Obama: US will always be a AAA-rated country despite what rating agencies say

[deleted213967]

This is taken directly from their website;

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process,"

[...]

Only one side of this "debate" (is there a word for a battle everyone knows will end in surrender? A French word maybe?) has taken that stance and to not acknowledge that is to look at this whole mess with your right eye closed.

JSZ

Man, it's hard to argue with such a cuddly guy.

Fine. it's both about anemic revenues and impasse on entitlements.

I am all for tabula rasa tax reform and death to all loopholes, from corporate jets to farm subsidies to mortgage deductions. In fact, many think tanks, left, right and center, seem to concur on the need for structural tax reform.

But do you realize that the brunt of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class, and that even if they were to expire, the additional revenue would still be dwarfed by our colossal debt?

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Oh, don't mistake me- I understand that the Bush era tax cuts would be a drop in the bucket in terms of actually reducing our debt substantially... so far as I understand it. Projected out over ten years, the revenue enhancements resulting from ending those cuts would result only in the billions (I think?) So, that isn't even kind of the end all, be all solution and I don't want my argument to be misconstrued to be that I'm laboring under the impression that had those tax breaks and loop holes been closed everything would be fine.


My issue is that, in spite of the effects being somewhat nominal in that one instance, all revenue enhancements were out of the question in the negotiations. In spite of the fact that more or less everyone agrees that structural tax reforms are going to be required to turn this ship around, that was completely off the table in favor of a "cuts only" approach that almost immediately had negative consequences.


If we have to take incremental steps? Fine, I'm all for it. Let's start with revenue enhancements from the largest corporations and Americans making more than $250K a year. How is that so unreasonable that risking default sounds like a better idea?




JSZ

 

[deleted15807]

Admittedly, Obama was a mistake. Hillary would not have taken all this shit from Republicans. Democrats (and America) need a fighter.

If that were true wouldn't 'HillaryCare' be the law of the land and not 'ObamaCare'?

 

[deleted213967]

If we have to take incremental steps? Fine, I'm all for it. Let's start with revenue enhancements from the largest corporations and Americans making more than $250K a year. How is that so unreasonable that risking default sounds like a better idea?

JSZ

Indeed, IMO the fiscally conservative members of Congress made a PR mistake by peremptorily ruling out so-called "tax expenditures".

Most loopholes are bad for the economy in general (if good for the economy of the particular recipients) and are not even popular with the GOP (ethanol subsidies?).

Still, most of the Bush tax cut savings in absolute terms went to the middle class (although the cuts benefited the rich more in relative terms, but then again the rich carry most of the burden of funding our federal government). Letting them expire at this juncture and thus raising taxes on the middle class and above would certainly not help revive the economy.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Still, most of the Bush tax cut savings in absolute terms went to the middle class (although the cuts benefited the rich more in relative terms, but then again the rich carry most of the burden of funding our federal government). Letting them expire at this juncture and thus raising taxes on the middle class and above would certainly not help revive the economy.

I am not an economist nor do I claim to be an expert on the tax code. That being the case I'm comfortable saying this; there are a fair number of people who are experts in the aforementioned fields who agree with you completely. Just as many as there are who would disagree. The debate over who actually benefited from thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is as varied as it is complicated. I've read articles from the Heritage Foundation and from Simon Johnson, from Peter Orszag and the Tax Policy Center... and all thats been made clear to me is that there is no clear consensus and very few (if any) opinions on the substance and impact of said tax cuts that are not in some fashion influenced by politics.

So... you may well be right but you might also be wrong. The GOP negotiated from the same stand point; 50/50 and they were forced, it seems, by the Tea Party (look what happened to the Speaker) to stand firm and gamble that their position was the right one, ruling out any possibility of further negotiation on the subject. That strikes me as irresponsible (and apparently I'm not the only one.)


The revenue enhancements have to come from somewhere and returning to the code to its condition in the 1990's concerning incomes greater than 250K seems like a good place to start to me (especially given that both Acts were written with a sunset clause anyway. They weren't designed to be in place forever.)




JSZ

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

But do you realize that the brunt of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class, and that even if they were to expire, the additional revenue would still be dwarfed by our colossal debt?

Who gives a fuck? If you think the debt needs to be paid off at some point, you don't really understand this.

 

[dandelion]

Well mate, I do. Taking out a debt with the plan of never repaying it is theft. Ask your local rioters whether taking away other peoples property without paying is morally right or morally wrong. Maybe they agree with the US congress on this point.