• 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.
Phys251 said:
Yeah that's a great idea. Let's make sure that states can set their own educational standards, like they did in the good old days before Civil Rights. And without that pesky EPA in the way, we will no longer have to endure the evils of clean air and water. Give me a break, man. I mean, really--do conservatives even THINK about this stuff before saying it?
Click to expand...
I understand. That pesky constitution and the very idea of a limited government is bothersome. Give me a break, man. I mean, really--do liberals even THINK about this stuff before saying it?
 
AdamT said:
Sure, that would be a natural consquence of the Supreme Court declaring those departments unconstitutional, which they haven't done and won't do because they are perfectly constitutional.
Click to expand...
It does not require the Supremes. Nor are they likely to help. They are dominated by statists.
AdamT said:
Which is a good thing, because the states are pretty miserable when it comes to environmental protection.
Click to expand...
I understand. There is no reason to let that little Constitution with limited government get in the way, is there?
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
It does not require the Supremes. Nor are they likely to help. They are dominated by statists.

Which is a good thing, because the states are pretty miserable when it comes to environmental protection.
Click to expand...
I understand. There is no reason to let that little Constitution with limited government get in the way, is there?
Click to expand...

Of course it does require the Supreme Court. You've heard of that pesky separation of powers thingy, right?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You are making a heroic assumption that less regulation leads to more consumption. Interest rates and unemployment alone signify there is not a supply problem.

You are simply mistaken.
Click to expand...
Less regulation leads to more freedom. More freedom means more economic activity of all sorts. And that leads to a wider variety of goods and services at a range of prices that all may afford. This freedom and liberty thing is tricky. There are less and less people who understand it or even want it. I know which side you stand on.
 
AdamT said:
Of course it does require the Supreme Court. You've heard of that pesky separation of powers thingy, right?
Click to expand...
No. It does not require the Supremes. The Congress funds the regulatory agencies. The Congress directs them to make their stultifying, burdensome, costly, and generally worthless regulations. The Congress can defund them. The Congress can eliminate them entirely. The Executive branch and the Judicial branch have no say.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The bold is an example of how federal fiscal policy can allow for a private/public debt swap, but it doesn't (in any way) illustrate how output is effected. Also, paying your creditors does not necessarily increase output. Paying off debt reduces the lenders income from interest. Then, the lender must find another seeker of the said capital or be forced to dive into Treasury Securities as a means to hedge against potential losses. The 1980's was an era where a great deal of American capital was injected overseas only to be bailed out by the government via the Savings and Loan legislation (resolution trust corporation), so it is incorrect to automatically assume your creditors expanded the economy given the near financial crisis that occurred in the late 1980's.

Even in our current situation, paying down debt with tax proceeds is in fact a negative for output growth... for exactly the same reasons above. The low interest rate environment incentives lenders to seek out higher yields, e.g. borrowing dollars and then lending in Brazilian Real's.



You simply have no idea what you are talking about; there is a difference between the long and short run (the first being that the short run will actually exist!) Paying down debt does not result in increased economic output :prof



Actually, due to the public/private debt swap that you illustrated above, I am forced to pay your debts!

I really have no idea why you even bother discussing something which you know little (if anything) about....
Click to expand...

What it showed is that I took personal responsibilty, paid off my debt thus needed none of that govt. "help" that liberals are looking for. What I find from you is a book smart liberal who has no sense of reality. you study the textbook but know little about human behavior. Unlike you, I actually ran something, developed and worked with people, bettering hundreds. That so called debt swap you seem so worried about is actually people paying off their debt and helping the economy vs. govt. spending that creates actual debt that the taxpayers have to fund. Your apparently belief that tax cuts create a debt swap is total and complete ignorance. People with more of their money need less of that govt. so why has it grown over the years and generated a 14.5 trillion dollar debt? Liberal logic? Yep!!

I only wish that I was half as smart as you think you are. My real life experience actually running a business obvously makes me less qualified than your book smart education that has accomplished nothing
 
pbrauer said:
Why not stick to the subject of this thread, Con? Since S&P has questionable dealings in regards to the financial meltdown, why does their downgrade mean anything at all?
Click to expand...

Why does your credit score mean anything to you? Same issue on a larger scale. This isn't going to be the first and only downgrade if Obama remains in office spending trillions. Why do you support someone who generated the results I have posted over and over again 2 1/2 years after taking office? Didn't Obama inherit a AAA rating from Bush?
 
Misterveritis said:
I know a great deal about you. Should I choose to know more I could. Your words reveal you.
Click to expand...

Oh, please continue. What exactly is it that you know about me, O Great One?
 
Conservative said:
What it showed is that I took personal responsibilty, paid off my debt thus needed none of that govt. "help" that liberals are looking for. What I find from you is a book smart liberal who has no sense of reality. you study the textbook but know little about human behavior. Unlike you, I actually ran something, developed and worked with people, bettering hundreds. That so called debt swap you seem so worried about is actually people paying off their debt and helping the economy vs. govt. spending that creates actual debt that the taxpayers have to fund. Your apparently belief that tax cuts create a debt swap is total and complete ignorance. People with more of their money need less of that govt. so why has it grown over the years and generated a 14.5 trillion dollar debt? Liberal logic? Yep!!

I only wish that I was half as smart as you think you are. My real life experience actually running a business obvously makes me less qualified than your book smart education that has accomplished nothing
Click to expand...

Instead of addressing my post, you go off on a wild tangent that is both off topic and ad hominem. Why the moderation team allows you to continue such behavior is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Occam's Razor said:
I see you are stuck in the who failed less mode.

All those gains, as we have seen, were bubble related. The result of giving easy money to folks who are told to go out and buy buy buy to support a consumer economy, itself a sham prop.

The issue is not who failed less, but the UNBROKEN CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT LED HERE.

Reagan and Bush sr doubled the debt as a percentage of GDP, Clinton reduced it, Bush Jr doubled it...

Obama may yet double it, but that does not excuse anything that came before. Failure... everywhere, by all elected, for generations.
Click to expand...


Obama's addition to the debt is more than any other President in U.S. history in 3 years in office. The debt today wasn never close to 100% of GDP. Not sure where you get your information but the facts simply don't support your position. Reagan took office with a 900 billion dollar debt and left it at 2.6 trillion. Here is the GDP during that term so tell me as a percent of GdP the total debt was as high as Obama created. Research doesn't seem to be a strong suit of many here.

BEA.gov

1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Instead of addressing my post, you go off on a wild tangent that is both off topic and ad hominem. Why the moderation team allows you to continue such behavior is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I addressed you point of debt swap, you didn't like the answer. Tough
 
Conservative said:
Why does your credit score mean anything to you? Same issue on a larger scale. This isn't going to be the first and only downgrade if Obama remains in office spending trillions. Why do you support someone who generated the results I have posted over and over again 2 1/2 years after taking office? Didn't Obama inherit a AAA rating from Bush?
Click to expand...
My credit score would determine that I'm a bad risk in paying my debts. Do you actually believe the U.S. is at risk paying it's debts? What about S&P's past where they rated toxic securities as AAA simply because they were be paid to do so by the blunders??????????????
 
pbrauer said:
My credit score would determine that I'm a bad risk in paying my debts. Do you actually believe the U.S. is at risk paying it's debts? What about S&P's past where they rated toxic securities as AAA simply because they were be paid to do so by the blunders??????????????
Click to expand...

What would your credit score be if you maxed out your credit cards like the U.S. has done and you cannot print money? The U.S. will never default on its debt because it will print money but that will lead to inflation which hurts the poor and middle class more. Interesting how debt doesn't matter to you when Obama creates it.
 
Conservative said:
What would your credit score be if you maxed out your credit cards like the U.S. has done and you cannot print money? The U.S. will never default on its debt because it will print money but that will lead to inflation which hurts the poor and middle class more. Interesting how debt doesn't matter to you when Obama creates it.
Click to expand...
You ignore the fact that S&P is a corrupt organisation.
 
The Prof said:
june 16: White House's Daley reaches out to manufacturers - The Washington Post

why are you blocking construction of my facility to protect a fish, asked one potential donor

chief of staff daley "threw up his hands in frustration," said he "did not have many good answers," called out "bureaucratic stuff that's hard to defend"

"sometimes you can't defend the indefensible," he continued

"the number of rules and regulations that come out of agencies is overwhelming"

but hey, at least he says the white house is "trying to bring some rationality to it"

LOL!
Click to expand...

Nice dodge of my question. Would you care to actually answer it?

Misterveritis said:
I understand. That pesky constitution and the very idea of a limited government is bothersome. Give me a break, man. I mean, really--do liberals even THINK about this stuff before saying it?
Click to expand...

Can you please try to debate as an adult, or are you going to just spew off childish strawmen arguments such as these?

May I ask what your reservation is to clean air and water and to solid education?
 
Conservative said:
Oh, Good Lord, massive spending increases had absolutely nothing to with the downgrade in our credit rating? Debt apparently doesn't matter when being created by a liberal?
Click to expand...
What does you comment have anything to do with the U.S. Senate report?????????????
 
pbrauer said:
You ignore the fact that S&P is a corrupt organisation.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they did their job? Are all credit ratings groups corrupt? Why aren't you concerned about the corruption in today's Democrat Party that supported the sub prime mess? Do you ever accept responsibility for failure?
 
pbrauer said:
My credit score would determine that I'm a bad risk in paying my debts. Do you actually believe the U.S. is at risk paying it's debts? What about S&P's past where they rated toxic securities as AAA simply because they were be paid to do so by the blunders??????????????
Click to expand...

I honestly wonder whether most conservatives understand the basic difference between bond-based debt and loan-based debt.
 
Phys251 said:
I honestly wonder whether most conservatives understand the basic difference between bond-based debt and loan-based debt.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you understand what having a debt 100% of our GDP means? Apparently it doesn't matter when a Democrat creates it, right?
 
pbrauer said:
You ignore the fact that S&P is a corrupt organisation.
Click to expand...

Is that the new talking point? S&P is corrupt now. First it was the Tea Party's fault, now it's S&P's fault, it's always been the Republicans fault, and when Obama took office it was Bush's fault.

It's always someone or something elses fault isn't it? :lamo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom