[CNBC] S&P contacts White House to notify about a downgrade coming

FIFY!

 

Let's play a game, it's called not dodging the question. I've addressed this multiple times already and failed to get a response out of you. I'm assuming that this time is no different, but let's try shall we?

I have shown, repeatedly, in multiple threads, that never mind the "rich" in general, but even the ultra-rich are by far, and I mean BY FAR, predominantly self-made. As a matter of fact, I actually did the numbers last time (something I don't feel like doing again), but if you look at the Forbes list (I would think that this would qualify for "rich," any way you slice it) for example, that globally (if I remember correctly), 65% of the world's richest are self-made.

Take out India and its caste system, that number goes up to 73%. In the U.S., it's right in line; around 71 to 72%. In China, where it was FLAT 30 years ago, it is 99%. If we take the general "rich," as supposed to the ultra-rich, the proportions are even higher skewed for self-made. Your spin of "trust fund babies," not that they don't exist, is to say the least, more than a bit removed from reality.

Nobody (other than in India for example) deprived of you of your opportunity. If you didn't take advantage of it, well...

Not at all. Isn't for Liberals, everything is Reagan's and China's fault? Didn't the world as we know it end 30 years ago? 30 years is a pretty good timeline for you, because obviously some Democrats would prefer not talking about Jiummy Carter. I removed that disastrous presidency for you. Aren't I nice?

What's their fair share? You never addressed that question. So even though they pay more, dollar-wise and percentage-wise, according to the IRS/CBO, and generally don't derive the costliest benefits, they didn't pay their fair share?

Yes. Because I've found it difficult to pay for a meal with a percentage. I suspect I always shall.

I'm trying to figure out where it isn't getting through to you. That 23% INCLUDES all those corporate tax loopholes. INCLUDING those loopholes, the richest paid more, rates-wise; INCLUDING those loopholes, the rich paid much much more, dollar-wise. Your point?

Invest wisely is an oxymoron how? Last time I checked, if you're not constantly chasing get-rich-quick schemes, no matter how sh1tty your risk management, if you had a well diversified portfolio and a semi-disciplined approach, the market still gave you a return, even without insider information and all that good stuff. Oh boy, I can just see my old Investments professor grinning from ear to ear if he knew I said that.

Oh and btw, last time I checked, you have to be a "technological or marketing saint," yada yada yada to get rich (or as you define it,, ultra-rich) in any era. Yes, believe it or not, it's actually pretty hard.

Healthcare? Like I said, that is topic for another day. Why? Because that is a highly complex topic with many demographical, political and economical factors, among others, that to give it one liners here is to simplify it beyond believe.

1. Please refrain from quoting Rand Paul. Hurts my ear.

2. Since we are talking about share sacrifices here, let's begin. The effective rate for U.S. households are down, across the board. Yes or no? As a matter of fact, like I said, they are fairly low, historically speaking.

Given that, AND given that we are expanding healthcare/Medicare/etc which benefit the poor (at least before the current ****), when they were grand-dealing with the Bush tax cuts (after the passage of Obamacare of course), you feel the burden is somehow shifted to the poor how?

Let's summarize: at close to the lowest rates, historically-speaking (i.e. comparatively lower tax burden), expanding programs which benefited them, what exactly did the poor sacrifice?

I just happened to think that further reduced tax rates (because obviously Obama won't call the expiration of the Bush cuts a tax hike) while a vastly expanded social program is idiotic. I was in favour of letting the Bush cuts expire. But given that we choose that idiotic path, you bet I'm gonna argue who's gonna take the benefit.

And of course, I can't think of a better way to solve the impending SS implosion by giving a SS holiday. Nope, not at all.

Well, since you're starting down that slippery slope, how much should aid to those poor countries be? $200 billion? $300 billion? A trillion?

Aside from the question whether you SHOULD be spending my money for ones with absolutely no affiliations to me in the least (except species), you are also telling me that those programs know better what to do with my money than I do. From your list, it looks as if you can allocate your resource to your causes just fine.

But how about this, it's actually pretty easy. On your 1040 you have that presidential election donation box. How about we make another box for foreign-aid? And in a highly Machiavellian move, especially given many people E-file these days, why don't we make that box pre-checked, then see how many people complain.

I'd love to see that.

This is actually so idiotic it's laughable. I've already addressed this multiple times, but I'm not surprised it got glossed over.

30 years ago, John Paulson was nobody. 30 years ago Larry Page was 8 and Sergey Brin was getting used to his first year in America, at 7. 30 years ago Mark Zuckerberg wasn't yet born. 30 years ago Walmart had $15.9 billion in sales. 30 years ago brick-and-mortar book stores was a viable business model. A little longer than 30 years ago Bill Gates was busy dropping out of Harvard.

Invariably, when some Liberal uses the "rich keeping getting richer, poor keeping getting poorer" line, they never fail to neglect the fact that rich today is fundamentally different from the rich 30 years ago. The fact that the richest 30 years ago were supplanted and replaced by a bunch of new blood is largely irrelevant to them. Same with the poor.

But hey, if they came to grasps with reality, then they couldn't use the "trust fund babies" line any more.

LOL. Predictable response. Absolutely predictable. When you fail to come up with a point (you have none), pick on some irrelevant off-topic non-issue.

Here's some advise, if you're too stupid to make a coherent post, you don't have to. It really is amazing, I know.

 

Let's play a game---it's called "WTF are you referring to my life story." If you're going to do so, get it right. Once again, hint: I am an undergrad. The only opportunity that has passed for me money-wise is forgetting to ask for student discounts at everything.

"Self-made" isn't that much better these days, especially when it is in conjunction with how you can get rich these days (most through financial speculation/devastation). However, I'm interested in seeing where you got these unsubstantiated numbers, and whether you isolated for certain variables---such as, for example, parents who had acquired their wealth in one industry, and used it to help propel their children to acquire more in another? I have a rough idea how you got the list---subtracted "inheritance" from the Forbes list. Of course, that's quite dodgy without in-depth analysis of every individual on that file, which is unrepresentative of most of the top 1% anyways.

I ARE LIBERAL MACHINE. EVERYTHING I SPEAK IS A LIBERAL. MY IDENTITY IS LINKED TO LIBERALITY. JIMMY CARTER-OH NOES. RUN ON SENTENCES ARE FUN THEY TEND TO GO LONG AND HARD THAT'S JUST THE WAY I ROLL THROUGH.

If you want a concrete number?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/04/30/top-1-increased-their-share-of-wealth-in-financial-crisis/

Top 1% controlled about 35.6% of the wealth in 2010.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2435&DocTypeID=2

They paid about 22.8% of the tax burden in 2010.

It gets even worse for the top 400 Americans, who control more than 60% of Americans, and pay about 1.8% of the tax burden, when the bottom 60% pay about 5%.

Equality is all I'm asking for. Given the marginal utility of dollars, you would think an economist would ask for more.

Come off it, you have an economic background, go compare America's debt with Iceland's debt---oh boy, why one is insolvent, the other isn't! but iceland's is so much smaller---

don't play coy. Dollar amounts mean nothing in this case because you're only talking one side of the equation. "Oh they pay so many taxes!"<---yeah, but they own so much too.

Refer back to my original post some pages ago. The corporate taxes point has NOTHING to do with the effective individual income tax rates, it was a separate argument I had extolling the folly of never raising taxes---you and deepblue jumped on pretty much one point I made a few pages ago, and have rattled on and on about it.

Investing wisely is an oxymoron. A pretty big part of finance these days involve enriching yourself to the detriment of others.

My point is that people like Jobs are exceptionally rare. When they exist they should be rewarded, but the majority of the top 1% are not Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg, they're financial manipulators or exploiters of raw resources. If you care to run your Forbes numbers again, I would venture to bet that most of those fortunes were made or maintained through financial "ingenuity" aka the financial services industry that gave us CDOs, credit-default swaps, asset bubbles etc.

I've posted it before. It's a good view on the whole thing...

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

Oh, I don't know, reckless unemployment caused by big banks, a society that views food aid to the poor as the first place to cut, and the inequality of society itself still despite these advancements? Even if they have the lowest historical tax burden, it is not a fair burden that reflects their share of the wealth.

Now, like I said, I am not averse to raising taxes on the poor and middle class. However, you best damn be sure that if that happens, taxes must be raised on the rich to address the growing inequality in America, which would only be compounded further by proposed spending cuts.

It doesn't have to be that way either. There's some win-win places to cut---military, subsidies, prisons for non-violent offenders, foreign military aid to Israel.

Legalizing mar1juana and then referring to the Portugal model for hard drugs is a favorite of mine.

It doesn't have to be a rich-poor question. It can be an American question, with an American solution that benefits the rich and the poor.

1% of GDP/GNI is the UN guideline, which isn't that much. Comes out to about $146 billion. It would set America as THE leader in foreign aid, and would achieve more wonders for national security and prosperity than spending $200 billion bombing the hell of some poor Middle Eastern nation.

Oh I would love to see it too.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-are-horribly-misinformed-about-how-much-we-spend-on-foreign-aid/

 

I like to think I did my small part in the liberal Clutchfans crusade---

really though, I find this kind of stuff fun. but keep that between us as our dirty little secret

 

And as I've said again and again, I don't actually give a damn about your life. It was general comment. Your particular situation is of no relevance to me, nor does it counter any of my arguments.

Actually no. Unlike you, though not particularly entirely acquainted with the every day details of the subjects, I do happen to know a bit about at least the higher place ones on the list. For example, I am perfectly aware that relatively, Bill Gates had a better situation, went to private school, etc because his father was no particular slouch either. I am also aware for example, that Sergey Brin's father was academia and mentored his son since early life. But guess what, you could have had that opportunity. You could have actively improve your lot in life and those of your children such that they have better situation in their lives. But if you get stuck in the gutter and want to have one to blame, look in the mirror first. And once again, yes, that was a general comment, not directed at you.

But what's funnier is how every generation come up with the exact same arguments. Before "financial speculation" there were things such as slave owners, robber barons, oil moguls, shipping tycoons, the mob, yada yada yada. Really I mean, there are always these "only way to get rich" excuses aren't there? There's always that "one industry" in which if you're not fortunate enough to be in it, you won't get rich. Yet somehow I see quite a few (and rather diverse, at that) industries all of which somehow manage to generate some kind of profit. Now why is that?

I don't mean to pigeon-hole you, I apologize. Nevertheless it seem a common rub with some liberals, aka. history began with Reagan.

I don't need the concrete numbers. I'm aware of the concrete numbers.

Yes, read those numbers. The top 1% paid 22.8% of the tax burdens. The labour force is what? 160 million. So that means 1.6 million out of 160 million paid 22.8% of the taxes.

Let's define equality shall me? What's equality? Equal contribution or equal benefits? So if you worked harder than me, generated more wealth as a result, it is "equality" if some of your wealth should be shifted to me? What if I don't work at all? What if I stopped even trying? Just shift some more?

I think it is perfectly equal and fair that if you contributed more, you should derive those benefits. And if those opportunities to do so were deprived from you, I would say you've been wronged.

Chuckles. Actually, last time I checked, Iceland is insolvent because its DOLLAR AMOUNT of debt far exceeded its revenue/income.

And the one side of the equation, well here's a problem as I see it. That they own so much part? Yeah, like I said, for the most part, they generated them. That other side, the they pay so many taxes part? That was forced upon them.

I included those items because you see, a certain little twerp named GladiatorRowdy has this tendency to come here and say "income tax isn't the in and be all" along with lies such as "the poor pay more taxes if you include payroll tax."

But you are talking exclusively about income tax? Well, even better then. That makes my point even easier. Because income tax revenue/burden/what have you is OVERWHELMINGLY paid for by the rich.

Oh boy...

Really? Here's the list:

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list?country=225&industry=-1&state=

Let's see, hmmmmm. I see telecom, retail, tech, pharmaceutical, casinos, real estate, candy/food, media, services, publishing, cruise lines, farming, utilities, health care, movies, trucking, hospitality, shipping and I'm sure I missed some (I got bored after the second page).

Of course, some industries are less likely to have "stars" than others. For example, I don't expect 20 Sheldon Adelsons, but it seem to me like a pretty diversified list.

Chuckles. If I asked you on average, how many years does it take for a recession to occur in America? It's somewhere around 6.5 years. It used to be lower. Somewhere around 4.5 to 5 years. Surprised? Believe it or not the economy is cyclical; that despite what you think, the finance system run into **** every couple off years. Not because it's necessarily the cause, but rather, it tend to be the first damn industry hit by the downturn.

Then roughly 25 to 30 years ago we started, um, experimenting with the economy. We started adopting a Keynesian basis in which some kind of intervention will occur at the first sign of trouble. The effect of which was that downturns occurred less frequently (hence, 6.5 instead of 4.5 years). But when they did occur, they tended to be more severe. Because instead of letting it air out, each time we further inflated a bigger bubble.

And yes, the financial system is usually rescued. It's pretty simple. Despite what the average American may think, a collapse to the financial system is not to their benefits. Another occurrence will be the expansion of governmental programs benefiting, you guessed it, the poor. The bank rescue is always mentioned. The benefits program usually glossed over.

And now that we've inflated the bubble yet again, after it floated from South/Latin American to S&L to tech to credit to housing, we're ready to do it again. When it pops again I'll still be hearing you mentioning the bank bailout and gloss over the social programs.

Other than defense cuts, which I support, none of those programs you mentioned would even make a dent in the deficit. ALL government spending other than the unholy trinity of health care, SS and defense all added together amounts to just over $350 billion. Defense including VA, etc amounts to $1 trillion. Bring them back to pre-Bush levels would help (roughly $311 billion for DoD, 2000 dollars, not including VA), but it won't balance the budget.

Cut defense as starters, but unless some entitlement programs are cut, the U.S. WILL run a deficit.

And Bush cuts WILL HAVE TO expire.

Um, it isn't much? I know we've gotten used to running a world which goes by trillions here, but $146 billion isn't a lot of money?

Very good. Then they should have absolutely no program with my tax return proposal. It's always easier when paying with somebody else's money. But if we put it on one's own return...

Get it done.

 

That is, *problem, with my tax return proposal.

 

Dude really what have you been smoking.

 

The US' annual direct foreign assistance budget isn't $146 billion, it's $47 billion.

In relational terms, it's about the size of MFW's relative sense of humor or MacBeth/HarryPalmer's pretend life vs. his actual one.

 

$146 billion is the ideal---according to UN guidelines.

Of that $47 billion, a lot is based on military aid or "narcotics control" too---to Pakistan, Israel etc., which isn't technically "foreign aid" in the purest sense of the idea.

Don't know exactly what point you were driving at, just clarifying.

anyways, I'll leave you to your bitterness. add me on facebook if you want to talk real life, then you can make fun of my real life failings on my real life wall, instead of coming up with hypothetical stories of Walkman beatings (?) in Toronto (???).

 

I'm pretty excited that this turned into a picture thread. Especially one that stretches the page. Great job!

 

It's fun watching your silly, useless little "conservative vs. liberal" debates. Because that right there is the very problem with America. 1-dimensional, x vs. y arguments with "moderates" (AKA useless people vote-wise) arguing the symptoms of problems rather than the actual causes.

The truth is we spend way too much, and we tax way too much. The truth is we have a reckless private central bank that fuels corporatism and suppresses capitalism and free markets. The truth is "modern economics" (Keynesianism and its derivatives) is mainly bull****, and our dollar is not a very good currency (it's very lucky to be the reserve currency of the world).

Anyone with a brain should be able to tell you that the federal government will eventually have to make steep cuts in both spending and taxes (which it has NEVER done before) if we want to start the healing process. It needs to reduce its role and its footprint in the world. And our entire philosophy on foreign policy and currencies need to be revamped for our country to get on the right track.

 

Taxes are the lowest the have been in decades. If you want to pay no taxes how about you go to Ethiopia or Afghanistan? Look at the countries with the highest quality of living; guess what usually they have high taxes.

 

You think Ethiopia and Afghanistan are in the position they are in because of lack of taxes?!?!?! If only the Taliban had had more money........................

 

As opposed to Austrian economics?

That's what I assume you're referring to. Just be aware that if you are a proponent of Austrian economics, it's a bit like being a creationist.

 

A nonsensical response that ignored my post, unsurprisingly. One could make the same statements you made about any time frame, and those statements would be equally rediculous. Really, if this is the best you can do, perhaps you need a nap. A long one.

 

And all those guys grew up in upper middle to the rich class. So I guess "rich keeping getting richer, poor keeping getting poorer" is correct.

 

Nothing like a giddy young Paulista who ventures into the arena, rides a few laps on his hobby horse, bearing his gold standard, then retreats back in to 19th century from where he came.

Invest in railroads young man, that iron horse shall tame the West!

 

My initial reaction: The fact that a bunch of dishonest bankster type guys can do something like this, which is seen as so significant shows how screwed up finance is.

S & P was part of the dishonest rating system that led to the crash. These guys should be fined and or in prison for their role. They should have no credibility from a financial or moral stand point.

For all we know these .1% guys were trying to to live out their libertarian/conservative wet dream of abolishing social security and forcing all retirement security to be managed by the private finance industry with a 1% cut of course.

I think at the minimum they should be banned to the Cayman Islands and the big economies of the world should come together to ignore them.


l