US credit rating downgraded to AA+

[Scheavo]

Double the federal income tax rate on every bracket and you're at $1.1/$1.5 trillion... $400 billion short... and that's just this year.

There are other revenues other than the income tax, such as business taxes. Plus, a lot of what Obama wanted was closing loopholes so that big companies and rich pay what they're actually supposed to pay. Not only that, but Democrats never aid only revenue increases, so you're point is... well.. pointless.

[El Barto]

Because of their new God,  closing loopholes equals a tax increase.  They're one in the same.

That said,  I think he said that in this instance he wasn't entirely opposed to a tax increase (of the closed loophole variety) if it was matched with an equal amount of reduced spending.

[Scheavo]

Who's he? Praxis?

Any politician who doesn't want to close loopholes is a corrupt assfuck, and that's all there is to say about it. They're obvious government corruption. Even if what you want is lower taxes and a free-market, you should want to close all loopholes because it unfairly affects the markets and helps creates monopolies and a static economy. If you want to actually have that discussion, then talk about closing loopholes and lowering the tax rates. This, if done right, would still mean a revenue increase, as it would level the tax burden.

[zepp-head]

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).  I think for the most part these are people who fundamentally believe that this deal just simply isn't good enough, and will make things worse in the long run.  From that point of view, they essentially have everyone trying to guilt them into voting against their principles and for something they know will fail.  Many of them were voted into the seat they have for economic reasons, and now are essentially bullied into believing they have to vote against those very things and for something that will ultimately make the economy worse.  It's truly lose-lose.

[Super Dude]

Who's he? Praxis?

Any politician who doesn't want to close loopholes is a corrupt assfuck, and that's all there is to say about it. They're obvious government corruption. Even if what you want is lower taxes and a free-market, you should want to close all loopholes because it unfairly affects the markets and helps creates monopolies and a static economy. If you want to actually have that discussion, then talk about closing loopholes and lowering the tax rates. This, if done right, would still mean a revenue increase, as it would level the tax burden.

Thank you.

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).

Why?  They picked that name themselves, it's not like teabaggers, which other people call them.

[orcus116]

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).

I dunno, I've yet to hear any Tea Partier say something that wasn't born out of ignorance and desperation to be against something just for the sake of. It's just a giant contrarian fad, nothing more.

[zepp-head]

Who's he? Praxis?

Any politician who doesn't want to close loopholes is a corrupt assfuck, and that's all there is to say about it. They're obvious government corruption. Even if what you want is lower taxes and a free-market, you should want to close all loopholes because it unfairly affects the markets and helps creates monopolies and a static economy. If you want to actually have that discussion, then talk about closing loopholes and lowering the tax rates. This, if done right, would still mean a revenue increase, as it would level the tax burden.

Thank you.

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).

Why?  They picked that name themselves, it's not like teabaggers, which other people call them.

And that means I have to like it....why exactly?

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).

I dunno, I've yet to hear any Tea Partier say something that wasn't born out of ignorance and desperation to be against something just for the sake of. It's just a giant contrarian fad, nothing more.

Then I hope your tunnel vision fades in the future.

[Super Dude]

No I think he was quite right on that point.

[Riceball]

Well, the mere fact that you guys are all still talking about domestic politics in the context of what is likely to be a global upheaval really sums up how shitty American politics and political discourse is.

There's a really great article by the CEO of Pimco doing the rounds right now discussing what is likely to happen as a result of the downgrade:

https://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-AAA-ratings-agencies-SP-US-Treasuries-triple-A--pd20110808-KHSBR?OpenDocument&src=sph

Funny thing is, Australia's share market right now is only down by three quarters of one per cent - after being down as low as three per cent at the open. I dare say traders were unwinding positions, are now tentatively getting back into the market, and will wait until they get leads from the big boys in New York and London tonight. I heard last night that the Tel Aviv exchange had to enable its emergency shutdown clause after 10 minutes of trading too, which is pretty hilarious lol.

Man I wish I had Bloomberg at home tonight, its really shaping as a historical day in the global economic order. Kind of makes me glad I got out of shares in the previous crisis (although I wasn't really "in", I had a very small blue chip portfolio).

[orcus116]

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).

I dunno, I've yet to hear any Tea Partier say something that wasn't born out of ignorance and desperation to be against something just for the sake of. It's just a giant contrarian fad, nothing more.

Then I hope your tunnel vision fades in the future.

Sorry but I don't buy into bigoted, archaic, illogical political ideologies.

[zepp-head]

No I think he was quite right on that point.

I'm not here to stir the pot, so I just wanna make one point.  I'm not saying this is true for all tea partiers, but from a fiscal conservative standpoint, why would you vote for something you know is guaranteed to make things worse?  What if they honestly felt the deal simply wasn't good enough?

I'm not even going to say that's right per se, but I think there is room to think of more than simply blaming them for not conforming.

While stubborn, I think some people here are being a tad hard on the tea party (still hate that name).

I dunno, I've yet to hear any Tea Partier say something that wasn't born out of ignorance and desperation to be against something just for the sake of. It's just a giant contrarian fad, nothing more.

Then I hope your tunnel vision fades in the future.

Sorry but I don't buy into bigoted, archaic, illogical political ideologies.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Super Dude]

No I think he was quite right on that point.

I'm not here to stir the pot, so I just wanna make one point.  I'm not saying this is true for all tea partiers, but from a fiscal conservative standpoint, why would you vote for something you know is guaranteed to make things worse?  What if they honestly felt the deal simply wasn't good enough?

I'm not even going to say that's right per se, but I think there is room to think of more than simply blaming them for not conforming.

I mean it's just that they had no reason to think it would make everything worse; it had cuts for conservatives and taxes for liberals, a totally balanced bill that would've been more balanced with fair debate and politicking.  Instead they choose to be the party of no, and as  orcus said, contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

[PraXis]

I'd love to close every tax loophole and get rid of EVERY deduction.. then you only have to lower the rates... so instead of a ~35% corporate tax rates that companies avoid through changing the tax code through lobbyists, end all loopholes, tell the lobbyists to go DIAF and make the corp tax 10-15%... then income tax rates need to include the moochers... we'd do a lot with bringing all our troops home and letting EU pay for their own defense.

[zepp-head]

No I think he was quite right on that point.

I'm not here to stir the pot, so I just wanna make one point.  I'm not saying this is true for all tea partiers, but from a fiscal conservative standpoint, why would you vote for something you know is guaranteed to make things worse?  What if they honestly felt the deal simply wasn't good enough?

I'm not even going to say that's right per se, but I think there is room to think of more than simply blaming them for not conforming.

I mean it's just that they had no reason to think it would make everything worse; it had cuts for conservatives and taxes for liberals, a totally balanced bill that would've been more balanced with fair debate and politicking.  Instead they choose to be the party of no, and as  orcus said, contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

The entire Austrian view of economics says that something like this would make everything worse, that is the reason.  Most of the tax cuts were phony and the government continues to have the ability to live well outside of its means.  If they would've bent over and said "that's good enough", they'd be the same as all the other republicans that deserve to lose their jobs, and I don't think anybody here believes we need more of those.

Have you ever looked into Austrian economics per chance?  If you understand that line of thinking I don't feel the "contrarian for the sake of being contrarian" point can be considered valid.

[TL]

If a person flat out refuses to even consider tax increases of any kind when trying to balance a budget, then that person officially can't call themself a fiscal conservative.
The Democratic plan had almost as many cuts as the Republican one. The difference is that the Democratic plan also increased revenue.

The Tea Party was willing to crash the global economy (which wouldn't exactly be fiscally responsible to do, by the way), because they were against including revenue increases in the deal. The Democrats were being more fiscally responsible.

Also, let's remember, two of the biggest contributors to the deficit right now are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts. Both happened under a Conservative president and Conservative congress. I will concede that Obama should have repealed the Bush tax cuts while the Democrats had control of congress.

[El Barto]

Who's he? Praxis?

Any politician who doesn't want to close loopholes is a corrupt assfuck, and that's all there is to say about it. They're obvious government corruption. Even if what you want is lower taxes and a free-market, you should want to close all loopholes because it unfairly affects the markets and helps creates monopolies and a static economy. If you want to actually have that discussion, then talk about closing loopholes and lowering the tax rates. This, if done right, would still mean a revenue increase, as it would level the tax burden.

Sorry,  I was referring to Grover Norquist.  He seems to be one of the Patron Saints of tea-partying.

[Riceball]

Not that anyone probably cares, but the G20 have issued a statement prior to financial markets opening in the North Atlantic:

We, the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G-20, affirm our commitment to take all necessary initiatives in a coordinated way to support financial stability and to foster stronger economic growth in a spirit of cooperation and confidence.

We will remain in close contact throughout the coming weeks and cooperate as appropriate, ready to take action to ensure financial stability and liquidity in financial markets.

Moreover, we will continue to work intensively to achieve concrete results in support of strong, sustainable and balanced growth in the context of the G20 Framework for Growth.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLETS GET RRRRRRREADY TO RUUUUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE.

[Super Dude]

Okay, so as a political science major I know it's politico-babble, but what does that mean in economese?

[rumborak]

The entire Austrian view of economics says that something like this would make everything worse, that is the reason.

True true. But, there is also a reason why the Austrian view fell out of use at the beginning of the 20th century. At this point, it's more of a religion than an economic theory.

rumborak

[Tick]

Stock up on food. Buy some property in the mountains. Learn to hunt. Prepare for the end.

[PraXis]

The Keynesians are more of a religion, hell even a cult. We will only grow the economy by growing the private sector, not increasing taxes.

[XJDenton]

Why is this?

[YtseBitsySpider]

So basically the US of A is a great big version of Greece?

Oh wait, the Greeks weren't even paying their taxes.

You american's paid yours, you just aren't taxed enough for the toys your country has.

All joking aside.
I think the rating is shit. That Canada happens to be one of a handfull left with the AAA rating speeks volumes about how silly it is.

............and I'm Canadian.

[zepp-head]

If a person flat out refuses to even consider tax increases of any kind when trying to balance a budget, then that person officially can't call themself a fiscal conservative.
The Democratic plan had almost as many cuts as the Republican one. The difference is that the Democratic plan also increased revenue.

The Tea Party was willing to crash the global economy (which wouldn't exactly be fiscally responsible to do, by the way), because they were against including revenue increases in the deal. The Democrats were being more fiscally responsible.

Also, let's remember, two of the biggest contributors to the deficit right now are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts. Both happened under a Conservative president and Conservative congress. I will concede that Obama should have repealed the Bush tax cuts while the Democrats had control of congress.

Why can't they?  Small taxes are a large part of the fiscal conservative view point, so I guess I don't know where you're coming from.  You can argue that it is irresponsible from your point of view, but it's not against their economic model.  In addition to that, since you believe Bush was such a conservative president, I'm beginning to wonder what it is you see being conservative really is.

The entire Austrian view of economics says that something like this would make everything worse, that is the reason.

True true. But, there is also a reason why the Austrian view fell out of use at the beginning of the 20th century. At this point, it's more of a religion than an economic theory.

rumborak

Interesting point.  I believe it initially fell out of favor due to the policies of Roosevelt and Wilson, not because it was no longer valid.

[rumborak]

That may have been a contributing factor. But, reading the Wikipedia article on it, the main point of criticism from the economic research community is that it isn't at all based on empirical data, but rather unproven (and often dubious) axioms.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

The Keynesians are more of a religion, hell even a cult. We will only grow the economy by growing the private sector, not increasing taxes.

At this point, the best way to grow the private sector is to employ poor people, give them money, and create demand. That requires expenditure now, and a way to pay for it.

If a person flat out refuses to even consider tax increases of any kind when trying to balance a budget, then that person officially can't call themself a fiscal conservative.
The Democratic plan had almost as many cuts as the Republican one. The difference is that the Democratic plan also increased revenue.

The Tea Party was willing to crash the global economy (which wouldn't exactly be fiscally responsible to do, by the way), because they were against including revenue increases in the deal. The Democrats were being more fiscally responsible.

Also, let's remember, two of the biggest contributors to the deficit right now are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts. Both happened under a Conservative president and Conservative congress. I will concede that Obama should have repealed the Bush tax cuts while the Democrats had control of congress.

Why can't they?  Small taxes are a large part of the fiscal conservative view point, so I guess I don't know where you're coming from.  You can argue that it is irresponsible from your point of view, but it's not against their economic model.  In addition to that, since you believe Bush was such a conservative president, I'm beginning to wonder what it is you see being conservative really is.

Because, no matter what your view on small taxes is, the US government is in a position where it owes a lot of money, and the only responsible thing to do is to pay it off. The only rational way to do this would include revenue increases, especially if those revenue increases close loopholes, and make the market economy more fair and equal. It's childish to not budge on this issue, and it's irresponsible to want to try and completely axe social safety nets when the rich are getting richer every minute, and we're still involved in a giant overseas empire.

By the way, just so you know, a majority of tea parties like their medicare and social security. So for most of the people complaining about the debt problem, and electing these clowns into office, they don't want to target our social programs. It's probably becuase most of them don't even realize they're from the government, becuase they're fucking morons (40% of people who have usd a government service do not think they have used a government service).

[zepp-head]

If a person flat out refuses to even consider tax increases of any kind when trying to balance a budget, then that person officially can't call themself a fiscal conservative.
The Democratic plan had almost as many cuts as the Republican one. The difference is that the Democratic plan also increased revenue.

The Tea Party was willing to crash the global economy (which wouldn't exactly be fiscally responsible to do, by the way), because they were against including revenue increases in the deal. The Democrats were being more fiscally responsible.

Also, let's remember, two of the biggest contributors to the deficit right now are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts. Both happened under a Conservative president and Conservative congress. I will concede that Obama should have repealed the Bush tax cuts while the Democrats had control of congress.

Why can't they?  Small taxes are a large part of the fiscal conservative view point, so I guess I don't know where you're coming from.  You can argue that it is irresponsible from your point of view, but it's not against their economic model.  In addition to that, since you believe Bush was such a conservative president, I'm beginning to wonder what it is you see being conservative really is.

Because, no matter what your view on small taxes is, the US government is in a position where it owes a lot of money, and the only responsible thing to do is to pay it off. The only rational way to do this would include revenue increases, especially if those revenue increases close loopholes, and make the market economy more fair and equal. It's childish to not budge on this issue, and it's irresponsible to want to try and completely axe social safety nets when the rich are getting richer every minute, and we're still involved in a giant overseas empire.

By the way, just so you know, a majority of tea parties like their medicare and social security. So for most of the people complaining about the debt problem, and electing these clowns into office, they don't want to target our social programs. It's probably becuase most of them don't even realize they're from the government, becuase they're fucking morons (40% of people who have usd a government service do not think they have used a government service).

That's missing what I said though.  I said that small taxes are a large part of the fiscal conservative value system, since TL said that anyone who won't consider tax increases can't call themselves fiscal conservatives.  You're back on the point of arguing what is responsible or not, which is not what was being addressed with that point. 

[Scheavo]

I guess I assumed fiscal conservatives touted the idea of being responsible.... I guess I assumed that this was one of the main talking points used by fiscal conservatives as to why they should be in charge of finances... becuase they're responsible....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

I'd say that's fairly right accurate; now here's the kicker, at this point in the game, if you don't support some sort of revenue increases, you're not avoiding deficit spending. The part you talk about, lower taxes, is not necessarily what is meant by fiscal conservatism. One last point: since fiscal conservatives want a free market, then supporting loopholes of any kind of counter to this ideology.

[zepp-head]

I guess I assumed fiscal conservatives touted the idea of being responsible.... I guess I assumed that this was one of the main talking points used by fiscal conservatives as to why they should be in charge of finances... becuase they're responsible....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

I'd say that's fairly right accurate; now here's the kicker, at this point in the game, if you don't support some sort of revenue increases, you're not avoiding deficit spending. The part you talk about, lower taxes, is not necessarily what is meant by fiscal conservatism. One last point: since fiscal conservatives want a free market, then supporting loopholes of any kind of counter to this ideology.

Well, that's your idea of responsibility, you're just twisting it to fit your argument .  "They say they're supposed to be good, and I don't think they're good so they're going against their principles" doesn't hold up that well in my book.  Look at it this way, if you're platform is largely centered on reducing government spending, and you're giving them to power and incentive to spend more money, how is that following the platform?

[Scheavo]

Because tax increases are not contrary to reducing government spending? You can do both - in fact, tax cuts amount to a spending increase when you look at the deficit and debt issue. You seem to be confusing annual expenditure with our debt and deficit.

[emindead]

True true. But, there is also a reason why the Austrian view fell out of use at the beginning of the 20th century. At this point, it's more of a religion than an economic theory.

rumborak

Besides the fact that not many economists from the rest of Europe or even the Americas could read in German and considering that many of the AE arguments that "were popular" weren't properly refuted but mocked... I can't fathom how anyone can still use the "ridiculing argument" as a proper way to refute anything.

[rumborak]

Haha, come on dude. In the 19th century German was the lingua franca for science, just as it is English today. You cannot possibly believe AE was rejected because of the language
Freud wrote in German, and everybody knows that. Einstein wrote the theory of relativity in German, have you heard of it?
Theories usually get rejected on their merit, not the language they are written in. And seriously, German is far from an obscure language. It is the most-spoken language in Europe.

rumborak

[emindead]

During the shift of the last days of the 19th Century and the beginning of 20th, in Economics, all the big hoots in this area ignored it. Have you read what Keynes even said about Mises on the matter and later rectified? It was completely absurd! He basically dismissed Mises argument by refuting some notion he didn't understand. He then had to apologize because he admitted that his German was rusty and didn't fully grasp what LvM was trying to convey. The point is... the damage was done. Fine, the language was not only one of the great reasons behind this willingly refusal to acknowledge them. As said in the first sentence, one of the great shifts in the 19th century and also the 20th was the fact that new nations were consolidating left and right. How to increase nationalism (without wars -although you know how this ended-)? How to make this Leviathan grow stronger? Controlling the economy. Will any state sponsor the reading of economic treatise that promote descentralization and free markets? no way

Also, the second point in my last post still stands.

Edit: check this out; he loses his mind!!!! (though he's right): https://www.megrobertson.com/post/8708219865/dylan-ratigan-mad-as-hell-his-epic-network-moment

[rumborak]

How to increase nationalism (without wars -although you know how this ended-)? How to make this Leviathan grow stronger? Controlling the economy. Will any state sponsor the reading of economic treatise that promote descentralization and free markets? no way

I think one of the reasons why people have a negative knee-jerk reaction against AE is also this underlying conspiracy theory tendency, which (so far) every proponent of AE I have talked to has exhibited. I mean, we all know governments are corrupt at some level etc. etc., but to presume that governments inherently try to take over as much of the economy as possible, just strikes most people as paranoid. I mean, in all the years I have been following economic policies, when governments have taken over private sectors, it was always because the private sector had failed on its own accord and something had to be done. Twiddling one's thumbs and wait for some magically appearing entrepeneur who provides the service would, in those cases, always have been disastrous to society. It seems AE supporters always block this "evidence" out.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I mean, in all the years I have been following economic policies, when governments have taken over private sectors, it was always because the private sector had failed on its own accord and something had to be done. Twiddling one's thumbs and wait for some magically appearing entrepeneur who provides the service would, in those cases, always have been disastrous to society. It seems AE supporters always block this "evidence" out.

rumborak

Personally, this highlights one of my biggest problems with AE thinking. Proponents look at the beginning and the end, but they often ignore what happens in between, and the consequences that it would have. For instance, getting rid of the EPA might be well an good in the end , but in the meantime companies are going to have a field day and destroy the environment (more than they are right now). The market takes time to come to a decision, and that time delay can means lives, safety, etc.