Merged Credit downgrade threads

[Sactowndog]

Obamacare is a new government entitlement program. Do you dispute this?

Govenrnment entitlement... yes ....... but general entitlement no.

The question is not whether we are going to provide those who can't afford it health care.

We already have a program like that....it's called Medicaid.

Medicaid

• Who is Eligible: Medicaid covers low-income and financially needy people, including those over 65 who are also on Medicare.
• Who Administers the Program: Medicaid is administered by the 50 states; rules differ in each state. Medicaid information is available at your local county social services, welfare, or department of human services office.
• Coverage Provided:
  • Medicaid provides comprehensive inpatient and outpatient health care coverage, including many services and costs Medicare does not cover, most notably, prescription drugs, diagnostic and preventive care, and eyeglasses. The amount of coverage, however, varies from state to state.
  • Medicaid can pay Medicare deductibles and 20% portion of charges not paid by Medicare. Medicaid can also pay the Medicare premium.
• Costs to Consumer: In some states, Medicaid charges consumers small amounts for certain services.

It's breaking us financially.
​

I am not saying that we don't need to reform Medicaid and Medicare. We just can't afford to pay for everything that is available. We need to reduce costs. But at the end of the day we have to be realistic. We aren't going to let kids die on the street from easily preventable illnesses so let's deal with it the most efficient way possible.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Are people still skeptical about too much Government being bad for the People? Cause I just don't see how anyone could still be skeptical. Less Government and True Conservatism is the answer. It's the only realistic answer. At some point even Socialists/Progressives are gonna have to accept this.

 

[Oddball]

I'll say this - it certainly doesn't help his re-election chances.

No doubt

I'm beginning to look beyond Obama. President Romney? President Perry?

President Peter Schiff?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Conservatism by definition is the past. Progressivism is the future, and always will be. Tax the rich their historically fair share- for crying out loud, pub dupes, their wealth has tripled under voodoo while everyone else is slowly being ruined...turn off the BS.

 

[Sactowndog]

Both parties are to blame. Just like Republicans were grossly irresponsible for saying that taxes were off the table, so was the administration for saying that the health care plan was also off the table. Both should be on the table.

I think Obama is right. Misunderstood but right. Medicare should be on the table but eliminating Obamacare should not.

When you compare/benchmark the where the US spends it money compared to other countries 2 area jump out. 1 is defense which everyone is aware of. The other is healthcare where the US spends 1.8 times the next closest country. If we are going to fix the country part of the fix has to be reforming our broken health care system.

Should it have been open to fixes to bring down costs? Absolutely but that is not what Republicans want to do. They want to go back to the existing broken system and that can't happen.

Medicare is our #1 problem. We spend way to much on nearly dead people. Medicare's unfunded liability is 5 times larger than Social Security. If we would just let some of the vegetables die a year sooner it would reduce Social Security, Medicare & Prescription cost. These are the 3 largest budgetary items besides Military.

Yep but is the right wing that is against some of the right to die bills.

 

[Yurt]

The people will bame the Tea Party for this, correctly.

lol....yeah, obama and the liberal senate majority are completely not responsible for anything...it is all the 80 or so tea party reps in the house

 

[Full-Auto]

Conservatism by definition is the past. Progressivism is the future, and always will be. Tax the rich their historically fair share- for crying out loud, pub dupes, their wealth has tripled under voodoo while everyone else is slowly being ruined...turn off the BS.

Comical, as you cling to a medieval mindset.

 

[Missourian]

There has to be a better way to reduce costs than another government entitlement program...we just can't afford it.

What we can't afford is to spend 1.8 times any other country on health care especially when we are spending something like 2X on defense.

I agree, we can't afford either of those two options, a new entitlement or the status quo.

So we must find a third option.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

In 2006, Obama told us that raising the debt was a sign of "Failed Leadership" Under the leadership of Obama and the hyperdrive spending of the Democrat Congress, we have not only lost our AAA credit rating, but we also learn that Social Security benefits cannot be paid unless we're able to borrow more.

Obama was presented with a sane, adult plan to lead us back to fiscal sanity, he rejected it. His one and only goal was to secure the unfettered ability to borrow until the end of his one and only term. The Capital Market reacted swiftly as did S&P.

He got that, and we got downgraded. We have a Failed Leader as POTUS. Obama, the Downgraded President.

merged with existing downgrade thread.

AA+ is widely optimistic. Even junk bond status holds out hope that the debt will be repaid, there's little chance the U. S. will make good on its obligations.

Unless you regard worthless Weimar money hot off the presses as repayment.

 

[Toro]

No doubt

I'm beginning to look beyond Obama. President Romney? President Perry?

Here is one other thought. Revenue is at 14.9% and not only will the Bush Tax Cuts be extended but Romney wants to enhance them by eliminating captial gains tax.

Given that so much capital investment goes overseas these days that approach is sure to increase the deficit meaning we never get out of this hole. Does that really make sense?

We will get out of this hole. We just have to start being responsible. And eventually, we will.

"You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill.

 

[Toro]

Here is the problem Toro.

If we let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, Congress will simply spend it expanding this government program or that pet project...we'll see that money wasted and we'll STILL see the debt expand 3.5 trillion dollars.

Cut the spending.

Balance the budget.

Put a plan on the table to cut entitlement spending.

Then we'll talk about raising taxes.

This thinking is part of the problem. It demonstrates ideological intransigence. It is not based on empirical fact. It is based on emotion and preconceptions. It is why we have a budget crisis as the ideological parts of the political spectrum are too rigid.

Federal spending to GDP fell in the 1990s even though taxes went up. Federal spending to GDP rose in the 2000s even though taxes went down. Clinton and Bush I raised taxes and we improved the fiscal balance. That is not debatable.

Cut spending.
Raise taxes.
Do more of the cutting spending, but do both, and the budget will be much better.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm beginning to look beyond Obama. President Romney? President Perry?

Here is one other thought. Revenue is at 14.9% and not only will the Bush Tax Cuts be extended but Romney wants to enhance them by eliminating captial gains tax.

Given that so much capital investment goes overseas these days that approach is sure to increase the deficit meaning we never get out of this hole. Does that really make sense?

We will get out of this hole. We just have to start being responsible. And eventually, we will.

"You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill.

I agree, we will eventually work our way out of this but don't be looking for a rapid turnaround any time soon. If we go the route Japan took in the 90s then it could take a real long time. They basically raised taxes and increased gov't spending, which didn't work. The Canadians on the other hand faced a similar situation in the 90s and got out of it by reducing spending and lowering taxes, essentially creating a better business environment. BTW, it was the LIBERAL Canadian gov't that got the ball rolling on spending reductions and lowering taxes.

 

[Toro]

No doubt

I'm beginning to look beyond Obama. President Romney? President Perry?

You think. I don't trust the right wing with a Republican President. Divided government in the only way to go with both parties dominated by extremes.

This is an unusual time. President Romney, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell all facing each other in 2013? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[kyzr]

the "silver lining" in this mess is that the ratings agencies will FORCE the DC whores to get the fiscal mess under control, otherwise its just watch the Debt grow and the entitlements go insolvent.

If SS lasts beyond 2037 and Medicare lasts beyond 2017 the AA+ rating wake-up was a very good thing.

 

[Toro]

Here is one other thought. Revenue is at 14.9% and not only will the Bush Tax Cuts be extended but Romney wants to enhance them by eliminating captial gains tax.

Given that so much capital investment goes overseas these days that approach is sure to increase the deficit meaning we never get out of this hole. Does that really make sense?

We will get out of this hole. We just have to start being responsible. And eventually, we will.

"You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill.

I agree, we will eventually work our way out of this but don't be looking for a rapid turnaround any time soon. If we go the route Japan took in the 90s then it could take a real long time. They basically raised taxes and increased gov't spending, which didn't work. The Canadians on the other hand faced a similar situation in the 90s and got out of it by reducing spending and lowering taxes, essentially creating a better business environment. BTW, it was the LIBERAL Canadian gov't that got the ball rolling on spending reductions and lowering taxes.

I'm a Canadian. I lived through that. Canada did not lower taxes. They raised them. But most of the fiscal adjustment was on the spending side. Canada lowered taxes after they balanced the budget and the economy was doing better.

I also lived through it in Saskatchewan, where there was a real crisis, much greater than in Ottawa. And there again, we did it primarily by cutting spending but we also raised taxes.

And the reason is pretty simple. You have to ask everyone to sacrifice something. Once most people are on board, then it is easier. It is much harder when one says "You have to sacrifice, not me." That's where we are currently in America. The Right is saying "I'm not willing to pay anything." The Left is saying "Tax the rich, leave entitlements alone." That's why this isn't about the deficit or the budget. This is about ideology. Both sides are willing to let America crash and burn rather than give. We may have to have a crisis in America, and people put aside ideology for practicality before this gets fixed.

 

[BoycottTheday]

I love the argument, you arnt taxed enough! For as long as i hear that im betting against the USA.

Simple as that. So far its been the best investment advice around bar none.

 

[Wiseacre]

We will get out of this hole. We just have to start being responsible. And eventually, we will.

"You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill.

I agree, we will eventually work our way out of this but don't be looking for a rapid turnaround any time soon. If we go the route Japan took in the 90s then it could take a real long time. They basically raised taxes and increased gov't spending, which didn't work. The Canadians on the other hand faced a similar situation in the 90s and got out of it by reducing spending and lowering taxes, essentially creating a better business environment. BTW, it was the LIBERAL Canadian gov't that got the ball rolling on spending reductions and lowering taxes.

I'm a Canadian. I lived through that. Canada did not lower taxes. They raised them. But most of the fiscal adjustment was on the spending side. Canada lowered taxes after they balanced the budget and the economy was doing better.

I also lived through it in Saskatchewan, where there was a real crisis, much greater than in Ottawa. And there again, we did it primarily by cutting spending but we also raised taxes.

And the reason is pretty simple. You have to ask everyone to sacrifice something. Once most people are on board, then it is easier. It is much harder when one says "You have to sacrifice, not me." That's where we are currently in America. The Right is saying "I'm not willing to pay anything." The Left is saying "Tax the rich, leave entitlements alone." That's why this isn't about the deficit or the budget. This is about ideology. Both sides are willing to let America crash and burn rather than give. We may have to have a crisis in America, and people put aside ideology for practicality before this gets fixed.

I'm not a Canadian so I'm not going to argue the point, but the story that I've read about the Canadian turnaround is that they cut spending from a high of 53% of GDP in 1993 to a low of just under 40% by 2008. Today it's around 44% due to the recession.

At the Canadian federal level, they cut capital gains taxes twice, down to 14.5% today. A series of corporate tax rate cuts beginning in 2001 have seen rates cut from 28% down to 15%. Many provinces have followed suit by cutting both corporate and personal income taxes on top of that. If this is wrong, please provide a link that contradicts what I said. And notice that they cut spending first.

You say it's about ideology, I say it's about what works and what is economically effective. I don't give a damn about what's fair, I care about doing whatever is the most optimal way to get this economy revived and creating jobs. IMHO, sucking money out of the major investors who provide capital to startup or expand is hardly optimal. They'll put their money elsewhere, as they have been for a few years now.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Join the Constitutional Conservative Movement. Be part of the solution,not the problem. Socialists/Progressives & Neocons don't have the answers.

 

[Toro]

I'm not a Canadian so I'm not going to argue the point, but the story that I've read about the Canadian turnaround is that they cut spending from a high of 53% of GDP in 1993 to a low of just under 40% by 2008. Today it's around 44% due to the recession.

At the Canadian federal level, they cut capital gains taxes twice, down to 14.5% today. A series of corporate tax rate cuts beginning in 2001 have seen rates cut from 28% down to 15%. Many provinces have followed suit by cutting both corporate and personal income taxes on top of that. If this is wrong, please provide a link that contradicts what I said. And notice that they cut spending first.

You say it's about ideology, I say it's about what works and what is economically effective. I don't give a damn about what's fair, I care about doing whatever is the most optimal way to get this economy revived and creating jobs. IMHO, sucking money out of the major investors who provide capital to startup or expand is hardly optimal. They'll put their money elsewhere, as they have been for a few years now.

The Canadian government raised taxes in the mid-90s, but most of the pain was on the spending side. There was absolutely no way the Liberal party would have been able to push through a fiscal adjustment entirely on the spending side. They lowered taxes once they started running surpluses and paying off the debt. But Canadians are still more "socialist" than Americans.

And that's what we should do here. Focus primarily on the spending side but also raise taxes. If we have to do that by flattening the tax structure and getting rid of loopholes, fine, that works. But we have to take from the revenue side as well. I say 75% spending and 25% tax increases, but if you want to do 80/20 or thereabouts, that works for me. But to say it all must be one way, that's not serious. Or if it is, take it to the people and tell them you are going to cut SS and medicare and defense. And if they give you a mandate to do it that way, fine. But that's not the mandate the people have given the government. That's why the intransigent ideologues are the problem.

 

[Missourian]

Here is the problem Toro.

If we let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, Congress will simply spend it expanding this government program or that pet project...we'll see that money wasted and we'll STILL see the debt expand 3.5 trillion dollars.

Cut the spending.

Balance the budget.

Put a plan on the table to cut entitlement spending.

Then we'll talk about raising taxes.

This thinking is part of the problem. It demonstrates ideological intransigence. It is not based on empirical fact. It is based on emotion and preconceptions. It is why we have a budget crisis as the ideological parts of the political spectrum are too rigid.

Federal spending to GDP fell in the 1990s even though taxes went up. Federal spending to GDP rose in the 2000s even though taxes went down. Clinton and Bush I raised taxes and we improved the fiscal balance. That is not debatable.

Cut spending.
Raise taxes.
Do more of the cutting spending, but do both, and the budget will be much better.

Everything I stated was 100% factual.

The government wastes money on a massive scale. Dispute this?

Politicians on both sides of the aisle spend money like water. Dispute this?

When more money comes in, it is human nature to spend more. Dispute this?

Cut spending first and I'll support raising taxes.

How hard is that?