• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
You really don't understand trickle down economics at all. The backbone of trickle down is more spendable income in the hands for the taxpayers.

Rightwingers really don't understand trickle down economics at all. The backbone of trickle down is more job destruction so they can drive wages down and their profits up
 
Wonder what progressives here think of sangha's posts? Do they make any sense to anyone? Putting Bush's name on Obama results? That is a cry for help

We know what the rightwingers think. They want to impoverish the middle class so they can drive down wages and increase their profits. They piss on american workers and call it "trickle down"
 
Rightwingers really don't understand trickle down economics at all. The backbone of trickle down is more job destruction so they can drive wages down and their profits up

Coming from someone who has a problem with taxpayers keeping more of what they earn. I welcome your explanation as to how people keeping more of what they earn hurts the economy?
 
by reducing tax rates on businesses and providing incentive for businesses to put 25 million people back to work. We had increasing revenues when Reagan increased employment by 17 million, when Clinton increased employment thanks to the GOP Congress, and Bush fully implemented his tax cuts. Tax cuts put money into the hands of the consumer and they make growing the economy a lot easier. A growing economy creates more govt. revenue.

Press Releases - Newsroom - U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio

About that, it seems Reagan was some sort of master of diversion. Good speaker, but more poor policies:

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

*snip*

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund. His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have." The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

And taxes?

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restrictions, which may require little government outlay.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

Reagan played the bait and switch trick. His loyal followers never even noticed.


Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

And for more on how Reagan increased the size of government, read here: The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan


You really don't understand trickle down economics at all. The backbone of trickle down is more spendable income in the hands for the taxpayers.

yeah- thing is, government expenditures have to fall below revenue. It's basic accounting. If the average American were to practice government accounting, he or she would end up in federal prison.
 
About that, it seems Reagan was some sort of master of diversion. Good speaker, but more poor policies:



*snip*



And taxes?



Reagan played the bait and switch trick. His loyal followers never even noticed.




And for more on how Reagan increased the size of government, read here: The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan




yeah- thing is, government expenditures have to fall below revenue. It's basic accounting. If the average American were to practice government accounting, he or she would end up in federal prison.

Here we go again, an obsession with Reagan and total ignorance of what is happening right now. I lived and worked during the Reagan years, did you? I am witnessing right now the total destruction of the private sector today and you are ignoring it. What does Reagan have to do with the thread topic? You are however distorting and actually ignoring his record. Get that from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites.

If the average American spent the money that this govt. spent they would have gone bankrupt long, long ago. So your answer is Obamanomics? Didn't he inherit a AAA rating from Bush? How do you justify the following results in 2011

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade
 
Isn't it interesting that putting Bush's name on those results make them terrible but when Obama's actual results are those numbers it is ignored?

What's amazing is your insistence on ignoring the numbers that Obama inherited from Bush: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit....
 
Here we go again, an obsession with Reagan and total ignorance of what is happening right now.

Hence your argument about what Democrats did (or actually didn't do) under George H.W. Bush? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
What's amazing is your insistence on ignoring the numbers that Obama inherited from Bush: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit....

Nice distortion, do you know what the average unemployment rate was during the Bush years? So what is your excuse for the Obama record today? What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? Must be youth and inexperience.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade
 
Hence your argument about what Democrats did (or actually didn't do) under George H.W. Bush? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What does that have to do with the present and the Obama results? Is this what you voted for?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade
 
What's amazing is your insistence on ignoring the numbers that Obama inherited from Bush: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit....

Obama's job was to "fix the Bush" mess as you call it but obviously ignore the Democrat Control of Congress that allowed those results to happen. If you ever ran anything you would understand that leaders always inherit someone else's problems and it is their job to fix it. If they don't then someone else will be hired to do it. The best news business can get today is Obama resigning.
 
Nice distortion, do you know what the average unemployment rate was during the Bush years? So what is your excuse for the Obama record today? What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? Must be youth and inexperience.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade

The average employment rate is irrelevant. What matters is the employment situation that Bush handed to Obama, which was historically disasterous.
 
What does that have to do with the present and the Obama results? Is this what you voted for?

Good question. You brought up GHW Bush, so maybe you can answer it?
 
Nice distortion, do you know what the average unemployment rate was during the Bush years? So what is your excuse for the Obama record today? What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? Must be youth and inexperience.

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade

And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.
 
The average employment rate is irrelevant. What matters is the employment situation that Bush handed to Obama, which was historically disasterous.

Yes, Obama handed Obama 12.6 million unemployed and today it is over 15 million. He handed Obama 142.2 million working Americans and it is now 139 million. Obama apparently thought Bush was doing such a great job that he took the Bush results and made them worse
 
Obama's job was to "fix the Bush" mess as you call it but obviously ignore the Democrat Control of Congress that allowed those results to happen. If you ever ran anything you would understand that leaders always inherit someone else's problems and it is their job to fix it. If they don't then someone else will be hired to do it. The best news business can get today is Obama resigning.

I see. So under Bush it was all Congress' fault, but under it's NOT Congress' fault -- it's all Obama's fault. That makes sense. :lol:
 
And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

I posted the Obama improvements in post 915, read them
 
I see. So under Bush it was all Congress' fault, but under it's NOT Congress' fault -- it's all Obama's fault. That makes sense. :lol:

Congress makes the laws and Congress approves all the legislation. That is basic civics. Seems to day 2 1/2 years after Obama took office you are still blaming Bush for Obama results
 
Yes, Obama handed Obama 12.6 million unemployed and today it is over 15 million. He handed Obama 142.2 million working Americans and it is now 139 million. Obama apparently thought Bush was doing such a great job that he took the Bush results and made them worse

A picture is worth a thousand words:

unemployment_02052010.jpg
 
A picture is worth a thousand words:

unemployment_02052010.jpg

Actually factual results are worth a thousand words except to a liberal. Didn't Obama inherit a AAA credit rating from Bush?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade
 
Congress makes the laws and Congress approves all the legislation. That is basic civics. Seems to day 2 1/2 years after Obama took office you are still blaming Bush for Obama results

Not at all. I credit Obama with doing as well as he could given where he started and given the resistence he faces. You simply want to ignore the starting point.
 
Actually factual results are worth a thousand words except to a liberal. Didn't Obama inherit a AAA credit rating from Bush?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade

Yes, and if Republicans hadn't acted like five year olds then we would still have our AAA credit rating. That one goes in your column.

And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.
 
Yes, and if Republicans hadn't acted like five year olds then we would still have our AAA credit rating. That one goes in your column.

And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

Post 915 tells you how much Obama improved the employment situation.
 
I posted the Obama improvements in post 915, read them

Right, and they are pretty substantial, given where he started.

And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.
 
Actually factual results are worth a thousand words except to a liberal. Didn't Obama inherit a AAA credit rating from Bush?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to cause a credit downgrade

He also inherited all of Bush's debt, so what was your point? LOL!!
 
This is getting funny! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom