Credit downgrade exposes concern about nation's character

Source: Baltimore Sun

Some initial reports gave the impression that S&P's only problem with last week's debt-ceiling deal was the inadequacy of the spending cuts agreed to by Congress. But S&P made it clear that the downgrade might have been avoided if Congress had agreed to tax increases or some other kind of revenue increase.

Clearly, revenue enhancement should have been part of the deal. If only that would solve the problem...it will not, because of demographics. There simply aren't enough rich people.

Even so, raising taxes on the rich should be part of the equation, because if nothing else, it reinforces the idea of "shared sacrifice." I also believe that it makes sense to define things like stock options as compensation. This would ensure that those who receive corporate stock options pay their fair share of Income and Social Security taxes on those earnings. The reason they don't now is because they have enough Ds & Rs in their pockets to ensure that the tax code is favorable to them.

Ds make the mistake of thinking that all have to do is raise taxes on the rich and cut defense and Rs make the mistake of think that cutting spending is the solution.

However, Ds should know that if we confiscated all assets held by the Forbes 400 and zeroed out defense spending; we would only have enough money to fund the fedgov for about 6 1/2 months.

Likewise, Rs should know that 80% of spending is mandatory and there is no way to get to a balanced budget if the cuts are limited to the discretionary spending.

national character: if so, the last decade would show us to be an unmitigated inhumane bastard nation imo. :patriot:

I was having copying and pasting trouble today!!

1. The dysfunction of not being able to find a kind of compromise. It's a three body problem, and all three had their demands and requirements any one of which was more important than raising the debt ceiling. *That* says something about the character of the country.

2. Greater deficit reduction/debt avoidance would have worked. Almost all spending is only mandatory because Congress has passed a law stipulating spending levels. In other words, it's also discretionary, it just takes more than a budget resolution to change them. That pretty much nobody wants to cut anything says something about the character of the country; that polls show that a majority wanted the deficit reduced by just cutting spending or having some revenue increases, while a majority wanted it reduced by mostly increasing revenue or only increasing revenue, also says something about the character of the country. The vast majority wanted some cuts to play a role in reducing the deficit.

That the spending any one "faction" wanted was just the spending that benefited others also says something.

3. Significant amounts of increased revenue would have worked. Although more wanted the deficit reduced by all or mostly cutting spending, a majority called for some revenue increases (on others, for the most part).

That the revenue increase that any one faction was pretty much to be paid by others (entirely or mostly) also says something.

That people can barely bring themselves to admit that not all the facts fit any particular POV is also very distressing. Just as TPers were busy citing only the fact that most people wanted the deficit reduced by (at least some) spending cuts, many (D) were citing pretty much only the fact that most people wanted the deficit reduced by (at least some) revenue increases. Both were true; the ratio of cuts/revenues was > 1 for a majority, but not a large one.