United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P • Hacker News Board

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#461

Post by BrandonM » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 9:52 PM UTC

18pfsmt wrote: post #453

jtheory wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this point of view, but at the end of the day, government policy needs to be based on what's going to work out the best for the public. It perhaps goes without saying that there are more than two approaches, but yours is one that I think we can rule out logically. Psychologically, does it work? In general, if you tell a 22-year-old that in 40-something years he's going to really need some of the money he…

Somehow, the Federalists have managed to change the conversation from, "should the state provide this service?" to, "should the government provide this service?" I don't quite understand why the state governments should not make their own choices, and people can move to the states that they find have the most acceptable laws to them.

I like the idea of removing power from the federal government in favor of states, but in the case of a service like social security, mobility between states could cause massive issues. State x would not have a safety net, prompting companies and workers to operate there for the tax break. State y, providing a safety net, would be swamped with retirees but not productive workers. Citizens would be hugely incented to game the system. I don't see how it could be sustainable.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#462

Post by marcamillion » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 9:53 PM UTC

marcamillion wrote: post #294

WOW....talk about CAJONES! I must tip my hat to S&P. This one...just WOW. I mean, I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but I just never imagined that they would be able to pull the trigger. All it takes is some 'investigation' by the US Treasury into S&P and that's it....game over. Not that I think the US Treasury will retaliate....but WOW. I never thought they would take this step. Good…

Or perhaps something like this - i.e. an attempt to erode the credibility of S&P:

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Just-the-Facts-SP...

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#463

Post by jebblue » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 9:53 PM UTC

logjam wrote: post #291

watchandwait wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been a complete lack of leadership from the Congressional Democrats on this issue. They haven't produced a budget plan in nearly three years, while borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent during that time. I'm not a partisan-- George Bush's runaway spending contributed a great deal to the current predicament. But the basic Congressional oversight and operating under a budget hasn't happened the last couple…

There has been a complete lack of leadership from the Congressional Democrats on this issue. They haven't produced a budget plan in nearly three years, while borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent during that time. Uh, you are merely parroting inaccurate GOP talking points, and I think we can be a little more accurate than that here. First of all, the House and Senate easily passed Obama’s first budget on the presi…

The Democrats controlled the Senate, the House and the White House until a lot were booted out of the House. They still control the Senate and the White House and yet the S&P downgrade in your mind is due to the Republicans?

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#464

Post by jebblue » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 9:56 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #352

geuis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I have no refutations to any of your comments. I know exactly what you mean. One interesting thing about your first statement, "At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now". A few years ago I had the opportunity to hear Francis Fukuyama speak. He was the author of The End of History and a later follow up book. I never knew it before then, but he was one o…

> I also remember stories from my mom's family of 7 kids growing up poor in Rochester, NY in the post-war era. Perhaps I've inherited an attitude of bite-down and deal with reality from their history. I have not much to add to your excellent comments, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. I grew up in a former Eastern-European country, and my childhood and teenage years were very much marked by the economic collapse…

Russia failed because communism failed. America doesn't need a weak military it needs a strong, positive leader.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#465

Post by _delirium » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 9:58 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #455

digikata wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do we do with people at the end of their working years, who, through bad luck or bad design, ended up with nothing. Do we stand by and let them suffer and die?

This is not an issue for the government to address. I don't think that people should let them stand by and die, but good governments don't have the powers necessary to give out free money to people they think deserve it. Communities would be expected to handle it in the way most palatable to them. How much more room would Americans have for charity if their paychecks got 50% fatter due to eliminating income and payro…

There's an interesting argument from Friedrich Hayek (who's usually considered libertarian-leaning) that that approach is actually less pro-individual-liberty than a government safety net is, because it coerces people to stay in collectivist-type communities like ethnic groups, churches, etc., even if they would prefer to leave them, due to the dependence on the safety nets those groups provide. He argues that having a minimal government safety net would give people more freedom to choose their associations within society, since e.g. leaving the Mormon church would no longer mean losing your main safety net.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#466

Post by jbooth » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 9:58 PM UTC

ramanujan wrote: post #203

ohyes wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a fact - you don't tax your way out of a recession and you sure as hell don't tax people to create jobs. It simply doesn't work. If it is a fact, where is the data? Economies are stimulated by people spending money. A tax cut to someone making 50,000 dollars a year is going to have a greater percentage of it spent than a tax cut to someone making 5,000,000 a year. Conversely, a 5-10% tax increase isn't going to…

You take the Keynesian view. It's difficult to discuss this in more than a soundbite, but the Hayekian view is well explained by these two videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc Well worth watching if you haven't seen them. In short, the opposite/Hayekian view contends that taxation is seizure of resources from profitable/efficient entities and redistribution tow…

The problem with the Hayekian view is that it's one-size fits all. People who think Keynesian economics works in certain situations have the great depression to back them up. And they're likely to sympathize with a Hayek type view during good times when there's no need for the government to stimulate demand.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#467

Post by jebblue » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 10:01 PM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #171

darksaga wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you tax the hell out of the rich, it still leaves this country TRILLIONS in debt. It's a fact - you don't tax your way out of a recession and you sure as hell don't tax people to create jobs. It simply doesn't work. And yeah, great idea. Let's cut military funding while we're fighting a war on terror in three countries. Apparently you don't remember Clinton's military cuts which removed almost 300,000 people…

>It's a fact - you don't tax your way out of a recession and you sure as hell don't tax people to create jobs. It simply doesn't work. If it is a fact, where is the data? Economies are stimulated by people spending money. A tax cut to someone making 50,000 dollars a year is going to have a greater percentage of it spent than a tax cut to someone making 5,000,000 a year. Conversely, a 5-10% tax increase isn't going to…

> If it is a fact, where is the data?

Play Sim City and try to win. Check into the facts that Sim City was built upon.

> I hope we cut down on military spending because I think war is bad

All reasonable people think this. When the rest do then we will have autonomous world peace. Until then, we need peacemakers.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#468

Post by georgefox » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 10:20 PM UTC

18pfsmt wrote: post #453

jtheory wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this point of view, but at the end of the day, government policy needs to be based on what's going to work out the best for the public. It perhaps goes without saying that there are more than two approaches, but yours is one that I think we can rule out logically. Psychologically, does it work? In general, if you tell a 22-year-old that in 40-something years he's going to really need some of the money he…

Somehow, the Federalists have managed to change the conversation from, "should the state provide this service?" to, "should the government provide this service?" I don't quite understand why the state governments should not make their own choices, and people can move to the states that they find have the most acceptable laws to them.

If the discrepancies between state policies were large enough, I imagine you'd basically see white flight on a national scale. Essentially, supporting any type of social safety net would be optional for the people with the resources to move out of state. As a result, middle-class and wealthy people would flock to low-tax states without expensive social programs, leaving behind a higher concentration of needy people in the states with the stronger safety nets. What social programs remain would presumably go bankrupt while the nation's wealthiest individuals basked in the glory of their virtually tax-free lifestyles.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#469

Post by wtallis » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 10:39 PM UTC

jebblue wrote: post #460

wtallis wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think that Fox News could destroy the Tea Party almost as easily as they created it?

Fox News and Christian bashing, it reads like Slashdot on here.

So complaining about extremist theocrats is crass if they call themselves Christian, but civilized if they're Muslim? It doesn't matter what religion it is, it's still a destabilizing influence on what's supposed to be a democracy.

And Fox News had such a clear role in making the Tea Party into a meaningful political force that commenting on the connection isn't necessarily even a political statement - it's a historical statement.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#470

Post by Someone » Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #306

Someone wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.

If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts Sure. And just because it's a small fraction doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be addressed. But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? When you need drastic improvement fast, it's just a waste of time to dally on pet agendas that don't represent a significant chunk. Get to them later when you have the time…

I do not think it is a matter of precedence. If you make cuts on larger expenditures, the end result will be a discussion of really tiny posts.

As an example, let's say you decide to cut 30% on defense. You cannot realistically do that by deciding to drop, say, the navy. There are lots of dependencies to consider (does it make sense to have marines, but no navy? Should we perhaps keep a small part of the navy for supporting the marines? What part? Can the air force maintain a global presence without carriers? If not, how many carriers do we really need? Can those carriers do without other ships for protection? Etc) People in charge will delegate filling in the details and suggesting a coherent set of cuts to subordinates.

After a few levels of such delegation, people will be talking about such 0.5% items. For that reason, I do not think you should ignore such smallish items.