• 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!

S&P tells White House it will downgrade U.S. rating

MrVicchio said:
I'm aware of this.

However, the military is 20% of our spending, Social Spending is 55-60%. Which will have more effect on our debt?
Click to expand...

The question was if the cuts should include military. I said it should include military.
 
American said:
Well what do you expect with those piddly-ass spending cuts? It makes me sick when I think of the pure coward sons of bitches we have up there, who see the sky falling yet still vote to stay elected. We have debt over our ears, and people are fighting for their freaking social security checks while the country is going financially bankrupt. The budget deal didn't do ****, as you can see by our AA-plus rating. This day was predicted long ago. The entitlements is was is ****ing this country up.
Click to expand...

You do understand that part of the reason for the downgrade is because of the clear rifts in the American political system have spilled over into this partisan bickering which lead to this deal.

The lack of spending cuts is one thing.

The lack of political leadership and swift prosecution of responsible fiscal policy is the other.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You do understand that part of the reason for the downgrade is because of the clear rifts in the American political system have spilled over into this partisan bickering which lead to this deal.

The lack of spending cuts is one thing.

The lack of political leadership and swift prosecution of responsible fiscal policy is the other.
Click to expand...

So in other words, the lack of the republicans to be able to get what they wanted done is the reason?

Got it. And lovin' it, too. :mrgreen:
 
Jetboogieman said:
All makes for a great campaign slogan but here's another question.

How are you going to make this happen?
Click to expand...

Cause we are Americans and Americans can't make anything happen anymore like pass a debt ceiling agreement on time.
 
SheWolf said:
Cause we are Americans and Americans can't make anything happen anymore like pass a debt ceiling agreement on time.
Click to expand...

Or a budget even when you control all three branches.
 
MrVicchio said:
The solution is massive reductions in spending across the board. MASSIVE spending cuts.
Click to expand...
If our income to debt ration were the reason for the downgrade, why didn't it happen once our income to debt ration became what it is?
Is it possible that the downgrade is because we flirted with default?
 
Well, obviously it is very bad news, but if there is a silver lining, it is that hopefully it will force the Republicans to stop fighting against revenue increases and military cuts and we can actually get down to business on the deficit.
 
Quick question for people who know more about economics than me.

If S & P's are really the same douches (along with their two buddies) who caused the financial collapse by giving AAA ratings to the subprime loan bundless, why the **** are they being taken seriously about anything?

I mean that. It does not take a genius to know that sub-prime loans, regardless of their packaging, are extremely risky investments. They not only dropped the ball, but they deliberately tossed it to the ground and then raped it repeatedly.

If I ****ed up at my job to that degree, I'd be fired. Without a doubt. Yet these three companies still exist. Something is astronomically ****ed up about that.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If our income to debt ration were the reason for the downgrade, why didn't it happen once our income to debt ration became what it is?
Is it possible that the downgrade is because we flirted with default?
Click to expand...

We didn't flirt with default. We were under absolutely no risk of defaulting. Now if you want to argue that politicians running aound "default, default, default" even though they knew it wasn't going to happen played a role, well I'll listen to that arguement.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
To be fair, he seems to have said that in April under the assumption that Congress would get it sorted a little sooner than they did.
Click to expand...

He was wrong, right?
 
teamosil said:
Well, obviously it is very bad news, but if there is a silver lining, it is that hopefully it will force the Republicans to stop fighting against revenue increases and military cuts and we can actually get down to business on the deficit.
Click to expand...

With plenty of people like yourself around it's unlikely. The problem is less with partisan politicians than it is those who will excuse them. It's the fault of BOTH sides and until everyone is willing to accept that and that all must give up something, it will indeed get worse.
 
1Perry said:
We didn't flirt with default. We were under absolutely no risk of defaulting. Now if you want to argue that politicians running aound "default, default, default" even though they knew it wasn't going to happen played a role, well I'll listen to that arguement.
Click to expand...
What you think the US did or didn't do isn't as important as what our creditors think we did or didn't do. There seems to be a consensus among them that we talked about getting into a situation where our monthly receipts would not cover our monthly expenses and thus we wouldn't be able to pay certain expenses. We use a fair amount of borrowing to meet regularly occurring expenses.

You can call it w/e you happen to prefer to call it. The gist is we talked about not paying people we owed money to.
 
1Perry said:
With plenty of people like yourself around it's unlikely. The problem is less with partisan politicians than it is those who will excuse them. It's the fault of BOTH sides and until everyone is willing to accept that and that all must give up something, it will indeed get worse.
Click to expand...

I think the Democrats have accepted the idea that everybody needs to give up something, but the Republicans haven't. The Democrats have accepted that there need to be entitlement cuts, but they know that there also need to be military cuts and revenue increases. We just can't possibly win the fight with an arm tied behind our back as a nation. The rich need to pitch in just like the middle class and the poor. The military needs to tighten its belt just like domestic programs do.
 
teamosil said:
I think the Democrats have accepted the idea that everybody needs to give up something, but the Republicans haven't.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Pelosi argued over and over that entitlements will not be touched.


Nancy Pelosi: No entitlement cuts

Nancy Pelosi: No entitlement cuts - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

Liberal Democrats to Obama: No cuts to entitlements

Liberal Democrats to Obama: No cuts to entitlements – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Olbermann Scolds Obama: Entitlement Cuts ‘A Betrayal of Who You Are’

Granted, this one is easy to dismiss.

Olbermann Scolds Obama: Entitlement Cuts ‘A Betrayal of Who You Are’ | Video | TheBlaze.com
 
Tucker Case said:
Quick question for people who know more about economics than me.

If S & P's are really the same douches (along with their two buddies) who caused the financial collapse by giving AAA ratings to the subprime loan bundless, why the **** are they being taken seriously about anything?

I mean that. It does not take a genius to know that sub-prime loans, regardless of their packaging, are extremely risky investments. They not only dropped the ball, but they deliberately tossed it to the ground and then raped it repeatedly.

If I ****ed up at my job to that degree, I'd be fired. Without a doubt. Yet these three companies still exist. Something is astronomically ****ed up about that.
Click to expand...

Probably because S&P didn't have **** to do with causing the recession.
 
teamosil said:
I think the Democrats have accepted the idea that everybody needs to give up something, but the Republicans haven't. The Democrats have accepted that there need to be entitlement cuts, but they know that there also need to be military cuts and revenue increases. We just can't possibly win the fight with an arm tied behind our back as a nation. The rich need to pitch in just like the middle class and the poor. The military needs to tighten its belt just like domestic programs do.
Click to expand...

democrats and republicans did not agree to cut spending, all they agreed to was to slightly reduce the increase in spending, and called that a spending cut.

doublespeak at its finest.
 
1Perry said:
Bull****. Pelosi argued over and over that entitlements will not be touched.


Nancy Pelosi: No entitlement cuts

Nancy Pelosi: No entitlement cuts - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

Liberal Democrats to Obama: No cuts to entitlements

Liberal Democrats to Obama: No cuts to entitlements – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Olbermann Scolds Obama: Entitlement Cuts ‘A Betrayal of Who You Are’

Granted, this one is easy to dismiss.

Olbermann Scolds Obama: Entitlement Cuts ‘A Betrayal of Who You Are’ | Video | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

Yeah, certainly some democrats didn't want entitlement cuts, but the party as a whole obviously agreed to them. The Democrats made a number of proposals that involved more total deficit reduction than we ended up with and which included about the same level of entitlement cuts as the Republicans were proposing.
 
apdst said:
Probably because S&P didn't have **** to do with causing the recession.
Click to expand...

Of course they did. They weren't the "cause" but they certainly played a role.
 
teamosil said:
Yeah, certainly some democrats didn't want entitlement cuts, but the party as a whole obviously agreed to them. The Democrats made a number of proposals that involved more total deficit reduction than we ended up with and which included about the same level of entitlement cuts as the Republicans were proposing.
Click to expand...

There have been no cuts. Let's see what happens when it comes to actually voting for them. The party as a whole didn't agree to cuts. Reid broached the subject but that's hardly the party agreeing to them.
 
1Perry said:
There have been no cuts. Let's see what happens when it comes to actually voting for them. The party as a whole didn't agree to cuts.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean, but there have certainly been cuts. For example, I just got an email from my law school yesterday saying that as of next year there aren't any subsidized federal loans for graduate students because of the debt ceiling deal.
 
teamosil said:
I'm not sure what you mean, but there have certainly been cuts. For example, I just got an email from my law school yesterday saying that as of next year there aren't any subsidized federal loans for graduate students because of the debt ceiling deal.
Click to expand...

I know both discussed this and while it might have been a part of the end plan I haven't seen it but that's really not what the left was condemning in the articles above and it's a pittance overall.
 
1Perry said:
I know both discussed this and while it might have been a part of the end plan I haven't seen it but that's really not what the left was condemning in the articles above and it's a pittance overall.
Click to expand...

The total is $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. That isn't as much as we need. Democrats had proposed $4 trillion over 10 years. But it definitely isn't a pittance either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom