• 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.
The bottom line for this thread is that the US suffered a downgrade in the rating of this country, and instead of studying the path that brought us he for the first time in nearly 100 years we have repubs politically assigning blame not totally without merit to Obama, and demos calling everyone names, and wanting to ramp up what pushed us over the edge...downright stupid if you ask me.


J-mac

American politics-what do you expect? Non partisan discussion is apparently too difficult.
 
For the first two years in office where was that opposition?

Not sure where you get your information but Bush hardly had a rubber stamp but when he did 2003-2006 the economic results were a lot different than 2007-2008 when it appears that the Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job in Congress.

Your opinion of what Bush actually did is skewed by a leftwing media that distorted his record. Bush had a 4.5 trillion increase in GDP and a net job gain in those 8 years along with a AAA credit rating but again Bush isn't the issue here. It becomes an issue when Obama supporters want to divert from the Obama record. Not going to allow that to happen. Here is the speech that will turn this economy around

Obama can reclaim his dignity with one speech - NYPOST.com

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.
 
so wait, you expect me to believe a source called "3chickspolitico" and if I don't, I have to disprove your unproven assertion?

:roll:

Btw, did you check out their "Obama Love" Page? Obama Love | 3CHICSPOLITICO

I don't expect you to refute any facts. I merely point to the dishonesty of your ad homs
 
Damn this sh*t is old... and rank. My fellow Americans leave me scratching my head yet again. All of you are well meaning, but you're not looking past the party pageantry and scenery to see that this is all just theater.

Carter this, Reagan that, Clinton... Bush... Obama...

The reality is folks, that not one administration, not one congress in many generations has lived within our budget. That means they've ALL failed us. All you lot are doing is jockeying for who failed us less...

... and that is NOT the conversation we should be having... if you can call endless, pointless finger pointing a conversation.

Here is another historical constant... If the government, particularly a segment of government (party, party faction or politician) is trying to sell you one thing, you can bet what's in the box ain't as advertised and is most often something else entirely.

Bet on it. Now there are some derivatives I could get behind! Short selling our politicians.

By all means, if that's the conversation you really want to have, who failed most, in EVERY FREAKIN ISSUE AND TOPIC, by all means, piss your lives away.

If you want things fixed this is the last conversation we should be having...

carry on...

I have tried pointing this out and it was like screaming into a void. No one genuinely seems to want a fix if it involves real genuine compromise.
 
Last edited:
Obama did not win the election
I like this perspective.

....Palin lost it for John.
I believe this is inaccurate. I looked at J. McCain and I saw statism. He is democrat-lite. Why vote for a slow crawl to socialism when you can vote for the real thing? And vote people did. The one term Marxist president Obama was going to redistribute wealth from the productive to the unproductive.







And the Obama supporters are drawn from the most knowledgeable, the wisest among us.



There were so many to choose from...

I did not vote. I preferred that the nation be brought to near destruction by a Democrat instead of a republican in name only.
 
Last edited:
Yep, a sour lib that don’t like abortion and packs heat when he go’s to work.:roll:
Okay. So you are a complicated...uh, liberal.

Better get a new crystal ball, the one your using is pretty well useless.:2wave:
I have to be nice to you. The moderator is about to give us a warning. It is your lucky day. :)
 
I have tried pointing this out and it was like screaming into a void. No one genuinely seems to want a fix if it involves real genuine compromise.

It doesn't require compromise. That is a Left v Right paradigm... and that is not the core issue. It's the People v Gov't, and in that, there can be no compromise. Any left v right compromises occur AFTER a unified correction to a gov't run amok.
 
It doesn't require compromise. That is a Left v Right paradigm... and that is not the core issue. It's the People v Gov't, and in that, there can be no compromise. Any left v right compromises occur AFTER a unified correction to a gov't run amok.

I can accept this. You do know that at the end of the day though, it will all be business as usual. I will listen to debates and know full what a candidate doesn't like about their opponent, but will still be wondering what their position is.

The process need an overhaul, getting rid of professional lifetime politicians, using a standard of common sense to mark a potential candidate instead of the groomed slick face we are presented with.
 
Thanks to Prof for refuting your claims of NY. You don't lose Congressional seats by gaining population

I am aware of how the math of the seat allocation system, kthx.

Further debt to GDP is why we have a down grade, it is almost 100% of GDP

I suggest you stop reading left wing sites, FIT revenue went UP after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were fully implemented as has been posted many times. You can get this information at BEA.gov

Oh so any source needs to have a right-wing tilt in order to be Fair & Balanced? Come on, dude, get real.

S&P: Debt default skeptics fueled ratings downgrade - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com
 
Regulations exist for the purposes of consumer protection and minimizing market failure. Of course, there are some that are complete nonsense (OSHA can be oppressive), but to invoke an all or nothing argument in favor of deregulation is just silly.
Shall we begin to repeal all of the regulations promulgated by the extra-constitutional departments like Education and the extra-constitutional agencies like the EPA? The economy would boom, children would quite possibly begin learning again and the power of the central government would be diminished.
 
Shall we begin to repeal all of the regulations promulgated by the extra-constitutional departments like Education and the extra-constitutional agencies like the EPA? The economy would boom, children would quite possibly begin learning again and the power of the central government would be diminished.

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?
 
Shall we begin to repeal all of the regulations promulgated by the extra-constitutional departments like Education and the extra-constitutional agencies like the EPA? The economy would boom, children would quite possibly begin learning again and the power of the central government would be diminished.

Are you suggesting that pollution regulations and air quality regulations be repealed? If so, children would quite possible die in their youth, rivers would burn and the cancer rate would skyrocket.

Investing in education is investing in the future. Or would you prefer illiterate and uneducated people further dragging the country into the Third World?
 
I can accept this. You do know that at the end of the day though, it will all be business as usual. I will listen to debates and know full what a candidate doesn't like about their opponent, but will still be wondering what their position is.

The process need an overhaul, getting rid of professional lifetime politicians, using a standard of common sense to mark a potential candidate instead of the groomed slick face we are presented with.



I don't have a problem with lifetime politicians. In fact, I would prefer the rare good ones remain in public service rather than become lobbyists.

Part of the problem is indeed groomed candidates.

At the end of the day, the problem is an armchair electorate that accepts lies and failures as business as usual whether they're hip to them or not...
 
Shall we begin to repeal all of the regulations promulgated by the extra-constitutional departments like Education and the extra-constitutional agencies like the EPA? The economy would boom, children would quite possibly begin learning again and the power of the central government would be diminished.

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.

Which is a good thing, because the states are pretty miserable when it comes to environmental protection.
 
Shall we begin to repeal all of the regulations promulgated by the extra-constitutional departments like Education and the extra-constitutional agencies like the EPA? The economy would boom, children would quite possibly begin learning again and the power of the central government would be diminished.

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.
 
The founders were far from perfect. See Slavery
I would say they were close to perfect. See slavery.

They reduced the political power of the slave-holding states by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person. It was brilliant given their inability to free the slaves until much later in our nation's history. They gave us a form of government that had the greatest chance of preserving our individual freedoms and liberties while being strong enough to keep the nation together and safe from external aggression.

But all nations have two tenancies. The first is the accumulation of power. The second is the accumulation of mediocrity. This nation has arrived at the first stage of tyranny. We have vast numbers of busybody bureaucrats churning out rules and regulations for us all to follow. Today there are 80,000. Here is a quote:

The size of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides a second yardstick of regulatory activity. Unlike the Federal Register, which is a catalog of regulatory changes, the CFR is a compendium of all existing regulations. In 2008, the CFR weighed in at 157,974 pages, having increased by 16,693 pages since the start of the George W. Bush Administration.[7] In 2009, the page count hit a record high of 163,333.
Red Tape Rising: Regulation in the Obama Era

Do we really need more than 50 agencies churning out 3-4K new rules each year? Those regulations cost businesses about a trillion dollars in compliance costs. Do you feel a trillion dollars safer? And the government busybodies are not content with making it impossible to buy the flush toilet or the light bulb I prefer. The number of federal crimes continues to grow as well. This is another indication that the soft tyranny will turn hard at some point.

We need to stop this now. Or our future will have a civil war or a revolution in it.
 
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.

Which is a good thing, because the states are pretty miserable when it comes to environmental protection.

There needs to be a balance between getting rid of stuff like the EPA and "responsible regulation". I put that term in brackets because different people candisagree about what is reasonable. That is the conversation that seems to be lacking to most Americans who are truly the great American middle.

Unfortunately neither party seems to be willing to take the flak from their extreme wings of their respective party and try to come up with solutions that work for most Americans.
 
And without that pesky EPA in the way, we will no longer have to endure the evils of clean air and water.

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!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom