S&P downgrades US rating from AAA

[flip]

The Depression years caused childhood malnourishment and as a result many young men were turned down for military service in World War II due to nutritional deficiencies. This led to the establishment of the National School Lunch Program in 1946 under the authority of the National School Lunch Act.

Anybody remember those big boxes of guvment cheese? I loved that cheese.

[CUDA]

Beers is either dead wrong, or only speaking of the next two decades.

is this your opinion? or do you have something to base it on. because the S&P HAS lowered our credit rating and since this has come from the head of the S&P that makes it the fact as to why they degraded us.


all quotes from Beers with the S&P

Governments and Congresses come and go, but spending on entitlements persistently drags U.S. debt further into the red.

"The key thing is, yes, entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest," Beers said.

the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability,"

[woodchip]

I don't see any cutting of SS or Medicare. Care to link where you got your info from?

go read the entire bill yourself. In it, you will see(as you already know) the requirement that we pass a Balanced Budget amendment. Coupled is a provision that mandates that Federal Spending be lowered, year by year, to 18% of GDP. Given the assumption that GDP growth is bound to be anemic for quite a while more, beyond virtually anyone's control, by the time you get to about 20%, you would have to either slash defense spending by over half, or eliminate Medicare and Social Security. The numbers simply don't add up otherwise. Several economists have stated as much, but I came to that one simply by reading the bill and doing the math.

You are once again assuming things. Kinda Like Obama assuming the unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed Tarp

[flip]

All I hear everybody saying is they have no friggin idea what's gonna happen. I have noticed gas is down quite a bit here. Is one advantage to the Stock Market falling gonna be lower prices for goods?

[CUDA]

I was listening the a DNC apologist on the news this morning. he summed up the S&P down grade this way

1. the S&P are idiots / they caused this
2. the Tea party are terrorists / they caused this
3. the House republicans / Boehner backed out of the presidents plan. / they caused this
4. GW ran up the debt / he caused this.

the one thing that I noticed was glaringly absent from his statement was putting fault on ANYONE in the DNC party. some of the same tactics that I've started to notice from some left leaning members of this forum.

[flip]

I'm still not sure if it's a good thing or not. On one hand, S&P is essentially the agency that gambled and started this whole crisis going, but their downgrading us got this whole ball rolling. I'm still not sure if this wouldn't equate to essentially a wage increase across the board. If prices go down, and wages stay the same then that's a good thing, provided the bottom doesn't fall out.

[Tunnelcat]

The Republicans got 98% of what they wanted in the debt talks and STILL pouted about it because they didn't get ALL of what they wanted. That's not compromise, that's extortion. Spoiled brats.

ya you keep listening to the Daily Kos on that one. the GOP proposed 2 bills. that when they reached the Senate Harry Reid was too much of a coward to put to the floor for a debate. IN FACT both he and the president declared them DOA BEFORE they even knew what was in them. so tell me who was the spoiled brats in that scenario. it wasn't until the 11th hour that the DNC even offered a plan, and again true to form, and a form that you personally follow to the letter. they didn't debate the issues. they didn't try to resolve the issue. they just called the Republicans names and blamed all the countries problems on GW. it's something the the left is has become VERY good at. don't face to problem they don't debate problems, they don't propose solutions to problems. Just try to discredit the other side and hope the stupid people out there will believe them.

Not the Daily Kos, which I never go to by the way, but CBS News and Boehner's own words.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/ ... tag=exclsv

Don't you think that Cut, Cap and Balance would become an inconvenience to the Republicans if they were to come in power in the future?

God I hope so.

You may hope so, but the Conservatives might have a change of heart whenever they want to fight some expensive war down the line, and you can bet they will create one to fight and then generate the fear required to get stupid people to cough up the money to pay for it.

They've probably brought down Obama in 2012

Nah he did that himself. Obama has shown 4 consistent things through out his Presidency
1. he has no leadership skills
2. he has not executive management skills
3. he's an excellent fund raiser
4. he can give speeches that blame the Republicans for his failures.

You're right about Obama's lack of balls. It's going to be his downfall. His blaming the Republicans is still spot on IMO.

and destroyed the government in the process, which is what they've always wanted to do since Obama was elected anyway, and not by lifting an inconvenient finger to help this nation or our President, even a third of the way in the very least. Nice platform for a party. And you think that's ALL the Dems fault! Well, partially. I blame them with willful neglect and cowardice.

ya it's ALL the big bad GOP's fault. it had NOTHING to do with the fact the the DNC who had unfetter control of all 3 legislative houses of the government for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency couldn't even manage the simple task of passing a Budget. OH FYI its been almost 850 days now and we are still waiting for the senate to pass a budget. but it must be the GOP's fault again right????

They couldn't pass a budget because the Republicans have only wanted to cut EVERYTHING, then blame Obama when those that depend on the government and entitlements suddenly realize they've gotten stiffed by the time the next election rolled around. They've never wanted to compromise even halfway since Obama was elected! He's practically had to bend over and ask for more, which he's done consistently, unfortunately, to get even a third of what he's gotten so far.

In fact, this point in history is probably when much of our troubles now may have begun, resulting from an artifact of paying for WWII (which is touted with finally ending the Depression) and the Vietnam War and Nixon decoupling the dollar and gold to "fix" his economy. A desperate Republican policy and a conservative's unwavering faith that the free market will always do right.

OK lets look at History!!!! who had Majority control over the congress and proposed the the bulk of the spending during those years??

year Pres House Senate
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263
1959 86th R D - 65 D -283
1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232
1955 84th R D - 48 D - 232
1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221
1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235
1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263
1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246
1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242

So? I notice you left out Bush and his Republican Congress, that for the first 6 years of his term, did some really BIG spending on something that was essentially a waste of taxpayer dollars and that hardly anyone on the conservative side of the isle raised a finger in objection over. Even the Dems were psychotic after 9/11 and went along. Any spending in the past pales by comparison, except for WWII spending. Although, don't get me wrong, I'm not letting the Dems off the hook. They can't seem to stop their spending addiction either. I'm not blind. But at least they're consistent with their principles, unlike conservatives, who only like to spend when it suits something they want, which is usually something not in the interest of the commons, but only for Wall Street or Military Defense. You know, I'd rather give my money to some poor person than give it to some pig banker or ripoff defense contractor.

You might want to read this article flip. When the S & P sneezes, the market reacts. They don't want to be held accountable for bad ratings, so they hold the economy hostage until Congress repeals Dodd Frank and all will be hunky dory. A little too much power can be a bad thing for everyone, and they have WAY too much power.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... RFJSG0.htm

[CUDA]

The Republicans got 98% of what they wanted in the debt talks and STILL pouted about it because they didn't get ALL of what they wanted. That's not compromise, that's extortion. Spoiled brats.

ya you keep listening to the Daily Kos on that one. the GOP proposed 2 bills. that when they reached the Senate Harry Reid was too much of a coward to put to the floor for a debate. IN FACT both he and the president declared them DOA BEFORE they even knew what was in them. so tell me who was the spoiled brats in that scenario. it wasn't until the 11th hour that the DNC even offered a plan, and again true to form, and a form that you personally follow to the letter. they didn't debate the issues. they didn't try to resolve the issue. they just called the Republicans names and blamed all the countries problems on GW. it's something the the left is has become VERY good at. don't face to problem they don't debate problems, they don't propose solutions to problems. Just try to discredit the other side and hope the stupid people out there will believe them.

Not the Daily Kos, which I never go to by the way, but CBS News and Boehner's own words.

I see you deflected from the issue again and ignored the rest of my post.

Don't you think that Cut, Cap and Balance would become an inconvenience to the Republicans if they were to come in power in the future?

God I hope so.

You may hope so, but the Conservatives might have a change of heart whenever they want to fight some expensive war down the line, and you can bet they will create one to fight and then generate the fear required to get stupid people to cough up the money to pay for it.

that doesn't change how I feel about the issue and if they don't stand tall even if it hurts them I'll hold their feet to the fire.

They've probably brought down Obama in 2012

Nah he did that himself. Obama has shown 4 consistent things through out his Presidency
1. he has no leadership skills
2. he has not executive management skills
3. he's an excellent fund raiser
4. he can give speeches that blame the Republicans for his failures.

You're right about Obama's lack of balls. It's going to be his downfall. His blaming the Republicans is still spot on IMO.

it's total BS. he said in his own words that the economy was his. it's time for him to be a man and accept responsibility for his failures

So? I notice you left out Bush and his Republican Congress,

that's because everything that you were claiming destroyed the economy happened in the years that I quoted. TRY as you might you cannot blame all the worlds problems on GW

[Tunnelcat]

I see you deflected from the issue again and ignored the rest of my post.

No, Boehner went into negotiations with the stance that he wasn't going to raise taxes, period. The Dems went into things saying they weren't going to cut entitlements. Well, tax cuts are not going to be rescinded until hell freezes over and entitlements are now on the table. Who won?

You may hope so, but the Conservatives might have a change of heart whenever they want to fight some expensive war down the line, and you can bet they will create one to fight and then generate the fear required to get stupid people to cough up the money to pay for it.

that doesn't change how I feel about the issue and if they don't stand tall even if it hurts them I'll hold their feet to the fire.

Did you throw a fit about the debt and spending when Bush was pres.? My memory must be failing me because I don't remember such. If you did, then......

So? I notice you left out Bush and his Republican Congress,

that's because everything that you were claiming destroyed the economy happened in the years that I quoted. TRY as you might you cannot blame all the worlds problems on GW

Yes I can. Bush went to war, didn't try to fund those unneeded excursions with more revenue generation and worse, hid the costs from everyone and cut revenues. Then his little "cut tax for the job creators" didn't work as planned. So unemployment surged and revenues tanked. Whether that was Bush's fault or not, it was during his watch and his remedy for it didn't and hasn't worked at all, so he get's the blame here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of ... ion-2010-2

[CUDA]

I see you deflected from the issue again and ignored the rest of my post.

No, Boehner went into negotiations with the stance that he wasn't going to raise taxes, period. The Dems went into things saying they weren't going to cut entitlements. Well, tax cuts are not going to be rescinded until hell freezes over and entitlements are now on the table. Who won?

I guess your don't pay attention to what goes on in Washington. Boehner didn't raise Taxes because the Bush tax-cuts expire in 2012. I guess you ignored that point. Do you want a double tax increase??

You may hope so, but the Conservatives might have a change of heart whenever they want to fight some expensive war down the line, and you can bet they will create one to fight and then generate the fear required to get stupid people to cough up the money to pay for it.

that doesn't change how I feel about the issue and if they don't stand tall even if it hurts them I'll hold their feet to the fire.

Did you throw a fit about the debt and spending when Bush was pres.? My memory must be failing me because I don't remember such. If you did, then......

I honestly don't remember discussing it on this forum, I have never changed my stance on deficit spending. but that's OK Obama can keep blaming Dad for all his failures. and you can keep thinking that the DNC walks on water and GW is the Anti-Christ if it makes you feel better.

So? I notice you left out Bush and his Republican Congress,

that's because everything that you were claiming destroyed the economy happened in the years that I quoted. TRY as you might you cannot blame all the worlds problems on GW

Yes I can. Bush went to war, didn't try to fund those unneeded excursions with more revenue generation and worse, hid the costs from everyone and cut revenues. Then his little "cut tax for the job creators" didn't work as planned. So unemployment surged and revenues tanked. Whether that was Bush's fault or not, it was during his watch and his remedy for it didn't and hasn't worked at all, so he get's the blame here.

heh continual changing of the subject just makes you look foolish.
do you remember this

resulting from an artifact of paying for WWII (which is touted with finally ending the Depression) and the Vietnam War and Nixon decoupling the dollar and gold to "fix" his economy.

YOU set the parameters that you wanted to blame the republicans for not me. and NONE of the issues that you continue to refer to happened on GW's watch. Please stay on track with your own conversation.

Hatred, in the course of time, kills the unhappy wretch who delights in nursing it in his bosom.
Giacomo Casanova

[snoopy]

Here's the bottom line IMO:

Taking more money from the rich encourages them to either make less, cheat the system, or leave. It'll never encourage them to make more.

Handing out money breeds dependence. Dependence also generates votes for those who will continue to feed the system. Both entitlements and massive defense budgets create dependents.

My 2c: default, a crash, etc. are all inevitable if drastic spending cuts aren't made. That means that everything should be on the chopping block. Entitlements, defense spending, taxes, senator salaries, health care, everything. It's going to come eventually... if it's done in an organized fashion, maybe a few less people will starve in the process.

(I guess I'm pretty cynical about it, huh?)

[CUDA]

that pretty much sums up my position snoopy.
Some people want to blame the rich for this problem, some want to blame GW, some want to blame Obama. some the Tea party. right now it doesn't matter who's fault this is. it needs fixed. AND IT NEEDS FIXED NOW. because if we wait much longer the problem will only get FAR worse. and un-fixable before it causes a disaster.
I am against a tax raise for 1 reason and 1 reason only. because the spending whores in Washington will just find another reason to raise the Cap. and spend more. They will not be fiscally responsible. and fix the problems we face, they'll just find a new entitlement to buy themselves votes to try and stay in power. while I'm not an economist I do run my families budget and I manage a business that employs 25 people that does 500k gross a month for someone in town. and I'm smart enough to know that if you have a large portion of your capital going to paying interest on a debit, then that's less capital you have to spend and invest.
We currently have over 300 billion that we pay in interest alone. 300 billion that could be spent on infrastructure or a ton of other projects. so the tea party is correct we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. But those same tea party members are being demonized by the left because those on the left are afraid of them and they are afraid of them because they know that if people start to listen that it will put their position of power in Jeopardy. so instead of debating the issue and fixing a problem that any normal person can see needs fixed, they just start to demonize. just like a grade school kid that cant win an argument. they go " ya well well your ugly and your mothers fat too" I guess that's what you do when you cant back up your position and openly and honestly debate an issue.

[Will Robinson]

I would be in favor of a tax increase if two stipulations were met.

1) The budget must be capped and cut with a balanced budget amendment in effect so that any additional revenue goes toward removing existing debt and funding what programs survive the cuts and doesn't go to funding the Congress' and President's overspending. anything short of meeting that requirement makes any tax increase nothing more than a spending increase!

2) The tax increase must not be like all the others that the rhetoric says it will only effect the "rich" but then the politicians sell exemptions by the boatload to the rich so the increase falls directly on the backs of the middle class. The middle class is the only group with enough vulnerable income in the pool for Congress to do anything with so ultimately any useful tax revenue increase comes out of there not from eliminating the corporate jet accelerated depreciation write off. They would have to do a wealth tax or something like that to keep the wealthy on the receiving end of the increase.

If Obama wanted to be the president he said he was going to be in his campaign he would have been out front pushing a solution as simple and effective as the one I just asked for and he could have pulled it off. But he's just another dem stooge who came into power with one plan, to redistribute the rich white mans money to the minorities and he hasn't even done that. Instead he's funded the unions and democrat party. He's toast.

[CUDA]

I agree Will. it's only in American where you can have a $6 trillion increase to your debit and call it a Cut because you didn't spend the $8 trillion you originally wanted to.

in 2008 when the economy first tanked my income went down by 22K that year. I found 22K in cuts to my budget so I could balance my spending that year and not go into debit. I cut everything you could imagine, from my life insurance, food budget, and my 401K. to my Cable TV and newspaper. it was a crappy year but we made it through. and I wouldn't expect anything less from my leaders

[snoopy]

On the other hand, the government is a reflection of its voters. We as a nation are individually getting ourselves into more debt than we can handle so until the majority of people shape up and stop carrying a debt, I don't know why the government would.

[ Post made via BlackBerry ]

[callmeslick]

Here's the bottom line IMO:

hmmm. Good! Let's examine your opinion, shall we?

Taking more money from the rich encourages them to either make less, cheat the system, or leave. It'll never encourage them to make more.

and you know this, why? Are you rich? Do you talk to rich people? Sure, sure, it's only your opinion, but since I can't think of a single piece of fact to support this one, and can possibly come up with three or four personal examples to the contrary.

Handing out money breeds dependence. Dependence also generates votes for those who will continue to feed the system. Both entitlements and massive defense budgets create dependents.

to an extent, true, but so too, unchecked capitalism with no government to provide regulation and social safety nets breeds a far more sinister and painful dependance. The voting thing is so complex, but certainly, folks sometimes vote their self-interest.

My 2c: default, a crash, etc. are all inevitable if drastic spending cuts aren't made.

why? And, why would the outcome be any different if the whole thing were balanced by tax hikes on the top 5% of earners?

That means that everything should be on the chopping block. Entitlements, defense spending, taxes, senator salaries, health care, everything. It's going to come eventually... if it's done in an organized fashion, maybe a few less people will starve in the process.

the process you cite is bass-ackwards. First, folks have to decide, as a nation, WHAT, exactly, they wish government to do. Then, they have to figure out the most equitable way to pay for it, plus provide funds to pay down debt and be prepared for the unforseen. There isn't any damned reason anyone ought to starve, ever. For crying out loud, the whole entitlement issue can be seen as centered on the baby boomers. Once we all die off, the numbers should look great. In the meantime, all the nation really has to do is toss out the old tax code, write a simple and fair one that generates adequate revenue. Then, we have to get our heads around the fact that we don't owe the world military protection anymore, and save ourselves around 500 billion bucks a year. With any free time, it would be nice if we got started on the process of regaining technological superiority, so our grandchildren can have gainful employment in a global economy.

[Spidey]

The “boomer” argument is bogus, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was already as low as 3.2 to 1 by 1980...long before any “boomers” began to retire. (if fact...the boomers were in the "workers" number)

An un-sustainable ratio, that aint going to rise very much, after every last boomer dies. (if at all)

[Tunnelcat]

CUDA, by the end of Bush's term, 2.2 million jobs were lost and 2.9 million were created. How's that you say? Well, it's location, location, location. The 2.2 million jobs lost were in the U. S. and the 2.9 million jobs created were OUTSIDE the U.S. Jeez, that was nice of Bush to help out with the unemployment in the rest of the world and screw his own country in the process. Then to top it off, Bush cut taxes for the top end earners, who of course, STILL have jobs in the U.S. And you can bet that the Republicans will fight tooth and nail in the future to see that those tax cuts don't ever expire, despite the debt agreement. See any problem with revenue intake and the debt crisis now?

You're a Christian CUDA, so please either read the transcript of this show or watch the video from Religion and Ethics on PBS and tell me what you think. Are you a Christian or are you a free marketeer? Personally, I don't see how someone can be both and still have a conscience.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethi ... tice/8012/

And if no one thinks the wealthy banks are not using this mortgage crisis to wholesale steal houses from homeowners, this is an interesting Daily Show segment. I knew that the banks were forging papers so that they could foreclose on people's houses, but to try and foreclose on someone's home that the homeowners don't even hold a mortgage on, well, that's just, um, illegal. The rich can have no morals too, not just those lazy poor people sucking off the dole.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... forecloser

[Will Robinson]

CUDA, by the end of Bush's term, 2.2 million jobs were lost and 2.9 million were created. How's that you say? Well, it's location, location, location. The 2.2 million jobs lost were in the U. S. and the 2.9 million jobs created were OUTSIDE the U.S. Jeez, that was nice of Bush to help out with the unemployment in the rest of the world and screw his own country in the process. Then to top it off, Bush cut taxes for the top end earners, who of course, STILL have jobs in the U.S. And you can bet that the Republicans will fight tooth and nail in the future to see that those tax cuts don't ever expire, despite the debt agreement. See any problem with revenue intake and the debt crisis now? ...

I'm going to set aside the questionable accuracy of your synopsis and just flat out accept the premise of your claim that the evil republicans are at the root of all these problems and let me just say how horrible that is!!

I know I'm just wasting time with wishful thinking, like believing in the tooth fairy when I wish this for you but...I wish we could get that evil Bush out of the White House and replace him with a Democrat President and also get the democrats to control the majority in both the House and Senate in congress at the same time!!
I know, I know, you are thinking silly Will Robinson we could never be so lucky as to have the perfect storm of a Democrat trifecta, the veritable liberal hat trick!
Because if that most amazing thing could just happen then surely nothing could stop those wonderful democrats from riding to the rescue on their big white horses (but-not-in-a-racial-kind-of white-way no, but in a wonderful bright-future-light-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow-with-unicorns kind of way)...they ride up to save us all! they could stop all the damage done by the evil life sucking republicans if only they had the chance to show us who they really are...right?

[CUDA]

CUDA, by the end of Bush's term, 2.2 million jobs were lost and 2.9 million were created. How's that you say? Well, it's location, location, location. The 2.2 million jobs lost were in the U. S. and the 2.9 million jobs created were OUTSIDE the U.S. Jeez, that was nice of Bush to help out with the unemployment in the rest of the world and screw his own country in the process. Then to top it off, Bush cut taxes for the top end earners, who of course, STILL have jobs in the U.S. And you can bet that the Republicans will fight tooth and nail in the future to see that those tax cuts don't ever expire, despite the debt agreement. See any problem with revenue intake and the debt crisis now?

SIGH
I'm done debating Bush with you. you have a singular focus that blocks out all reason and logic. you bring up a subject which I respond to then you IMMEDIATELY head off on one of your I hate Bush rants. you do this EVERY TIME!!
If you wish to debate a point then PLEASE at least stick to said point. not everything that goes wrong in the world is Bush's fault no matter HOW MUCH you try and make it.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

someday the DNC wont be there to shield you from the truth and then maybe you'll see reality.

You're a Christian CUDA, so please either read the transcript of this show or watch the video from Religion and Ethics on PBS and tell me what you think. Are you a Christian or are you a free marketeer? Personally, I don't see how someone can be both and still have a conscience.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethi ... tice/8012/

I'll look at it when I get the chance I'm at work presently. then I'll respond with what the Bible says about the issue.

[callmeslick]

The “boomer” argument is bogus, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was already as low as 3.2 to 1 by 1980...long before any “boomers” began to retire. (if fact...the boomers were in the "workers" number)

An un-sustainable ratio, that aint going to rise very much, after every last boomer dies. (if at all)

for the life of me, I tried to figure out how your statistics do much but bolster my argument(there was no issue with funding it in 1980), but I give up now.

[woodchip]

For crying out loud, the whole entitlement issue can be seen as centered on the baby boomers. Once we all die off, the numbers should look great.

Yes it is the pesky baby boomers fault that the govt. took our SS money and then spent it all instead of putting it aside. I say we implement the Obamacare death panels and go Solient Green ASAP for the good of the country. Who wants to volunteer to be first?

[Spidey]

The “boomer” argument is bogus, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries was already as low as 3.2 to 1 by 1980...long before any “boomers” began to retire. (if fact...the boomers were in the "workers" number)

An un-sustainable ratio, that aint going to rise very much, after every last boomer dies. (if at all)

for the life of me, I tried to figure out how your statistics do much but bolster my argument(there was no issue with funding it in 1980), but I give up now.

Your argument fails because we have an aging demographic, and the “boomers” were just a small blip.

there was no issue with funding it in 1980

I distinctly remember funding problems back in 1980, in fact I can remember some of the president’s solutions…such as raising the retirement age.

[CUDA]

TC. I read that article and I failed to see how you came to the conclusions you did about Christianity and being a free marketer.
but here is a good synopsis for you about what the Bible says about managing your finances

The Bible has a lot to say about managing finances. Concerning borrowing, the Bible generally advises against it. See Proverbs 6:1-5; 20:16; 22:7, 26-27 (“The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.... Do not be a man who strikes hands in pledge or puts up security for debts; if you lack the means to pay, your very bed will be snatched from under you”). Over and over again, the Bible warns against the accumulation of wealth and encourages us to seek spiritual riches instead. Proverbs 28:20: “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.” See also Proverbs 10:15; 11:4; 18:11; 23:5.

Proverbs 6:6-11 offers wisdom concerning laziness and the financial ruin that inevitably results. We are told to consider the industrious ant who works to store up food for itself. The passage also warns against sleeping when we should be working at something profitable. A “sluggard” is a lazy, slothful person who would rather rest than work. His end is assured—poverty and want. At the other end of the spectrum is the one who is obsessed with gaining money. Such a one, according to Ecclesiastes 5:10, never has enough wealth to satisfy him and must be constantly grasping more and more. First Timothy 6:6-11 also warns against the trap of desiring wealth.

Rather than desiring to heap riches upon ourselves, the biblical model is one of giving, not getting. “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:6-7). We are also encouraged to be good stewards of what God has given us. In Luke 16:1-13, Jesus told the parable of the dishonest steward as a way of warning us against poor stewardship. The moral of the story is “So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?” (v. 11). We are also responsible to provide for our own household, as 1 Timothy 5:8 reminds us: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

In summary, what does the Bible say about managing money? The answer can be summarized with a single word—wisdom. We are to be wise with our money. We are to save money, but not hoard it. We are to spend money, but with discretion and control. We are to give back to the Lord, joyfully and sacrificially. We are to use our money to help others, but with discernment and the guidance of God’s Spirit. It is not wrong to be rich, but it is wrong to love money. It is not wrong to be poor, but it is wrong to waste money on trivial things. The Bible’s consistent message on managing money is to be wise.

[flip]

I honestly can't figure out who is the bad guy here. The politicians or the oligarchs. I also realize that there are still paths to prosperity here and the savvy will figure out a way to see an advantage. The end of it looks like ★■◆● though so I just cant myself. I'm at a loss.

[woodchip]

During the crash that lead to the Great Depression we had reports of stock people jumping to their deaths from tall buildings. Is the new Great Depression nearing?:

"A South Korean stock broker jumped to his death from a high-rise office amid worldwide market turmoil."

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/weird ... 51503.html

[callmeslick]

I'm still doubled over with laughter by the assertion that the Baby Boom generation is just a 'small blip' on programs which require the workforce to pay for the benefits to the elderly. You all have any idea how truly massive that blip is, given modern life expectancy?

[Tunnelcat]

I honestly can't figure out who is the bad guy here. The politicians or the oligarchs. I also realize that there are still paths to prosperity here and the savvy will figure out a way to see an advantage. The end of it looks like **** though so I just cant myself. I'm at a loss.

Both. You do realize that the politicians are pawns of the Oligarchs. They certainly don't represent the individual anymore, especially since corporations now have personhood, thanks to SCOTUS.

CUDA, I guess I know where you stand, and I'm sorry that you feel that giving some of your income for the common good is just another commie theft from your wallet, especially if you have to give slightly more of what you make percentage-wise than those who make a little less than you. But remember, just as we are all free individuals in the U.S., we are also a country and a society foremost, made up of those individual people. Even though we all like to live as free individuals, there will always be things that fall into the common good for the benefit of the country and the whole of our society. Funding that will have to come from everyone. I guess how much of a percentage of your income is taxed and what is fair is a sticking point for you. But putting most of the tax burden on the working poor and middle class will be a recipe for social instability. Austerity and government cuts, as talked up by the tea party, will quickly raise the pain level and is a sure recipe to destroy the fabric of our society, debt or no debt. We'll have to live with the fact that there will always be people that fall through the cracks and those that are just too lazy to work. Work on fixing the lazy problem instead of burdening other hard working people. Human nature is human nature and it afflicts the rich as well as the poor. Laziness is not a poor mans disease. However, it's the number of people who fall through the cracks in the future that will inevitably rise if those more fortunate in this country can't see it in their cold hearts to pony up a little more to solve our debt problem. And, if rich people would rather spend that money on war than our own people, then we're really screwed. If we as a supposedly Christian Nation allow that to happen, we will fail.

[Spidey]

Laugh all you want...


At the retirement age of 65

1941 6.1
1950 5.2
1960 4.2
1970 3.9
1980 3.7
1990 3.5
2000 3.5
2010 3.4
2020 2.7
2030 2.1
2040 2.0
2050 2.0
2060 1.9
2070 1.8
2080 1.8


This shows be to be fairly linear…please show me where the “boomers” have caused a huge affect.

I don’t know dude, the people who make these projections don’t seem to agree with you.

This is from the site…
“In summary, it is not increased life expectancy which is causing the problem, nor is it the baby boom generation. Rather it is the initial tax rate, which is the root cause.”

And that seems to be the consensus, everywhere I look.


And I also looked up when the first problems started...so you can just laugh some more, because it was long before 1980.

………………………………..

tc…corporations always had “personhood” look up what a corporation is.

Corporation…

1. group regarded as individual by law: a company recognized by law as a single body with its own powers and liabilities, separate from those of the individual members.

SOTUS didn't change a damn thing.

[Tunnelcat]

tc…corporations always had “personhood” look up what a corporation is.

Corporation…

1. group regarded as individual by law: a company recognized by law as a single body with its own powers and liabilities, separate from those of the individual members.

SOTUS didn't change a damn thing.

Yes, that's true. But giving it their stamp of approval stinks. I don't think corporations should have personhood status, period. Nor should they be allowed to vote, but I'm betting that's next. Oh wait, they have the money to influence votes in any fashion they want. Stupid me!

I think only individuals should be considered as "people". Corporations are "artificially created entities" with way too much cash and influence on our government and politicians. What's next? Robot personhood?

[Isaac]

...you're saying we'd have a more stable economy without corporations? Also, who would we double tax without them?

[CUDA]

CUDA, I guess I know where you stand, and I'm sorry that you feel that giving some of your income for the common good is just another commie theft from your wallet,

I don't know which is worse, your Ignorance or your Arrogance I GIVE more of my income than you'll ever know. I have explained that recently to Slick in a different thread. and I will not have you question my GIVING. which I do plenty of. I pay my taxes and then I GIVE. can you say the same. do you give more than just your Taxes and your money? do you give of your Income. your Time, and open your home to people that don't have one? if you can't say yes to all of those then you can't question my GIVING you see I Walk the Walk can you say the same???

what I do not like is have the Government stealing more of my income to give to the "Lazy people" as you describe them.

But putting most of the tax burden on the working poor and middle class will be a recipe for social instability.

that's BS and you know it. 50% of the population PAYS NO TAXES, so to say that the "burden" falls on the working poor and the middle class is untrue

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education.

that's last quote shouldn't be happening

Austerity and government cuts, as talked up by the tea party, will quickly raise the pain level and is a sure recipe to destroy the fabric of our society, debt or no debt.

it's gonna happen anyways and you sticking your head in the sand will not prevent it. this nation CANNOT stay on the spending path it is on. and taxing the wealthy 100% of their income will not prevent that hardship from happening. just look at Europe!! England, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy are all suffering right now because of their spending and their Nanny states. but that's the model that the left has chosen. "we want a more European like system" that's what the Democrats have said. Well THAT SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK.

We'll have to live with the fact that there will always be people that fall through the cracks and those that are just too lazy to work. Work on fixing the lazy problem

ya want to fix the lazy problem. MAKE THEM GET A JOB don't give them charity

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
— Benjamin Franklin

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

it's obvious that at least two of our founding fathers were not in favor of a welfare system

And, if rich people would rather spend that money on war than our own people,

UH OH here we go again it's all GW's fault

If we as a supposedly Christian Nation allow that to happen, we will fail.

For some reason, Americans have a reputation for being greedy. Perhaps it’s because so many people have been conditioned to associate capitalism with greed. The truth is, the United States is the most generous nation in the world.

http://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/ ... us-nation/

U.S. culture is unique when it comes to a belief in philanthropy. It's a value that may be rooted in Christian tithing,

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/americ ... eaves.html
lets not let the truth get in the way of a good demonization

[callmeslick]

CUDA, I accept your claims about your charity, and applaud you for your generosity. I would be surprised if your share of your money given to good purpose exceeds mine. Therein lies the issue. The principle behind a progressive tax structure is to lessen the burden on folks who pay hundreds of fees and unseen taxes, while adding a burden to those who have reaped the ultimate rewards of our economic system. It's simple fairness and charity, codified into the social compact which is government. Now, you can agree with that view of government, or not. I do, and will gladly defend WHY I do, but I can have no argument with those who simply don't feel such a system to be good, or the best available at least, in a modern, industrial society.

[woodchip]

CUDA, I accept your claims about your charity, and applaud you for your generosity. I would be surprised if your share of your money given to good purpose exceeds mine. Therein lies the issue. The principle behind a progressive tax structure is to lessen the burden on folks who pay hundreds of fees and unseen taxes, while adding a burden to those who have reaped the ultimate rewards of our economic system. It's simple fairness and charity, codified into the social compact which is government. Now, you can agree with that view of government, or not. I do, and will gladly defend WHY I do, but I can have no argument with those who simply don't feel such a system to be good, or the best available at least, in a modern, industrial society.

I would agree with you Slick except the demonstrated way in which the govt. shows that they can't handle our money. Give them more and they will waste more. I suspect the waste factor alone could take care of a million families. Evidently the new budget deal includes a balance budget proposal that has to be brought up for a vote. If it passes then we can look at a revised tax structure.

[CUDA]

CUDA, I accept your claims about your charity, and applaud you for your generosity. I would be surprised if your share of your money given to good purpose exceeds mine.

are we talking straight Dollars? or percentage of income?? I'm sure in the straight dollar category you'd be correct, but if you go with the % if income then I'd question you. plus there is more to Giving that just your Dollars. it's easy to give what you have plenty of but how far are you willing to go in your charity? (do not take this as a questioning of your donations I am not) are you willing to Give someone the last $20 you have in the bank so they can buy milk for their kids because they have a greater need than you? that is what charity is. giving what you do not have and cannot afford. it is stepping out on faith.

but I can have no argument with those who simply don't feel such a system to be good, or the best available at least, in a modern, industrial society.

apparently I either don't explain myself properly or you are choosing to not understand. I am not against providing for the needy. I am against those needy paying nothing into they system which provides for them. and I am against the Government force-ably taking income from those that can "afford it"
My father taught me that if you "take" something that you didn't earn or doesn't belong to you it's called stealing.
what we have in this country is a system of people where 50% pay No taxes, Voting themselves freebee's. there is something inherently wrong with that.

[Spidey]

I love the way liberals are always touting fairness and equality, too bad they can’t seem to apply both of them to the same issue. When liberals speak of these things, they need to say fairness or equality…because they seem to be mutually exclusive when applied.

The reason for this is because true fairness and equality cannot be handed down from the powers that be, and must exist within the system itself, only freedom affords true fairness and equality.

Let me explain what I mean…

When we speak of voting for example…it’s all about equality…no fairness here.

When we speak of taxes it’s all about fairness…no equality here.

If the two things are so wonderful, why can’t they work together? One surely can’t make up for the lack of the other. What the hell is so fair about a guy that pays thousands of dollars in taxes, and get the same lousy single vote, that some lazy fool who never worked a day in his life gets?

If it’s one person…one vote, then it should also be…one person, one tax liability. Equality right?

I say we blend the two together…and give everyone one vote for every 1000 dollars paid in income taxes.

[Foil]

I say we blend the two together…and give everyone one vote for every 1000 dollars paid in income taxes.

If it weren't for the wink, I might have thought you were seriously suggesting a new vote-purchasing mechanism.

[Tunnelcat]

CUDA, you say 50% of the U.S. population pays NO income taxes. Well, that's either due to people that have too low of an income to qualify for taxes, or they had enough deductions and exemptions that they essentially paid no taxes. Which circumstance bothers you most? That some people were too poor to pay into the system, or that others more fortunate legally used the system to their advantage? Do you believe that we should be sucking more income in the form of taxes from really low wage earners to pay down our debt? Or do you believe that we should get rid of deductions and exemptions that most people use to escape taxes altogether? Which is it?

it's gonna happen anyways and you sticking your head in the sand will not prevent it. this nation CANNOT stay on the spending path it is on. and taxing the wealthy 100% of their income will not prevent that hardship from happening. just look at Europe!! England, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy are all suffering right now because of their spending and their Nanny states. but that's the model that the left has chosen. "we want a more European like system" that's what the Democrats have said. Well THAT SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK.

Not all of Europe seems to be doing badly. Norway seems to be doing better with their mix of state ownership and capitalism. Of course, they do have some oil reserves to sell that funds their country's sovereign wealth fund, and they're safer and cleaner about getting that oil out of the ground than U.S. companies are at it because of the more onerous regulations they have to follow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/busin ... rugal.html

http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Internati ... in-Norway/

You want the lazy to get jobs? I'm betting that A LOT of unemployed people just WANT A DAMNED JOB! But where are the jobs now? Outside the U.S. Sooooo.......WE NEED NEW JOBS HERE TO FIX THE PROBLEM and not have to listen to Republicans and tea partiers whine about the debt crisis at the moment! The prime problem is the lack of jobs, NOT THE DEBT CRISIS. It's a DISTRACTION, which Obama fell for hook, line and sinker. Get the jobs back here, which will increase employment, raise revenues and help ameliorate the debt problem. Cutting government debt should still be worked on, but not be our primary focus.

UH OH here we go again it's all GW's fault

Did I say Bush? Noooooooooooooooo. How about Lieberman:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/ ... se-budget/

He wants to cut entitlements and essentially throw the old people out into the streets, so he can save his precious defense spending to keep us safe from his boogey man. Well, either way, poverty or terrorism, we're dead I guess.

[CUDA]

CUDA, you say 50% of the U.S. population pays NO income taxes. Well, that's either due to people that have too low of an income to qualify for taxes, or they had enough deductions and exemptions that they essentially paid no taxes. Which circumstance bothers you most? That some people were too poor to pay into the system, or that others more fortunate legally used the system to their advantage? Do you believe that we should be sucking more income in the form of taxes from really low wage earners to pay down our debt? Or do you believe that we should get rid of deductions and exemptions that most people use to escape taxes altogether? Which is it?

I've made my stance PERFECTLY CLEAR. so either you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem. Either way I don't intend on repeating myself for your benefit

Not all of Europe seems to be doing badly. Norway seems to be doing better with their mix of state ownership and capitalism. Of course, they do have some oil reserves to sell that funds their country's sovereign wealth fund,

answered your own question with that response didn't you.

THOSE GD REPUBLICANS!!! ALL THE NATIONS PROBLEMS ARE THEIR FAULT!!!! what would the world do if it wasn't for those Marvelous people loving Democrats to keep those Murderous War Mongering, poor hating, Republicans from kicking the seniors out onto the street

UH OH here we go again it's all GW's fault

Did I say Bush? Noooooooooooooooo.

you didn't have to everyone knows we'll be there in just a minute

[Foil]

CUDA, you say 50% of the U.S. population pays NO income taxes. Well, that's either due to people that have too low of an income to qualify for taxes, or they had enough deductions and exemptions that they essentially paid no taxes. Which circumstance bothers you most?

I've made my stance PERFECTLY CLEAR.

tc, he answered your question above:

I am against those needy paying nothing into they system which provides for them.

CUDA, I'm curious, what exactly are you suggesting here? Adjusting tax rates/exemptions to require the lowest income levels to still pay some tax? Or are you talking about a restriction which only supports those who pay taxes? Or both?