Taxes need raised on people making over $250k.

 

Any business employing under 50 people needs tax breaks and an exemption from Obama Care.

 

That would be a start.

 

 

With that said, this President is as bad as there has ever been....but the GOP of this generation isn't that far behind him.

Not gonna argue about the low caliber of our current political leaders.

 

The problem with Obamacare is that we cannot afford it if EVERYONE pays. The Administration has already exempted hundreds of businesses from the need to participate, dumping that much more burden upon those without exemptions. Here's a list:

 

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

 

The best way to handle this is to repeal Obamacare and tackle healthcare/insurance reform in a strategic and beneficial manner.

Not gonna argue about the low caliber of our current political leaders.

 

The problem with Obamacare is that we cannot afford it if EVERYONE pays. The Administration has already exempted hundreds of businesses from the need to participate, dumping that much more burden upon those without exemptions. Here's a list:

 

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

 

The best way to handle this is to repeal Obamacare and tackle healthcare/insurance reform in a strategic and beneficial manner.

 

 

I want it repealed, don't know if it will happen though.

I agree with that. I am open to not renewing recent tax cuts like the Bush cuts. If we just do that, it will raise revenue and should have zero impact on the economy. But until they get more cuts in place and/or somehow get the deficit spending fixed, I agree on no new taxes or changes in tax rates. Keep the pressure on these guys/gals to make the tough decisions.

I'd rather see us dump the IRS.

If taxes were raised across the board do you think Obama would use to pay on the debt ??... It doesn't matter how much revenue is raised if you spend it all. He has already spent the trillions we just borrowed... The problem is SPENDING, not revenue.. The rich don't have enough to pay for it all..

I agree with that. I am open to not renewing recent tax cuts like the Bush cuts. If we just do that, it will raise revenue and should have zero impact on the economy. But until they get more cuts in place and/or somehow get the deficit spending fixed, I agree on no new taxes or changes in tax rates. Keep the pressure on these guys/gals to make the tough decisions.

 

You can't have it both ways. Not renewing the recent tax cuts IS raising taxes. In this economy that would be a tough hit. Couples making a combined $65,000 would get hit to the toon of about $300 per month additional taxes.

We can blame it on the president if we want but the last time I checked, congress controlled the spending. I'm not seeing too many Clinton or Bush or Obama pet projects around Somerset or Louisville or northern Kentucky. I don't see an annual report on pork projects for the president. I'm no Obama apologist and didn't vote for him. But congress is where the problem lies. Until congress is overhauled, it will not get better

If taxes were raised across the board do you think Obama would use to pay on the debt ??... It doesn't matter how much revenue is raised if you spend it all. He has already spent the trillions we just borrowed... The problem is SPENDING, not revenue.. The rich don't have enough to pay for it all..

 

Actually the problem is spending and lower revenue. But I agree that we can not raise taxes to give the needed revenue because it would go to waste and it would take the pressure off them to reduce spending. So no new taxes. Definitely no tax increases, even though we do need the revenue. We need to keep taxes where they are and force them to cut spending.

 

As to Obamacare, I absolutely do not want it repealed. Healthcare reform was needed and it took way to long to get it done. We need to keep Obamacare reforms as much as possible, make any needed changes and make it work. The fact is health care reform is perhaps the key issue that got Obama elected. Everyone recognized changes needed to be done to our health care, including the voters. I vehemently oppose getting rid of Obamacare. I want it to be changed so it works.

Taxes need raised on people making over $250k.

 

Any business employing under 50 people needs tax breaks and an exemption from Obama Care.

 

That would be a start.

 

 

With that said, this President is as bad as there has ever been....but the GOP of this generation isn't that far behind him.

Why?

These are the things we know: 1.) The US did not default or fail to pay anyone otherwise. 2.) Standard and Poor’s has reduced the US’s debt rating to AA+ while Moody’s and Fitch have kept it at AAA. 3.) Thus, this is is purely an judgement call by Standard and Poor’s. 4.)Standard and Poor’s has released their reasoning for the downgrade.

 

To start with the first three points, since the US didn’t fail to pay anyone, particularly creditors, it’s difficult to assess how the market will react to S&P’s pessimism, especially as the other ratings agencies have continued the AAA rating. There’s plenty of speculation, but I’m not sure anyone has a good read on how it will turn out, afterall, this is unprecedented. I think the main issue is whether Britain, France, or Lichenstein, for instance, will become more desirable for investments than the US based solely on S&P’s dictates and not on a failure of the US. In essence, how much does the market trust S&P and to what extent are there viable alternatives to the US? Those would be questions not worth asking had the US actually defaulted.

 

As to the fourth point, S&P has said that one of its main reasons (the main reason?) for downgrading the debt rating was because of the complete inability for either side in Washington to work with the other side in any meaningful or reasonable manner to manage the debt over the long-term. While they’ve said that the US is able to service its debt currently, the political war in DC has both threatened this and has given few reasons that anything significant could be done to draw down the debt. As recently as within the last year S&P re-evaluated the US’s debt, keeping the AAA rating, but warning that it is unsustainable long-term. The only thing to have changed in that short of time has been the political climate, most notably the debt ceiling debacle.

 

To be specific, S&P reasoned “the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenge” and “political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.” In essence, S&P doesn’t believe the parties can agree on anything worth being agreed upon and the eagerness of Republicans to nearly force a default in what would have been a completely unforced error is a new low. In short, while the US didn’t default and isn’t expected to there’s no reason for anything but pessimism based on those living in DC.

 

As to my own assessment, I’m a bit hesitant to accept S&P’s decision, even if their rationale is seemingly accurate. For one, S&P was among the biggest public image losers when it came to the financial crisis of 2007 for having rated sub-prime mortgage backed securities with their AAA rating and failing to oversee newly created investment vehicles based on bad debt. However, they’ve been considerably more vocal as of late. While they are expected to be when dealing with issues of sovereign debt - it's what they do - I’m curious if their newfound volume is an attempt to re-establish their credibility or their importance in the market. Fitch, for instance, has been nearly silent. Moody's has been in between. They also seemed far more involved in the debt ceiling debate than one should expect. As they were warning of the perils of default, they were also grading the potential “deals” being floated and indicating that they would be downgrading the US’s debt if certain deals were made. That seems overly involved. Even still, they decided to downgrade the debt after the eventual deal was passed. On top of this, after they had made their decision Treasury found a $2T miscalculation on the part of S&P, who fixed the error and continued with the downgrade. It seems like they should have either been more accurate in their measurements or taken a bit more time to re-evaluate after the correction. This is all to say I’m a bit weary of S&P’s motives without much in the way of concrete evidence to back it up. At any rate, it's hard to disagree with much of their reasoning and it's tough to predict how it will all play out.

spending in the 40s with FDR is different than now, at least FDR put the money into making jobs, all we do now is give to businesses to keep from going under and create no new jobs. Why dont our fearless leaders take a huge paycut themselves to prove they do care about our country, I say at least 90% dont have to have any money anyway.

 

1. Is there a difference between new jobs vs not losing existing jobs in today's economy? Can we agree that had we lost automotive jobs and ancillary jobs that it would be worse than it is now?

 

2. Taking a cut is silly, meaningless idea.

 

Have to agree with Clyde on this one, taking a cut would likely mean we just suffer more as they try to put in place more laws, projects, plans that would padd their pockets to make up for the lost income. Sad but true.

1. Is there a difference between new jobs vs not losing existing jobs in today's economy? Can we agree that had we lost automotive jobs and ancillary jobs that it would be worse than it is now?

 

2. Taking a cut is silly, meaningless idea.

But we HAVE lost automotive jobs.

You can't have it both ways. Not renewing the recent tax cuts IS raising taxes. In this economy that would be a tough hit. Couples making a combined $65,000 would get hit to the toon of about $300 per month additional taxes.

 

Please explain. I was referencing the estate and gift taxes. What taxes are you talking about that were that significant?

But we HAVE lost automotive jobs.

 

Allow me to-rephrase then.

 

Is there a difference between new jobs and spending to prevent the loss of jobs?

Please explain. I was referencing the estate and gift taxes. What taxes are you talking about that were that significant?

 

In response to a post that said raising taxes would do more harm you said "

 

"I agree with that. I am open to not renewing recent tax cuts like the Bush cuts".

 

Thats what I meant by not renewing the tax cuts would be raising taxes.

You can't have it both ways. Not renewing the recent tax cuts IS raising taxes. In this economy that would be a tough hit. Couples making a combined $65,000 would get hit to the toon of about $300 per month additional taxes.

 

The bold is what I was seeking clarification on. I don't recall any huge tax cut like that in the Bush cuts.