• 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.
Misterveritis said:
To whom do the public sector union members pay their dues? And to whom do the public sector union thugs provide the political payoff in get out the vote efforts and donations? Can you think for just one moment (since you said you know how) how perverse it is to take taxpayer dollars from the productive to give it to public sector union members in order to shore up your base, all the while lying to the nation about "shovel ready jobs"?
Click to expand...

Dues are paid to the union. Payoff has a specific meaning, so you must prove something that meets that meaning. Donating to a party is not equal to a pay off.

BTW, you're not answering my point here. Let me repeat it:

Boo Radley said:
While I wish that teachers and policemen and fire figthers were all Obama's supporters, the fact is they are not so ideologically bent. Teachers, police officers, firefighters all vote for both democrats and conservatives. Some just see their jobs as important to all of us. And tha some who do include both liberals and conservatives.
Click to expand...


I took advantage of my sleep time to consolidate my learning gains. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned why you missed so much.:shrug:
 
Conservative said:
Again you buy the rhetoric without getting the facts, tell me who we were OBLIGATED to pay that we would have defaulted on? You want badly to buy what you are being told but the truth is we cannot afford a 3.7 trillion dollar govt. and it should have been cut drastically.
Click to expand...

Boy, that sure inspires confidence in our credit worthiness. F**k you buddy, I ain't gonna pay! Nice...

Someone wanna decode this post for me?
 
Boo Radley said:
The criteria should be the purpose the regulation serves.if the purpose is valid, so is the regulation.
Click to expand...

Okay. So you may believe that 80,000 regulations is just about the right amount. The people who actually make things happen disagree with you. Imagine the frustration evident in this quote:

At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts manufacturing executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government “throws sand into the gears of progress.”

Daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” he said.
Click to expand...

This is the one term Marxist president Obama's chief of staff. Are we doing well? Or are we doing poorly?
White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers - The Washington Post
 
Misterveritis said:
Okay. So you may believe that 80,000 regulations is just about the right amount. The people who actually make things happen disagree with you. Imagine the frustration evident in this quote:



This is the one term Marxist president Obama's chief of staff. Are we doing well? Or are we doing poorly?
White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Not what I said.I said each should be decided on their own. There is no specific number, but rather the regulation is in fact valid and needed.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Boy, that sure inspires confidence in our credit worthiness. F**k you buddy, I ain't gonna pay! Nice...

Someone wanna decode this post for me?
Click to expand...

How about checking with Obama and see how he defines default, took over GM/Chrysler and yet the bond holders and parts distributors were left holding the bag.

Why don't you change your leanings to what it really is, liberal, since your posts make about as much sense. Why don't you answer the question raised?
 
Conservative said:
How about checking with Obama and see how he defines default, took over GM/Chrysler and yet the bond holders and parts distributors were left holding the bag.

Why don't you change your leanings to what it really is, liberal, since your posts make about as much sense. Why don't you answer the question raised?
Click to expand...

Right, those poor creditors who ended up getting something, because of the bailout, as opposed to nothing, which is what they would have gotten without it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Very limited roles. The government did not create predatory lenders, many here argue for deregulating, and there are good reasons to encourage home ownership.
Click to expand...

While they did not create the predatory lenders they did know and were warned about what was about to happen and did nothing. Nobody complains about encouraging home ownership. You know that though.

There were still laws on the books they could have enforced but didn't. There are current laws on the books they are still refusing to enforce. If Blankfein, Mozilo, Ken Lewis and others had been held accountable for their actions, IMO the country wouldn't be so down on the economy.

But the real problems came from outside government. The greed of predatory lenders, for example, who played a larger role than government, contributed far more to this aspect. These lenders also were party to the problems internationally, as they used much the same methods loaning money abroad.
Click to expand...

The percentage IMO is less important than as noted above. They were not held accountable by anyone. Mozilo got a fine, but big deal.

I think our disagreement is one of degree.
Click to expand...

I think we both do agree that the blame falls all around. I don't really care to place percentages of blame.

True, but that is the nature of our system. And the 24 hour news cycle makes every day part of the election cycle.
Click to expand...

This is where we are to blame. We do not hold the politicians liable for their actions the way we should. There really is no justification for anyone who has held office for more than an election or two to still have a job.
 
Boo Radley said:
What either one of us believes is irrelevent. Instead you must show either need or lack of need for a specific regulation.
Click to expand...
I propose we go the other way. For each of the 80,000 regulations the busybody bureaucrats have created let's have an independent panel review the regulation, its costs, its benefits and then let's allow the voters to decide. Let us ask the voters if they really want to pay another $2K for a car that meets some busybody bureaucrat's idea of how the car should be manufactured. Let's ask the voters to decide if they want to pay more for groceries because some idiotic, unaccountable bureaucrat thinks protecting a fish is more important.

Taking a page from our political opponents page let's publish the names and addresses of those faceless, nameless busybody bureaucrats...
 
Boo Radley said:
The question is how limited?
Click to expand...
Constitutionally? If it is there it is in. If it is not there then don't pretend it is. That is how limited. Powers not specifically granted are reserved to the states or to the people.
Boo Radley said:
Many spew the words concerning constitutionality without including the 200 years of history we have since it was written. How do we know you have the correct view of the constitution?
Click to expand...
I can read. And although I make no special claims, I can think.
So can others.
 
1Perry said:
While they did not create the predatory lenders they did know and were warned about what was about to happen and did nothing. Nobody complains about encouraging home ownership. You know that though.

There were still laws on the books they could have enforced but didn't. There are current laws on the books they are still refusing to enforce. If Blankfein, Mozilo, Ken Lewis and others had been held accountable for their actions, IMO the country wouldn't be so down on the economy.
Click to expand...

Yes, there were warnings. And yes, they could have enforced laws and didn't. But what you advocate in many ways is more control from government, while many conservatives are arguing for less control.

This is but one period in time, and but one set of examples. If government had the power to cntrol the economy, especially when elections ride on how good it is, they would in fact always keep it running. They can do some helpful and hurtful things, but largely depend on the private sector to keep it going, and know that realistically, there is bound to be ups and downs. The idea that government is to blame when the economy is down, and that government is the reason when it is booming, I believe, must be fought.


The percentage IMO is less important than as noted above. They were not held accountable by anyone. Mozilo got a fine, but big deal.
Click to expand...

While, as I've said before, I agree with accountability, I think the precentage is important, as it effects how we view government. If you think government controls the economy, you will seek a government fix and hold unresonable expectations, as well as giving credit where credit isn't due/


I think we both do agree that the blame falls all around. I don't really care to place percentages of blame.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. But the percentage I speak of has to do with control and not blame.


This is where we are to blame. We do not hold the politicians liable for their actions the way we should. There really is no justification for anyone who has held office for more than an election or two to still have a job.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with you here.
 
Misterveritis said:
Constitutionally? If it is there it is in. If it is not there then don't pretend it is. That is how limited. Powers not specifically granted are reserved to the states or to the people.

I can read. And although I make no special claims, I can think.
So can others.
Click to expand...

I have never said others can't. I worry about anyone spewing Marxist nonsense, but I think there are many out there who can think. But, many have read all kinds of documents and reach incorrect conclusions. This is true of intelligent well read people as well. So, with no intended insult, how do you know you have it exactly right?
 
Conservative said:
How about checking with Obama and see how he defines default, took over GM/Chrysler and yet the bond holders and parts distributors were left holding the bag.

Why don't you change your leanings to what it really is, liberal, since your posts make about as much sense. Why don't you answer the question raised?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry... what is it the bond holders would have gotten had he not stepped in? Oh... right... same squat.

Nice try to spin. Your flailing about does not make me a liberal...

The only reason my posts don't make sense to you is that you appear to be neck deep in conservative talking points and unable to address the issues outside of the way it's framed for you.

My conservative principles say, fly or fall of your own doing. The automakers and the banks should have been allowed to fail, as that was their making. Period. Neither Bush nor Obama should have kneejerked into bailouts, but rather let them fail.
 
Misterveritis said:
I propose we go the other way. For each of the 80,000 regulations the busybody bureaucrats have created let's have an independent panel review the regulation, its costs, its benefits and then let's allow the voters to decide. Let us ask the voters if they really want to pay another $2K for a car that meets some busybody bureaucrat's idea of how the car should be manufactured. Let's ask the voters to decide if they want to pay more for groceries because some idiotic, unaccountable bureaucrat thinks protecting a fish is more important.

Taking a page from our political opponents page let's publish the names and addresses of those faceless, nameless busybody bureaucrats...
Click to expand...

Review is fine.But what will you say if after reveiw, they remain?

And as for publishing names, for what purpose? Do you suspect a conflict of interest? I would agree to that type of concerning being addressed, but not for trying to intimidate.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is no specific number, but rather the regulation is in fact valid and needed.
Click to expand...

which one of the "overwhelming number" of em was chief of staff referring---do you think?

LOL!
 
Boo Radley said:
The government did not create predatory lenders,
Click to expand...
Maybe not the way you think about it. The government did encourage groups like ACORN backed by the Justice Department and other instrument of political power, to coerce lenders into making loans they knew could not be repaid. Affirmative action lending was all the rage. For months we heard of how evil the banks were for redlining neighborhoods. We were told the bankers were <add conspiratorial whisper here> "racists".

But they weren't. They were assessing risk.

Boo Radley said:
many here argue for deregulating, and there are good reasons to encourage home ownership.
Click to expand...
Sure. But ownership based on the ability to pay for the home. Not on someone's ability to coerce a bank into making an affirmative action loan in the first place. ACORN, the Democrats, and the one term community organizing Marxist president Obama, have much of the blame for the 2008 collapse.

Boo Radley said:
But the real problems came from outside government.
Click to expand...
This is similar for blaming a rape victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can one escape the Federal government's coercive measures?
 
AdamT said:
as opposed to nothing, which is what they would have gotten without it.
Click to expand...

they would have gotten NOTHING?

LOL!

this is what comes from letting that rant to link ratio get outta control
 
Misterveritis said:
Maybe not the way you think about it. The government did encourage groups like ACORN backed by the Justice Department and other instrument of political power, to coerce lenders into making loans they knew could not be repaid. Affirmative action lending was all the rage. For months we heard of how evil the banks were for redlining neighborhoods. We were told the bankers were <add conspiratorial whisper here> "racists".

But they weren't. They were assessing risk.
Click to expand...

You might want to be careful here. I doubt race played any role in this. If you want to discuss the other issue, we can do that elsewhere with the proper foundation laid.

Predatory lenders knew the risk, which is why they moved it on down the line. This was not a case of lack of knowledge, but of an intent to get rich before anyone caught on to what they were doing.

Sure. But ownership based on the ability to pay for the home. Not on someone's ability to coerce a bank into making an affirmative action loan in the first place. ACORN, the Democrats, and the one term community organizing Marxist president Obama, have much of the blame for the 2008 collapse.
Click to expand...

No one coerced banks to make a loan. OWhile I wish that teachers and policemen and fire figthers were all Obama's supporters, the fact is they are not so ideologically bent. Teachers, police officers, firefighters all vote for both democrats and conservatives. Some just see their jobs as important to all of us. And tha some who do include both liberals and conservatives.
Predatory lenders did so willingly, knowing exactly what they doing. And again, race had little to do with it.

This is similar for blaming a rape victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can one escape the Federal government's coercive measures?
Click to expand...

That's an incredibily illogical leap there.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Dues are paid to the union. Payoff has a specific meaning, so you must prove something that meets that meaning. Donating to a party is not equal to a pay off.
Click to expand...
Are you disagreeing that public sector unions did provide get out the vote efforts and political donations to democrats?

Here are some indicators that you may have missed:

Reprinted with permission from usACTIONnews.com

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” -Rep. Michael Capuano

Battle lines are being drawn as America wakes up to the fact that unions have been in bed with politicians to inflate the size and cost of government at all levels. The cozy relationship amounts to a scheme to steal billions from taxpayers and is bankrupting cities and states.

Matt Murphy at Dorchester Reporter reports how one such union capo, Rep. Michael Capuano is telling the union members to “get out on the streets and get a little bloody”.

Capuano is a good example of the incestuous relationship between unions and the politicians they own. Capuano has recieved almost $900,000 from unions and that does not count the help with phone banks, get out the vote efforts, and boots on the ground help by union members.

According to OpenSecrets.org Capuano’s union dollars break down like this:

Transportation unions $242,450
Public sector unions $204,650
Building trade unions $176,750
Industrial unions $169,250
Misc unions $ 91,250
But Capuano is not alone by any means. Twelve of the top twenty heavy hitters in campaign contributions are unions. All twelve give over 90% to Democrats.
Click to expand...
Organized Labor Party » 2011 » February

Boo Radley said:
BTW, you're not answering my point here. Let me repeat it:
Click to expand...

Your point is interesting but not relevant. It matters little the politics of the person who is first in the chain of cleansing money coerced out of the productive and ultimately ending in the campaign coffers of democrat politicians.

Boo Radley said:
I'm more concerned why you missed so much.:shrug:
Click to expand...
Try not to worry your pretty little head over adult matters.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, there were warnings. And yes, they could have enforced laws and didn't. But what you advocate in many ways is more control from government, while many conservatives are arguing for less control.
Click to expand...

Even if I disagree with a law, I believe the government should enforce it. They put it there. Enforce it.

This is but one period in time, and but one set of examples. If government had the power to cntrol the economy, especially when elections ride on how good it is, they would in fact always keep it running. They can do some helpful and hurtful things, but largely depend on the private sector to keep it going, and know that realistically, there is bound to be ups and downs. The idea that government is to blame when the economy is down, and that government is the reason when it is booming, I believe, must be fought.
Click to expand...

The idea that they are "the" reason is wrong. I believe we agree that blame falls in many places.

While, as I've said before, I agree with accountability, I think the precentage is important, as it effects how we view government. If you think government controls the economy, you will seek a government fix and hold unresonable expectations, as well as giving credit where credit isn't due/
Click to expand...

Again, we agree that those who see things as only one sided are wrong.

Yes we do. But the percentage I speak of has to do with control and not blame.
Click to expand...

I think that's only going to lead to more dissention. No, it's 45% the governments fault. No, it's only 22%. No I disagree, it's 63%.

I largely agree with you here.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom