Bad JUJU for US credit

Old Aug 5, 2011 | 08:58 PM
  #1  
1depd's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 1
From: Gulf Coast
Bad JUJU for US credit

http://news.yahoo.com/p-reconsiderin...001207261.html

Hopefully this is a slap in the face of the dipsticks in DC and they quit thier BS and get down to work. This is huge
 

Last edited by 1depd; Aug 5, 2011 at 09:02 PM.
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 09:27 PM
  #2  
harleydude78's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: Crestview, FL
I love how this huge historical announcement comes out on a Friday at like 8:30 pm eastern.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:01 PM
  #3  
jgger's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 6
From: Corona, Crazyfornia
Freaking BONEHEADS in DC!

They really think that spending more now and a "promise" to spend less in 10 years is going to fix things. Plus that crapola thing they passed isn't even binding on future congress to follow!

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER AND VOTE THE LOOSERS OUT.

Obama and this congress are a pox on our nation.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:04 PM
  #4  
blu3expy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Shoulda went with the Bowles-Simpson plan, but too bad we get a super committee that will end up falling back on cutting triggers....Republicans should have accepted tax increases and democrats should have given up entitlements.....idiots...lets go on vacation after this debt deal and lets make people feel like garbage over FAA funding..............
 

Last edited by blu3expy; Aug 5, 2011 at 10:06 PM.
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:27 PM
  #5  
jgger's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 6
From: Corona, Crazyfornia
Just quit spending what they don't have! It's really pretty simple.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:41 PM
  #6  
blu3expy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
then drop the wars
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:42 PM
  #7  
RSchnier's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Rochester, MN
Originally Posted by blu3expy
then drop the wars
I'm all for it. So why did Mr. Obama drag us into another one?
 
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:51 PM
  #8  
greencrew's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,804
Likes: 9
From: Wisconsin
Many believe this is the way it should be. Look my fine state of Wisconsin as an example. The people here voted in a governor to ensure the state balanced the budget and spends within its means. Now the he has accomplished that objective, those people now want to recall him for doing what he said he would do.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:52 PM
  #9  
jgger's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 6
From: Corona, Crazyfornia
Or the U.N. Or 25% of the government workforce. Just stop spending more than we take in.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 10:53 PM
  #10  
blu3expy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RSchnier
I'm all for it. So why did Mr. Obama drag us into another one?
Im not Obama's advisors, But I think he did it because of pressure form Hillary. Iraq and Afghanistan just bring our deficit up and more and more people die every day, its not worth the cost. How about the war no one is talking about on our own border! Drug cartels are out of control, we can just drive there and im sure Mexico would not argue with us going in!
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 11:00 PM
  #11  
blu3expy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by greencrew
Many believe this is the way it should be. Look my fine state of Wisconsin as an example. The people here voted in a governor to ensure the state balanced the budget and spends within its means. Now the he has accomplished that objective, those people now want to recall him for doing what he said he would do.
No argument he did do what he said he would, but he didn't say he would end some collective barganing rights for all unions except for those who supported him like local police, firefighters, and state troopers! wheres the fairness in that? If your going to end some rights for unions, then apply it to the firefighters, police, and state troopers, and do it because he has to make the HARD decisions, and not just ones that pander to his supporters?
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 11:16 PM
  #12  
RSchnier's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Rochester, MN
Originally Posted by blu3expy
No argument he did do what he said he would, but he didn't say he would end some collective bargaining rights for all unions except for those who supported him like local police, firefighters, and state troopers!
Sorry, but yes he did say exactly that, during the campaign -- though it was because those occupations are considered critical to public safety -- not because "those who supported him." You have the cart before the horse on that one.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 11:29 PM
  #13  
SSCULLY's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,511
Likes: 10
From: Under the flightpath of old ORD 22R
Originally Posted by blu3expy
No argument he did do what he said he would, but he didn't say he would end some collective barganing rights for all unions except for those who supported him like local police, firefighters, and state troopers! wheres the fairness in that? If your going to end some rights for unions, then apply it to the firefighters, police, and state troopers, and do it because he has to make the HARD decisions, and not just ones that pander to his supporters?
The "Right" to a guaranteed pay raise, and untouched benefits costs ( teachers were at 3% contribution ) for STATE union employees, that can go on strike ?

let's beat the dead horse on this one.
Fire and police unions are not a STATE union, they are part of one of the many federal unions, maybe.
Some cities the police and fire departments are non union.
From the last thread on this topic, I seem to recall only 335 cities in WI have union fire departments ( I could not find where it was this high, I confirmed a much lower number from the national union web sites ).
What do all the national fire and police unions have in common ?
1. Cannot strike under any circumstance
2. Pay is not part of the contract. This means if the city does not have the money to give them a raise, they have no recourse. Same for benefits, the national union they contribute to the pension, more than the 3% the WI teachers did ( BTW is now 5.5 % ).
It is to the point that police can work rotating week scheduled, where 1 week is 36 hours, the next week is 44 hours, and the pay check for the 2 week period is for 80 hours ( not 76 hours @ 1x and 4 hours @ 1.5 x which i a person working at MCD would get paid for 82 hours under the same scenario).

So when it comes down to it, the STATE unions now have a contract that looks more like the police & fire departments, that are union. The non union cities, don't have it as well as the teachers.

What the gov of WI & the WI state congress did was put all govt employees on the same field, nobody was saved by being a supporter.

BTW : another item that is sticking in the back of my mind, it was not every city fire & police department ( union or non union ) that supported him. It was 1 specific county ( city ) police department that supported an event, not the entire election.

Edit : Found the thread. I missed the numbers by a bit 304 not 335, and I only found 130
https://www.f150online.com/forums/ge...ight-back.html
 

Last edited by SSCULLY; Aug 5, 2011 at 11:36 PM.
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 11:59 PM
  #14  
SSCULLY's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,511
Likes: 10
From: Under the flightpath of old ORD 22R
Originally Posted by blu3expy
Shoulda went with the Bowles-Simpson plan,...<snip>....
Sure that is a great plan. It does not target enough spending cuts, falling short of the 34% needed.

I like how the conversion of Medicare / medicaid plan to look like the Health Care law was considered tossing the baby boomers on the street, but the rational spending approach by the Bowles - Simpson plan is OK.

The fun part, jack up the tax rates for everyone 3%.
Wait, the bottom bracket, jack that one up 5%.

To add insult to injury, tax capitol gains and dividends as normal income.
That should not have too much of an impact on people saving for their future...How does that work with item 2.1.3 on page 31 ?? ( hint, that is Simplify key provisions to promote savings ).

Do away with itemized deductions, for those families that need it, itemizing medical costs ( not that the Health Care law is not going to jack that floor up to a point where nobody gets it ).
Change the itemization for house from interest and prop taxes to a 12% non refundable credit.
State and Municipal bonds taxed as interest. This is not going to cost them too much ( need to make up the short fall, else why take a lower yield bond ) .
Corp taxes lowered by 7% once fully phased in, but the tax credits gone ( kiss that domestic manufacturing tax credit for auto good bye, wait until you see what that does to MI's economy ).

I give up after 34 pages, that plan does not contain any serious work, and guts a lot of things, including tax benefits for MI employers. Do we do away with new loans/loan backing to MI companies as well ?
 
Reply
Old Aug 6, 2011 | 12:19 AM
  #15  
blu3expy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Bowles Simpson is alot better then the current one, gang of six would have been alright too. Too bad the super committee is going to be full of republicans who signed the no tax pledge and gutless democrats, thats going to turn out well.
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 PM.