defense spending

Make deep cuts in military spending and end the wars.

In supporting the U.S. intervention in Libya,

LOL!!! Peanuts.

Wisconsin is calling, Breirbart. Got an answer?

Wait. What's that? Nothing? Change the topic? Pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Man up and admit you were wrong -- as you often are -- after you browbeat the thread with unfounded junk in order to convince yourself that the GOP has answers to the current economic crisis.

The GOP has no better answers than the Democrats, and to pretend otherwise is just plain silly. The fact that the GOP had no answers to bring to the table beyond a recalcitrant, "Nope. Won't raise taxes. The debt will magically go away without actually paying it down" is why S&P downgraded the U.S.

yabits - Every Republican candidate in Iowa last night -- every single one of them -- proved Standard & Poor's judgment was correct as it regards the Tea Party Downgrade.

S&P's essentially claimed that the Republicans would not compromise when it came to raising revenues to bring the deficit back under control. And the Republicans proved them right when all of them raised their hands when asked if they would walk away from a deal that would match just ONE dollar of tax hikes with TEN dollars of spending cuts.

Hahahaha, S&P didn't claim that. Plus, the Tea Party is only 2 1/2 years old. The group isn't old enough to have spent the US into a debt crisis. They didn't create the sub-prime ARM debacle that caused the recession and they haven't been granting the automatic debt ceiling increases for decades that fed the government overspending.

Congress has a serious spending addiction and the Tea Party was created by the taxpaying voters to stop it. The progressive Democrats have been fighting to prevent any controls on their spending. Obama even resorted to begging his remaining supporters to call their elected representatives to demand support for more spending.

yabits

Multiple ways. Since rising health care costs are the primary factor, give a hefty annual tax credit to people who can demonstrate they are physically fit. For example, a person who can swim a mile in under 25 minutes (about 10 minutes off the world record) is not likely to need expensive health care.

LOL. I can just imagine how furiously modern day Dems would demagogue that one. Pool owners would be new evil rich, as bad or worse than corporate jet owners. Providing "access" to swimming pools would result in all kinds of creative attempts at power grabs. Hey, own a pool in heavily Dem district or city? You thought you did.You are hereby required to provide 24 hour access to all your neighbors.A lifeguard will be provided (we'll just up property taxes again), but any all liability in the event of injury is upon the pool owner.It is for the common good!

Obama, in 2009:

" It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession. "

Hahahaha, S&P didn't claim that. Plus, the Tea Party is only 2 1/2 years old. The group isn't old enough to have spent the US into a debt crisis.

The "crisis" is one the loony conservatives declared themselves. There was no "crisis" when Bush took projected surpluses and turned them into deep deficits through major tax cuts, starting two wars, and choosing to bring discretionary spending up to the level set by LBJ and the Great Society programs.

S&P explicitly wrote that the reason for the downgrade was the Republicans' steadfast refusal to increase revenues, since the ratings agency knows that balanced budgets can not be achieved through cuts alone. The idiot Republicans confirmed S&P's judgment with their insane position of refusing to take a deal whereby ten dollars of cuts would be matched with one dollar of increased tax revenues.

The progressive Democrats have been fighting to prevent any controls on their spending.

Believe in lies if you want to. That's why you're a conservative.

LOL. I can just imagine how furiously modern day Dems would demagogue that one. Pool owners would be new evil rich, as bad or worse than corporate jet owners.

You make some idiotic statements which are par for the course -- but swimming is merely one of several exercises that could help gauge a person's fitness. Since you live in Japan, you are probably not aware that public pools and aquatic centers are quite common in most US counties. Mine has four which open at 6 AM. (The "owners" by the way are, we the people of the county.)

Like I said, your points reflect extremely substandard thinking.

The basic premise is that someone who can run a mile in under 6 minutes or swim a mile in 25 (with times adjusted upwards for age) is most likely not to become a major draw on the health care system. The regular exercise that would enable people to accomplish those marks would keep them out of hospitals for a very long time. All that's needed is a lucrative tax cut incentive.

yabits

The regular exercise that would enable people to accomplish those marks would keep them out of hospitals for a very long time.

You're preaching to the converted.I am fortunate enough to live near some good hiking, which I do 3x/week ;can still bench press my weight and run full court (tho no more on concrete!) in the occasional pick up game.Don't do anywhere near the amount of drivin I did in the States and don't really miss it. But I can't see incentives like you speak of ever becoming a reality. If we can verify people's participation in stuff like Kennedy-era fitness programs surely, independents Libertarians and conservatives will counter, we can manage a voter ID system...

If we can verify people's participation in stuff like Kennedy-era fitness programs surely, independents Libertarians and conservatives will counter, we can manage a voter ID system...

The government-issued health/fitness ID card could easily be designed to fulfill the requirements of voter identification.

The GOP has no better answers than the Democrats, and to pretend otherwise is just plain silly. The fact that the GOP had no answers to bring to the table beyond a recalcitrant, "Nope. Won't raise taxes.

lol, obviously you are not someone who pays attention to the news. The Tea Party pushed republicans to pass Cap and Tax, and they got it through the House. 'Dirty' Harry didn't even bother to give it the benefit of a vote. Republicans had answers, the Dems just didn't like em.

The Tea Party pushed republicans to pass Cap and Tax, and they got it through the House.

And thus we behold the silly, all-too-often moronic fans of the Tea Party?

Idiots will try to tell us that the Tea Party was pushing "Cap and Tax." The problem was there was no tax to it at all. The program was called "Cut, Cap, and Balance," and everyone with more than a pea-brain could see that it would not balance the budget anytime soon, while seriously hurting the most vulnerable in our society.

And thus we behold the silly, all-too-often moronic fans of the Tea Party?

I think it is much less moronic to insist that a nation control it's deficit spending as opposed to simply wishing the problem away. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, neither Obama, the Democrats, or Republicans would even care about controlling the deficit. They all feel that deficits don't matter when their party controls government.

The program was called "Cut, Cap, and Balance," and everyone with more than a pea-brain could see that it would not balance the budget anytime soon, while seriously hurting the most vulnerable in our society.

Anyone with a pea-brain can see that simply raising taxes without reforming entitlement programs and the tax system has no chance of balancing the budget - ever. Meanwhile, when benefit programs become non-functional due to financial mismanagement the most vulnerable in society will be hurt the most. Either the entitlement systems are reformed and tax policies revised now to bolster the economy or the system eventually collapses and the poor - who have become accustomed to dependency for decades - will be devastated.

Cut, Cap, and Balance was the only plan that even made an attempt to balance the trillion dollar plus annual budget deficits and begin to pay down the national debt. The Democrat controlled Senate and Obama have not come up with any plan to stop the runaway accumulation of debt. They are afraid to put anything in legislative writing that could hurt their chances for re-election next year with the spending extremists that inhabit their party. Leading from behind leads to nowhere!

yabits - S&P explicitly wrote that the reason for the downgrade was the Republicans' steadfast refusal to increase revenues,

S&P never said that either. At least your consistant.

The Obama nation chose to ignore their own debt commission and any other recommendation that the overspending be curtailed. Government programs will eventually collapse under their own weight if the overspending isn't controlled. The US government is already borrowing 42 cents on the dollar to make ends meet.

Harry Reid wouldn't even let the Senate discuss "cut, cap and balance" let alone vote on either of the bills passed in the House. The progressive Democrat agenda can't exist without more and more "other people's tax dollars" to buy off their own supporters.

On the plus side, angry rhetoric like yours is driving the independant voters away from the DNC candidates in droves and the Obama nation can't win without the independants.

I think it is much less moronic to insist that a nation control it's deficit spending as opposed to simply wishing the problem away.

Of course, it's only after 8 years of George W. Bush turning projected record surpluses turn into record deficits that the idiots come out of the woodwork to declare a "crisis."

The balanced budget amendment was a gimmick foisted on the country by the Gingrich-sponsored Contract On America. Well, the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for most of Bush's two terms -- while spending like crazy -- so how come they didn't push for a balanced budget amendment when they had the much better opportunity?

Whatever can be said about Democrats in relation to spending, it means nothing when their main opponents are hypocrites and liars.

Anyone with a pea-brain can see that simply raising taxes without reforming entitlement programs and the tax system has no chance of balancing the budget - ever.

But the Republicans will not agree to raise taxes even when it's a 10:1 cuts-to-taxes ratio. That was the primary rationale that S&P gave for the downgrade. Just like you can't achieve deficit control only with tax increases -- S&P knows you can't achieve it only with cuts.

Here's the other thing that shows the Republicans to be the gutless liars they are: When it comes right down to cutting, none of them wants to come in front of their own constituents to tell them to face the music. Just like with the Contract on America, they want to make it appear as though they are for something until the political consequences hit too close to home.

That's the whole reason for this super-commission: Because the Republican-led House can't come up with legislation outlining specific cuts. Many who voted for the Ryan plan distanced themselves from it -- or lied about it -- just as soon as they started drawing heat back home.

Cut, Cap, and Balance was the only plan that even made an attempt to balance the trillion dollar plus annual budget deficits and begin to pay down the national debt.

LOL!! It was a non-starter that even had a lot of Republicans shooting it down. It's just another Republican gimmick, like Gramm-Rudman, that was supposed to cap spending. The Republicans kept finding loopholes around it to get their pet projects funded. You Kool-Aid drinkers need to stop trying to pass it around and wake up.

S&P never said that either. At least your consistant.

Consistent in proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

Directly quoting from the S&P report: "We have changed our assumption on [the credit rating outlook] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues."

Harry Reid wouldn't even let the Senate discuss "cut, cap and balance" let alone vote on either of the bills passed in the House.

Harry's smart enough to know the thing was a gimmick designed to score political points and just a massive waste of the people's time. Good on him.

On the plus side, angry rhetoric like yours is driving the independant voters away from the DNC candidates

Anyone who cowers in the face of a little well-justified anger at how the Republicans have hurt the US's credit worthiness deserves to get whatever comes to those who run away and hide. (More Republicans.)

Harry's smart enough to know the thing was a gimmick designed to score political points and just a massive waste of the people's time. Good on him.

Ah, so something designed to structurally reform washington, a law that would have cut the deficit by more then 4 trillion, and which would have preserved the credit rating, despite everything tOdumbo could do, is just a gimmick. Is good to know where you stand at least. Now to find some intelligent people to debate.

Whats amusing is that 'Dirty' Harry was so insistent, that his bills get a simple, fair, up or down vote in the House. Guess he doesn't feel the need to reciprocate. Indeed. I'm starting to think Beohner should adopt the same principle. Because when it comes right down to it. Anything passed by the Dems is just a waste of the peoples time, and really not even worth considering...

Directly quoting from the S&P report: "We have changed our assumption on [the credit rating outlook] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues."

If you keep shilling this, do you think anyone might actually start to believe you? They are lowered our rating because the Democrats insisted on refusing to cooperate in getting our debt and deficits under control. But they think tax increases will fix it? Standard & Poor's is nothing more then a 'useful idiot' here. The basic situation is simple, Dems refuse to cut spending. They control 2/3rds of the government. Republicans tried, but being basically spineless, they finally caved and gave the Dems and Obama their way. The only way Republicans could actually implement change, is if they were willing to shut down government. And unfortunately, thats something, they aren't even willing to consider.

Ah, so something designed to structurally reform washington, a law that would have cut the deficit by more then 4 trillion

A law that several Republicans panned, a law to fool rubes like you into thinking that Republicans would actually stick to it -- just like they didn't stick to Gramm-Rudman. Which Republicans are convinced that rubes have completely forgotten.

If you keep shilling this, do you think anyone might actually start to believe you? They are lowered our rating because the Democrats insisted on refusing to cooperate in getting our debt and deficits under control.

Well, intelligent people know that the quote comes directly from S&P's report -- which specifically cites the Republicans as being the cause. The Iowa debates just reconfirmed their judgment.

When the Republican candidates were offered a 10:1 ratio of cuts to tax increases -- TEN to ONE -- every single candidate rejected it. That is truly refusing to cooperate. The Republicans' message: Do everything our way, or else.

They've gone insane.

More bad news for the Tea Party.

It appears that more Americans are actually taking time to read the Standard & Poor's downgrade report, and finding within it the passage specifically holding the Republicans responsible for the downgrade. Actually, it's the Tea Party fringe that has infected the party with the crazy stance that it's good to damage the full faith and credit of their country as long as it takes down the US president.

Most recent polling shows increasing numbers of American people holding the Tea Party in contempt -- a greater than 50% disapproval rating and less than one-third viewing them favorably -- a significant decline in just a few months, thanks to the Tea Party Downgrade.

A law that several Republicans panned, a law to fool rubes like you into thinking that Republicans would actually stick to it -- just like they didn't stick to Gramm-Rudman. Which Republicans are convinced that rubes have completely forgotten.

Do you think I'm not aware of this? Why do you think I point out that they caved? That Republicans are basically spineless. If they were really and truly serious about cutting spending, they would not have raised the debt ceiling, they would have shut down the government instead. They would have forced the Dems to actually compromise in order to get the government running again. They chose not to. They chose business as usual, and passed a weak compromise bill so they could claim they were doing something. Most people I know however see through this.

When the Republican candidates were offered a 10:1 ratio of cuts to tax increases -- TEN to ONE -- every single candidate rejected it. That is truly refusing to cooperate. The Republicans' message: Do everything our way, or else.

Sorry, gotcha statements don't really work. Because if a candidate had agreed, then we both know what the result would have been X candidate supports increasing taxes!

Most recent polling shows increasing numbers of American people holding the Tea Party in contempt -- a greater than 50% disapproval rating and less than one-third viewing them favorably -- a significant decline in just a few months, thanks to the Tea Party Downgrade.

What you mean it doesn't have anything to do with the medias constant crazy Tea Party mantra? The idiotic racism claims? No, its all because Obama got the economy downgraded and tries to blame it on the group trying to rein in the madness. Heh, Yabits. Even if your numbers are accurate, more people support the Tea Party then support Obama. Probably because of the Obama downgrade.

That Republicans are basically spineless. If they were really and truly serious about cutting spending, they would not have raised the debt ceiling, they would have shut down the government instead.

If the Republicans had successfully held up the debt ceiling vote and shut down everything, the downgrade would have been set to at least one level lower than AA+. The lunatic fringe would have still tried to blame Democrats for that, even though it was entirely the Republicans' doing.

They would have forced the Dems to actually compromise in order to get the government running again. They chose not to.

Roughly a third of the American people considers themselves Republican. Less than one third endorse the Tea Party and better than 50% strongly disapprove of them. This means a minority of Americans are holding the rest of the country hostage until they cave in to their demands -- even to the point of destroying the credit of our country and paralyzing basic government functions. It's only fortunate that there's a few sane Republicans left. I'm sure that there will be at least one sane one on the super commission; that is all the Democrats will need is one to break ranks with the Tea Party.

Sorry, gotcha statements don't really work. Because if a candidate had agreed, then we both know what the result would have been X candidate supports increasing taxes!

The question was perfect in that it shows just how uncompromising the Republicans are in their demands that they have everything their way. Even if the other side is willing to give up ten parts to their one part, no Republican is willing to compromise. The only "gotcha" in this is the fact that just about every Republican has sworn allegiance to Grover Nordquist by signing his "no tax" pledge. -- the country be damned.

Standard & Poor's called it right when they pointed the finger specifically at the Republicans' complete unwillingness to raise revenues along with making cuts as the reason for the downgrade. You don't even spot it when you completely contradict yourself, since you led off by saying you *wished the Republicans would have let the country default by not raising the debt ceiling. (Standard & Poor's understands that having crazies like that running policy in the House is not good for the country.)

Most Americans are not so stupid that they can't read someone openly wishing for default over compromise and then trying to blame all the consequences of their intransigence on President Obama. I suspect greater numbers are going to come to their senses and realize that., historically, these Tea Partiers have a more in common with southern secessionists than with any other political faction. The secessionists were the last major political faction that had to have everything their way -- before these Tea Partiers came along.

If the Republicans had successfully held up the debt ceiling vote and shut down everything, the downgrade would have been set to at least one level lower than AA+. The lunatic fringe would have still tried to blame Democrats for that, even though it was entirely the Republicans' doing.

Still living in fantasyland I see.

Roughly a third of the American people considers themselves Republican. Less than one third endorse the Tea Party and better than 50% strongly disapprove of them. This means a minority of Americans are holding the rest of the country hostage until they cave in to their demands

You still think that the Tea Party is wholly Republican? I got news for you. While the Tea Party is largely Republican, there are a heck of a lot of Independents and even some Democrats involved. Because when it comes down to it, everyone is, or should be concerned about the unsustainable levels of spending.

It's only fortunate that there's a few sane Republicans left. I'm sure that there will be at least one sane one on the super commission; that is all the Democrats will need is one to break ranks with the Tea Party.

So you're backing away from some of your previous comments about Beohner?

You don't even spot it when you completely contradict yourself, since you led off by saying you wished* the Republicans would have let the country **default by not raising the debt ceiling.

How does this contract what I've said earlier? You aren't making any sense. I would rather have the US not raise the debt ceiling, shut down the government. Lets be real here for a moment Yabits. Back away from your political nonsense and think. How much money comes in every month? How much money is needed to make payments on the debt? How much money is needed to pay the social security checks? The total of A, is more then the B+C. In other words, the US could have paid the mortgage, and the car payment, and still had enough left over, if they ate ramen for a month, and cut the cable bill and the internet. Instead, they chose to borrow more money, to keep going further into the hole.

The only way the US could have defaulted, is if Obama had insisted that the debt be paid last. Thats it. So if we had defaulted, it would have been on Obama regardless. However this is all moot because the spineless Republicans caved at the last minute, and the White House crowed in triumph. And understandably so.

yabits:

Well, the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for most of Bush's two terms -- while spending like crazy -- so how come they didn't push for a balanced budget amendment when they had the much better opportunity?

That's a good point - I wish they did. However, arguing over the past doesn't do any good now especially since the debt has risen dramatically under both Bush and Obama's presidencies. The debt even rose under Clinton since he only balanced the annual budget for a year or two and had more years of deficit spending that led to an increase in the overall debt. It would be irrational and moronic to say that nothing should be done about it now under a Democrat because Republicans (and Democrats) ran up the debt in the past.