• 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!

Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, negativ

Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Just to say that Reagan raised the debt is not good enough. Now I know that libs didn't like the downfall of communism in the USSR, but I never knew how much until now...
What were you saying about using opinions in lieu of ya know.. facts? Filing this one under the "opinion" category would be quite kind. I could think of several other labels that would be far more accurate.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

No it's not. It's basically the SAME thing as 97% of GDP. You've simply adopted the stupid right wing talking point of claiming 98% is bad but 101% is certain death.

Singapore is over 100%. Japan is over 200%. Look around, get some facts, wean off the right wing talk media teat.

So, in your view, all is well with running 40% federal deficits "until things get better"?
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Oh YOU think he's right? You do? Well, call the press, stop the country, and hit the airwaves with a "Breaking News" special report....Ditto agrees with Sheik Yerbuti on something....Man, I never saw that one coming.....:roll: Oh, and BTW, just because you agree with him doesn't make it fact either....

He believes that "prosperity of the level I believe you're talking about is still years away"

fact one. He believes that.

"prosperity of the level I believe you're talking about is still years away"

Opinion. One we share, but still an opinion. Do you have a different opinion on that matter?

"but I also believe it has nothing to do with who will be president."

Fact: He believes this.

"it has nothing to do with who will be president"

Opinion. I know yours is different.



And what was the reason behind that one? IIRC, at the time we were spending like wild on defense, pushing the USSR to do the same which ultimately caused them to fall. Remember context means everything. Just to say that Reagan raised the debt is not good enough. Now I know that libs didn't like the downfall of communism in the USSR, but I never knew how much until now...

Fact: The USSR fell before Bush became president.

Fact: The discussion was about the housing market, not about deficit spending.

Opinion (mine): Bush is not to blame for the housing market crash.
Opinion (Sheik's): Bush is to blame for the housing market crash.

Whose opinion do you share?

Hmmm....Checking again....Nope, not a single link....So no, regardless of what you think Ditto, your opinion means opinion, not fact.

j-mac

Keep checking. He's providing them for your perusal.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

And what was the reason behind that one? IIRC, at the time we were spending like wild on defense, pushing the USSR to do the same which ultimately caused them to fall. Remember context means everything. Just to say that Reagan raised the debt is not good enough. Now I know that libs didn't like the downfall of communism in the USSR, but I never knew how much until now...
The dumbest story ever told by the right was that the Soviet Union collapsed because it bankrupted itself trying to keep its defenses up with the U.S. When in fact, Gorbachev knew that would happen and sought to avoid it.

:roll::roll::roll:

Glasnost and perestroika were the biggest contributors to the downfall of the Soviet Union. No doubt the arms race contributed to hurting their economy, but so did Chernobyl and their 10 year war in Afghanistan. And their economy was already hurting before then.

By the way, the biggest evidence that Reagan didn't defeat the Soviet Union is easily found in the fact that their failed economy wasn't the only reason the U.S.S.R. collapsed; but also political (perestroika).


globalsecurity said:
Mikhail S. Gorbachev entered office in March 1985 determined to scrap old assumptions about Soviet foreign policy. He had drawn lessons from the return of Cold War tensions in the early 1980s -- and they scared him. The "old thinking" believed that the USSR would emerge victorious in the Cold War if it continued building up its arsenal and fostering "progressive" regimes in the Third World in places like Angola, Ethiopia, and especially Afghanistan. Gorbachev's "new thinking" sought to reorganize and revitalize the Soviet system; but to do so required a favorable international situation to relieve the material burden of arms competition with the West.

The first step in the end of the Cold War came when Mikhail S. Gorbachev implicitly abandoned the Brezhnev Doctrine. On 14 April 1988, the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the United States and Soviet Union serving as guarantors, signed an agreement known as the Geneva accords. This included five major documents, which, among other things, establishe a timetable that ensured full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan by 15 February 1989. Gorbachev demanded that the retreat be orderly and dignified -- he didn't want television images reminiscent of the chaotic 1975 US pullout from Vietnam. "We must not appear before the world in our underwear or even without any," he told the Politburo inner circle. "A defeatist position is not possible." The withdrawal was intended as a sign of conciliation toward the West and reassurance to the East Europeans, but it encouraged others to challenge Soviet power.

The second act of the drama began in the fall of 1989 with peaceful revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe (except Romania) and the fall of the Soviet "outer empire." Shortly after Poland's electorate voted the Communists out of government in June 1989, Gorbachev announced that the Soviet Union would not interfere with the internal affairs of the Eastern European countries. By October, Hungary and Czechoslovakia followed Poland's example.

On 09 November 1989, the East German Government opened the Berlin Wall. East Germany, the center of contention throughout the Cold War, was united with West Germany and integrated into NATO. As one historian noted, in Poland communism took ten years, in Hungary ten months, in East Germany ten weeks, and in Czechoslovakia ten days to disappear. In Romania -- the bloody exception to the rule of peaceful transition -- the end came with the execution of Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife on Christmas Day. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact a year later plus the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe [that substantially reduced Soviet superiority in conventional forces in Europe] resulted in a stronger Western alliance -- so strong that the US could redeploy forces from Europe to the Persian Gulf for use against Iraq.

The third and final act closed with the 1991 dissolution of the USSR. By 1989 Gorbachev's domestic reforms had run into serious trouble, and the economy went into a tailspin. The centrifugal forces in the "outer empire" stimulated and accelerated those in the "inner empire", as the Soviet republics sought sovereignty and then independence. As the center disintegrated and Gorbachev opened up the political process with glasnost (openness), the old communist "barons" in the republics saw the handwriting on the wall and became nationalists; they "first of all attacked the USSR government . . . and subsequently destroyed the USSR." Asked when he decided to secede from the USSR, Ukrainian party boss Leonid Kravchuk replied: "1989" [he did so in mid-1990]. Each of the USSR's republics, as they declared independence or sovereignty, also adopted statements by the republic leaderships on service in the armed forces, including the creation of their own military forces.


Collapse of the Soviet Union - 1989-1991
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

We are now at levels of debt, and deficit, relative to GDP, that are far beyond anything Reagan, or any other President. Your statement was completely unfounded.
FY 2011 deficit is 8.7% of GDP.
FY 1983 deficit was 6.0% of GDP. Tickle-me Reagan was president in 1983, for the historically challenged.

8.7% is "far beyond" 6.0%? You sure?

Highest annual deficit as a percentage of GDP was FY 1943: 30.3% (falling to a mere 21.5% in 1945). (source: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary )

Gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP averaged 104.6% for the period 1944-1950 (for FY 2011 it's 102.6%) (source: Federal Debt 1940-2017)

It appears quite conclusive that your statement was completely unfounded.

As a side note, I now await the right to tells us we're not fighting an overseas war :mrgreen:
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Close, but not quite the levels we reached immediately following WW2.

67128951d1339339117-obama-says-private-sector-doing-fine-then-standard-and-poor-keeps-downgrade-negativ-debtgdp.jpg

Ooh! Ooh! Look how that debt spiked up after tickle-me Reagan got into office!!! Bad Ronnie... baaaaad Ronnie! :shock:
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

I don;t recall Regan being $16 trillion in debt and with nothing on the horizon but more debt. [...]
How could you miss the graph that Hare posted?

Close, but not quite the levels we reached immediately following WW2.

67128951d1339339117-obama-says-private-sector-doing-fine-then-standard-and-poor-keeps-downgrade-negativ-debtgdp.jpg

What do you see beginning in 1981? Doesn't it look a lot like nothing on the horizon but more debt?

At least until Clinton could bring it under control, but then Bush II drove us off a neo-con cliff again :shock:

It was still nowhere near $16 trillion dollars and there was obviously an end in sight. [...]
Yes. That end was Democrat president Bill Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Debt on the scale we now have (over 100% of GDP) is a NEW thing. [...]
No it's not. It's basically the SAME thing as 97% of GDP. You've simply adopted the stupid right wing talking point of claiming 98% is bad but 101% is certain death. Singapore is over 100%. Japan is over 200%. Look around, get some facts, wean off the right wing talk media teat.
So, in your view, all is well with running 40% federal deficits "until things get better"?
Since I'm sure you meant to say "yes, I see your point -- my bad", I will wait until you edit your post and then say "thank you, don't sweat it" :mrgreen:
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

How could you miss the graph that Hare posted?



What do you see beginning in 1981? Doesn't it look a lot like nothing on the horizon but more debt?

At least until Clinton could bring it under control, but then Bush II drove us off a neo-con cliff again :shock:


Yes. That end was Democrat president Bill Clinton.

As a percent of GDP, Bush was fine with deficits. So was Reagan. That is what your graph shows. What the graph also shows is that Obama is taking it off a cliff. With no results to show except failure.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

So trickle down doesn't work.

If it doesn't work for you then it's your own fault.

You sound like a typical liberal democrat who expects too much money for your blue collar job.

If union members and blue collar workers were willing to take meaningful pay cuts, we wouldn't have to send those jobs to China.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Since I'm sure you meant to say "yes, I see your point -- my bad", I will wait until you edit your post and then say "thank you, don't sweat it" :mrgreen:

From 2000-2008 we added $5T to the national debt, making it increase from $6T to $11T, then from 2008-2012 we added $5T to the national debt (twice the rate of debt increase), making it increase from $11T to $16T. It may not bother you but we have more than TRIPLED the national debt in 12 years, from under 33% of GDP (in 2000) to over 100% of GDP (in 2012) hardly the "small potatoes" or "no big deal" TREND that you wish it to be. At what point would you start to worry about it? Let me guess - when the GOP takes over control of the federal gov't? I also think it clever of you, to use today as your level of the 2012 national debt, even as it goes up every minute of every hour of every day. Yes he did! ;-)
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

So, when are we going to be able to quit pointing fingers and arguing over who was the worst at running up the debt, and begin to seek practical ways to actually start reducing it?

Ever?

After the voters have finally become fed up enough to replace the whole of Congress?

After the economy collapses?

When?
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

So, when are we going to be able to quit pointing fingers and arguing over who was the worst at running up the debt, and begin to seek practical ways to actually start reducing it?

Ever?

After the voters have finally become fed up enough to replace the whole of Congress?

After the economy collapses?

When?

Being Santa Claus is better than being the Grinch politically, for sure. Neither party dare try any plan that would shift any block of voters to the other party/candidate. The classic stalemate is in effect, no budget dare be offered so we get "continuing resolutions", stupid committees and ten year plans that back load any real changes to after the next, next election. The senate has no such "options" with their six year terms, so Reid just keeps any such bills from hitting the senate floor, maintaining the "go along as we are" big spending policy yet trying to blame the GOP even though the demorats still control the senate. It is indeed a mess as we continue to "kick the can down the road". USA, USA, USA...
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

So, when are we going to be able to quit pointing fingers and arguing over who was the worst at running up the debt, and begin to seek practical ways to actually start reducing it?

Ever?

After the voters have finally become fed up enough to replace the whole of Congress?

After the economy collapses?

When?

Well, Obama appointed a debt commission, and then showed what a fake he was by ignoring all of it.

So if Romney wins, and the Repubs get the Senate, and he just tapdances, then he'll get an ass-whupping from the Tea Patry right before 2016.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

How could you miss the graph that Hare posted?

What do you see beginning in 1981? Doesn't it look a lot like nothing on the horizon but more debt?

At least until Clinton could bring it under control, but then Bush II drove us off a neo-con cliff again :shock:


Yes. That end was Democrat president Bill Clinton.

There was no evidence that it went to $16 trillion.

Bill Clinton got control of the debt? Hardly. This is the guy who put his wife in front of organizing a national health care system, surely the greatest act of nepotism in modern history and subsequently know as Hillarycare, which was subsequently voted down by the Republican Congress. It's that Congress who you want to thank.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Being Santa Claus is better than being the Grinch politically, for sure. Neither party dare try any plan that would shift any block of voters to the other party/candidate. The classic stalemate is in effect, no budget dare be offered so we get "continuing resolutions", stupid committees and ten year plans that back load any real changes to after the next, next election. The senate has no such "options" with their six year terms, so Reid just keeps any such bills from hitting the senate floor, maintaining the "go along as we are" big spending policy yet trying to blame the GOP even though the demorats still control the senate. It is indeed a mess as we continue to "kick the can down the road". USA, USA, USA...

It all goes back to 'getting the government you deserve'.

If this present generation thinks they can spend their way into prosperity then everyone will eventually pay, including future Americans. Fiscal ignorance does not go unpunished.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Well, Obama appointed a debt commission, and then showed what a fake he was by ignoring all of it.

So if Romney wins, and the Repubs get the Senate, and he just tapdances, then he'll get an ass-whupping from the Tea Patry right before 2016.

Right, but how many do-overs are there until a responsible adult is elected? A lot depends on Romney.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Well, Obama appointed a debt commission, and then showed what a fake he was by ignoring all of it.

So if Romney wins, and the Repubs get the Senate, and he just tapdances, then he'll get an ass-whupping from the Tea Patry right before 2016.

Um hmm, sure he will.

Just like Obama got an "ass-whupping" from the Tea party.

So far, "blame the other party" is the only plan anyone seems to have come up with to deal with this problem.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Um hmm, sure he will.

Just like Obama got an "ass-whupping" from the Tea party.

So far, "blame the other party" is the only plan anyone seems to have come up with to deal with this problem.

That's certainly the case with the incumbent and his supporters. Perhaps the next president can do better, but with the hand he's been dealt that's going to be difficult.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Um hmm, sure he will.

Just like Obama got an "ass-whupping" from the Tea party.

So far, "blame the other party" is the only plan anyone seems to have come up with to deal with this problem.


so what's your plan Ditto? Keep Obama? Vote for Gary Johnson knowing he can't win, which is a vote for Obama? Or get someone that has a track record of turning around large financial messes?

j-mac
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

so what's your plan Ditto? Keep Obama? Vote for Gary Johnson knowing he can't win, which is a vote for Obama? Or get someone that has a track record of turning around large financial messes?

j-mac

Just a point here...I could vote for for Santa Clause Noam chomsky Ron Paul and it won't make a bit of difference in the State I live in.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Just a point here...I could vote for for Santa Clause Noam chomsky Ron Paul and it won't make a bit of difference in the State I live in.

You could turn into one of those Libertarians who want runoff elections.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

I was listening to obamas speech today while working and when he said that I dropped everything and thought WTF, did he really just say the private sector is doing fine? Then he said it again. This guy is completely out of touch with reality, it is almost scary.


Just hours after President Obama declared the private sector was "doing fine" -- a comment from which he later backed away -- one of the nation's major credit rating agencies affirmed neither the private nor public sector was flourishing.
Standard & Poor’s affirmed its long-term credit rating on the United States at AA+ and said its outlook remains negative.

The credit agency made the announcement after Obama's said Friday morning that the private sector is "doing fine" and that the GOP Congress is slowing down the economy. It was immediately pounced on by Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders, resulting in the president backpedaling by the afternoon.


Read more: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, negative outlook | Fox News

head-in-the-sand1.jpeg
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Funny, only a true believer partisan would think a fellow traveler partisan is winning an argument based solely on opinion...:lol:


j-mac

Are you really going to be the one to call anyone else partisan? Oh the hypocrisy.
 
Re: Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, neg

Obama wants more gov employees? THAT will fix the economy? 38000 more fed employees on his watch isn't enough????????????

"First, let’s look at federal government employment, which accounts for just 13 percent of all government employment. The number of federal workers has increased by 38,000 over the same period -- an increase of 1.4 percent.

And if you separate out the U.S. Postal Service, the growth was even bigger. Non-postal federal employment -- about 10 percent of all government employment -- increased over the same period by 139,000 workers, or 6.7 percent."

PolitiFact | Paul Krugman says government jobs have fallen by half million since January 2009
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom