S&P Downgrades US Debt - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tjts1 · #**151** 08-10-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

No need to for business to borrow money if demand for their products or services is not increasing.

Sure son, just keep telling yourself that.

732002 · #**152** 08-10-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

That is true, but not complete.
The 50-60s were an aberration on the world economic stage. Except for the US, all other major industrial powers were rebuilding from the devastation of WW2. The US, alone, had all of its manufacturing intact. Not only that, everything had geared up for the war effort, and there was excess capacity waiting for needs to be filled.
Can't say that all that was the sole ingredient of the economy, but it surely is too important to ignore.

As for the robbing of funds--it is not irrelevant. Certain taxes were collected for specific funds. Robbing those funds, and then demanding additional taxes to pay for what the specific fund was set up to do is just arrogant.

Sure there are many factors, but the fact that the deficit decreased while tax rates were high (by percentage) should not be ignored.

Robbing funds: It is the total spending vs revenue that is most important.
It is strange how we have SS separate from the rest of the budget/taxes.

Without raising revenues we will still be in trouble years from now.
1. The deficit will continue to rise until the market demands yields in the teens.
2. Spending cuts will be so large that those who lose benefits will actually use their right to vote.

aklim · #**153** 08-10-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

Robbing funds: It is the total spending vs revenue that is most important.

It is strange how we have SS separate from the rest of the budget/taxes.

Without raising revenues we will still be in trouble years from now.

2. Spending cuts will be so large that those who lose benefits will actually use their right to vote.

Somewhere in there, I hope you remember that what you spend on is also very important. I'm sure you will agree that blowing my entire food budget on Twinkies, Doritos and soda then calling it "buying edibles" isn't a good idea.

More strange is how we co-mingle the money from SS to pay for a lot of other things. Still, what do you expect? Those things that the politicians sold us on by telling us that we can have it all with just a nudge here and a little tweak there have to be paid for somehow.

If we simply raise revenues and have "business as usual" we will be in trouble years from now too. Get your spending in line first WITHOUT the slights of hand and then show us why you need the money and we can discuss raises in revenue. I can't see what that is such an unfair demand seeing as how they have proven time and time again that they cannot control their spending. If you cannot pay for what you have, don't start new things. If I cannot put food on my table, why am I buying a new pleasure craft?

Well, that sounds as though we have placed ourselves hostage from starting those programs, doesn't it?

Botnst · #**154** 08-10-2011, 01:08 PM

I have a great idea for getting us out of this mess: We individually borrow a lot of money from our local lenders on a signature loan. Then spend it all! How could that possibly go wrong?

aklim · #**155** 08-10-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I have a great idea for getting us out of this mess: We individually borrow a lot of money from our local lenders on a signature loan. Then spend it all! How could that possibly go wrong?

Would the lender be able to sue us and garnish wages?

engatwork · #**156** 08-10-2011, 01:40 PM

lol

They can't garnish what isn't there

can they?

aklim · #**157** 08-10-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

lol

They can't garnish what isn't there

can they?

OK. I'm in. I want to get me a new S class for a DD and a modified Vette for a plaything and while I am at it, upgrade all my toys.

732002 · #**158** 08-10-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Somewhere in there, I hope you remember that what you spend on is also very important. I'm sure you will agree that blowing my entire food budget on Twinkies, Doritos and soda then calling it "buying edibles" isn't a good idea.

More strange is how we co-mingle the money from SS to pay for a lot of other things. Still, what do you expect? Those things that the politicians sold us on by telling us that we can have it all with just a nudge here and a little tweak there have to be paid for somehow.

If we simply raise revenues and have "business as usual" we will be in trouble years from now too. Get your spending in line first WITHOUT the slights of hand and then show us why you need the money and we can discuss raises in revenue. I can't see what that is such an unfair demand seeing as how they have proven time and time again that they cannot control their spending. If you cannot pay for what you have, don't start new things. If I cannot put food on my table, why am I buying a new pleasure craft?

Well, that sounds as though we have placed ourselves hostage from starting those programs, doesn't it?

What about the politicians that promised lower taxes (for decades) if we elect them. "business as usual" would be to continue lowering taxes.

What we can't control is the lure of politicians promising lower taxes without consequences. Do you really believe that cutting taxes from 80-90% to 35% is insignificant?

aklim · #**159** 08-10-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

What about the politicians that promised lower taxes (for decades) if we elect them. "business as usual" would be to continue lowering taxes.

What we can't control is the lure of politicians promising lower taxes without consequences. Do you really believe that cutting taxes from 80-90% to 35% is insignificant?

I'm all for lower taxes or not raising them AS LONG AS you can legitimately pay for it. IOW, if you "allocate" it as HONUS calls it from say the excess of SS, that is not a true cut or maintenance. It is called "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul".

And that brings up the next point. Take for example your (not necessarily you) worthless child that you insisted that I, your manager in your company hire. I can't fire him because you insist we keep him but I'll be damned if I give him any more responsibilities since I don't want to have to undo everything he touches. I want to keep him at a minimum level of damage. This is why I don't want to give the govt any more responsibility or money. Not because I am against it per se. I am very leery that they will promise something, take this new batch of money and give it away and we will be stuck with some half assed solution instead of the right thing that we PAID for. Since I cannot control your stupid promises, the aim of which is to get you re-elected, I have to limit the funds you can simply squander, hence my resistance to raise the taxes. Not because I think it shouldn't be done but because I believe they will end up using it to squander the money by giving you tax breaks, rebates or grants, etc, etc.

Now, let me ask you this, IF we raised the taxes from 35 to 55%, can you say for sure that we are not going to have them think "Well, I have X billion more so LETS PARTY"?

MS Fowler · #**160** 08-10-2011, 05:59 PM

What is really desired---raise in tax rates, or increased revenues to the Treasury?
If "raise in taxes" I must think you simply are engaging in class warfare with a desire to punish the rich.
If "increasing revenues" is the goal, then lets think of how we might best do that.

aklim · #**161** 08-10-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

What is really desired---raise in tax rates, or increased revenues to the Treasury?
If "raise in taxes" I must think you simply are engaging in class warfare with a desire to punish the rich.
If "increasing revenues" is the goal, then lets think of how we might best do that.

But if we increase revenue and you still squander, what is the point?

732002 · #**162** 08-10-2011, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

What is really desired---raise in tax rates, or increased revenues to the Treasury?
If "raise in taxes" I must think you simply are engaging in class warfare with a desire to punish the rich.
If "increasing revenues" is the goal, then lets think of how we might best do that.

Both cut spending and raise taxes, everyone must share in the pain.

Botnst · #**163** 08-10-2011, 08:13 PM

So, you're proposing to tax po' folks, you heartless conservative?

Honus · #**164** 08-10-2011, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...If "raise in taxes" I must think you simply are engaging in class warfare with a desire to punish the rich...

So, if shifting the tax burden more in the direction of the rich is class warfare, what to you call shifting the tax burden away from the rich and therefore toward everyone else? Why isn't that class warfare?

Quote:

If "increasing revenues" is the goal, then lets think of how we might best do that.

We already know one way to do it - raise the top marginal rates. It's worked before. I'm not clear on why it wouldn't work now.

Honus · #**165** 08-10-2011, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

So, you're proposing to tax po' folks, you heartless conservative?

I don't see where he suggested doing anything to po' folks, other than what's being done to them already. He said everyone should share the pain, not just those in the middle and lower ranks.