• 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.
It's time to stop divisively arguing the theater being presented to us and rip back the backdrops to expose the reality now that we usually only find out about decades later.

I think if people actually understood the unbelievable gravity and seriousness of the reality of the situation... the whole system may just collapse.
 
And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

Adam, you sure have very low standards when it comes to a Democrat. I doubt you would have been so kind to a republican. Seems that worse unemployment, higher debt, credit downgrade is an improvement in your world. Wonder why liberals have little credibility?
 
rulings%2Ftom-mostlyfalse.gif


New York state actually gained population in the last decade. They did lose about 700,000 people due to net migration, however. But the fact that California did not--look at the electoral college, they did not lose a single vote this time around--and the fact that several other states in the Northeast and the Midwest are losing population, suggests that there are far bigger factors at play here, probably the economy and the weather.

Furthermore, your assumption that "liberals hate the rich" is a strawman. Most of us never said anything more than the fact that the rich are more easily able to support this great nation. Unless, of course, it is to cease to be great.



We really, really, really need to get away from looking at just the debt number itself. It is highly misleading. Of far greater importance is our Debt-to-GDP ratio.



Uh, am I missing something here? I learned in school that if you take a positive number and subtract another positive number from it, the result is smaller than the first number. You wanna explain to me how a-b > a when b>0?

Thanks to Prof for refuting your claims of NY. You don't lose Congressional seats by gaining population

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

FIT Revenue by year, bea.gov

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

1980 298.9
1981 345.2
1982 354.1
1983 352.3
1984 377.4
1985 417.3
1986 437.2
1987 489.1
1988 504.9
1989 566.1
 
Last edited:
Adam, you sure have very low standards when it comes to a Democrat. I doubt you would have been so kind to a republican. Seems that worse unemployment, higher debt, credit downgrade is an improvement in your world. Wonder why liberals have little credibility?

Neither side has any cred. When the argument is who was less responsible, there is no high ground. The fact that both sides try to take the high ground by denial of their parties contributions and instead only point fingers away from themselves... takes a toll on the credibility of party message, maturity, public trust, responsibility and accountability, etc.

Left v Right partisan bickering is nothing more than audience participation in political theater.
 
Neither side has any cred. When the argument is who was less responsible, there is no high ground. The fact that both sides try to take the high ground by denial of their parties contributions and instead only point fingers away from themselves... takes a toll on the credibility of party message, maturity, public trust, responsibility and accountability, etc.

Left v Right partisan bickering is nothing more than audience participation in political theater.

I don't disagree with you for the most part as both sides have serious problems. The problem is one side is so far left that it has lost touch with reality and the American people. The expansion of the nanny state mentality and entitlement state is a serious issue for this country which wasn't built on the principles of today's Democrat Party. I grew up a Democrat and voted Democrat until Reagan. There used to be room in the Democrat Party for a Conservative, but not any more. The Democrat Party is too far left and that has led to the downgrade of our credit rating, addition of 4 trillion to the debt, massive expansion of govt. reach into the lives of Americans i.e. mandatory Obamacare, greater regulations, and demonization of individual wealth creation and promotion of class warfare.

I will repeat, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. I will vote for the candidate closest to my point of view that has a chance to win.
 
You don't think that 80,000 regulations has any impact on businesses. Then let's get rid of them. All of them.

Nonsense indeed.

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.
 
I don't disagree with you for the most part as both sides have serious problems. The problem is one side is so far left

and the other is so far right

that it has lost touch with reality and the American people. The expansion of the nanny state mentality and entitlement state

At the same time of massive corporate socialism, subjugation of representation and non existent accountability

is a serious issue for this country which wasn't built on the principles of today's Democrat

or Republican

Party. I grew up a Democrat and voted Democrat until Reagan. There used to be room in the Democrat Party for a Conservative, but not any more. The Democrat Party is too far left and that has led to the downgrade of our credit rating, addition of 4 trillion to the debt, massive expansion of govt. reach into the lives of Americans i.e. mandatory Obamacare, greater regulations, and demonization of individual wealth creation and promotion of class warfare.

I will repeat, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. I will vote for the candidate closest to my point of view that has a chance to win.

I grew up deeply conservative. By this I don't mean far right or radically conservative, I mean steeped in the traditional values and morals of what it means to preserve, conserve those morals and values by teaching them to the next generation along with the wisdom behind them. Applying these principles is not a stagnant exercise however, it begs to be applied to progressive thinking as a complimentary counterpoint.

Three principles that are worth conserving which both parties are completely devoid of are...

United We Stand/Love thy neighbor... At the core of each issue is a government in whole (both parties) that has, is and continues to fail us. The partisan details of the issues are secondary and increasingly irrelevant. The reason (and it's not a partisan one) that they keep failing us must be honestly defined and changed. The primary cause today is the very partisan bickering that is keeping us divided. Fix the part that's broken, and then the details can be hashed out and not before.

Vigilance. Never take governments or politicians at their word, especially those selling you what you want to buy. Washington's farewell address nicely summarizes the dangers of ideological thinking and/or party allegiance.

On the primary issue facing all Americans, the failure of our representation is endemic in both parties, top to bottom. Looking to either "likely to be elected" party candidate to change anything after generations of failure on both sides is certifiably insane.
 
Do you know the difference between consumer debt and public/intergovt. holding debt? consumer debt is personnally generated. You have no control over what your bureaucrats create. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world

WTF?!?!? How do you suppose this is a valid response to my statement? Trickle-down only works when the consumer is NOT heavily indebted. Otherwise, it doesn't trickle down!
 
and the other is so far right



At the same time of massive corporate socialism, subjugation of representation and non existent accountability



or Republican



I grew up deeply conservative. By this I don't mean far right or radically conservative, I mean steeped in the traditional values and morals of what it means to preserve, conserve those morals and values by teaching them to the next generation along with the wisdom behind them. Applying these principles is not a stagnant exercise however, it begs to be applied to progressive thinking as a complimentary counterpoint.

Three principles that are worth conserving which both parties are completely devoid of are...

United We Stand/Love thy neighbor... At the core of each issue is a government in whole (both parties) that has, is and continues to fail us. The partisan details of the issues are secondary and increasingly irrelevant. The reason (and it's not a partisan one) that they keep failing us must be honestly defined and changed. The primary cause today is the very partisan bickering that is keeping us divided. Fix the part that's broken, and then the details can be hashed out and not before.

Vigilance. Never take governments or politicians at their word, especially those selling you what you want to buy. Washington's farewell address nicely summarizes the dangers of ideological thinking and/or party allegiance.

On the primary issue facing all Americans, the failure of our representation is endemic in both parties, top to bottom. Looking to either "likely to be elected" party candidate to change anything after generations of failure on both sides is certifiably insane.

It doesn't appear that many here understand the role of the govt. as proposed by our Founders. Our Founders never envisioned a 3.7 trillion dollar yearly expense or a 14.5 trillion dollar debt mostly due to social engineering and massive over reach of the govt.

When 50% of the income earners totally fund the govt. the massive divide between the electorate is exactly what liberals want. Who do you think the 47% of income earners that don't pay any FIT are going to support? Obama talks about skin in the game but ignores those that pay nothing in FIT. In addition liberal compassion doesn't seem to extend to the 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans. Don't expect Obama to be talking about his record, instead he will try to destroy anyone that gets in his way for re-election
 
WTF?!?!? How do you suppose this is a valid response to my statement? Trickle-down only works when the consumer is NOT heavily indebted. Otherwise, it doesn't trickle down!

Whether or not the consumer is heavily indebted is the responsibility of the consumer, not the govt. People keeping more of their own money gives them the choice, not the govt. what to do with that money. If they go into debt that is a personal problem, not one for the govt. to solve.
 
It doesn't appear that many here understand the role of the govt. as proposed by our Founders. Our Founders never envisioned a 3.7 trillion dollar yearly expense or a 14.5 trillion dollar debt mostly due to social engineering and massive over reach of the govt.


They never envisioned the telephone, internet, television, radio, jet travel thermo nuclear weapons, etc.
 
The answer to the debt downgrade and economic problems facing this country today

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

You think the removal or replacement of one man, the president, is going to change anything? You really think that will fix the problem? When since LBJ has that been the case regardless of which party was in office?

We have grown steadily more polarized, with notable acceleration during the first GWB term when any questioning of US foreign or military policy was (in the climate of fear and imminent attack) nearly treasonous, and voices of dissent were branded enemies.

That article is a waste of electrons as the reality of history since stands in stark opposition to this article. I hope they didn't waste any ink on printing it.
 
Last edited:
They never envisioned the telephone, internet, television, radio, jet travel thermo nuclear weapons, etc.

What does that have to do with the debt and credit downgrade. Individuals created those items you listed and in doing so created jobs for millions and millions.
 
You think the removal or replacement of one man, the president, is going to change anything? You really think that will fix the problem? When since LBJ has that been the case regardless of which party was in office?

We have grown steadily more polarized, with notable acceleration during the first GWB term when any questioning of US foreign or military policy was (in the climate of fear and imminent attack) nearly treasonous, and voices of dissent were branded enemies.

That article is a waste of electrons as the reality of history since stands in stark opposition to this article. I hope they didn't waste any ink on printing it.

The replacement of one man, GW Bush, created the following results because it put one party in charge of the entire govt. and gave Obama a blank check, NO checks and balances there

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch!
 
Whether or not the consumer is heavily indebted is the responsibility of the consumer, not the govt. People keeping more of their own money gives them the choice, not the govt. what to do with that money. If they go into debt that is a personal problem, not one for the govt. to solve.

If they are already in debt, paying down that debt (or saving) with the procedes from a tax cut/break/rebate will in fact do two things: First, such actions will decrease total output by the amount saved (or used to pay debt). Second, as a result of decreased output, federal tax revenue will fall only exacerbating the fiscal instability. It would be helpful to actually understand the conversation before providing us with your take.
 
What does that have to do with the debt and credit downgrade. Individuals created those items you listed and in doing so created jobs for millions and millions.

Strawman.

Nobody claimed to the contrary that individual Americans are amazing.

The founders were far from perfect. See Slavery
 
If they are already in debt, paying down that debt (or saving) with the procedes from a tax cut/break/rebate will in fact do two things: First, such actions will decrease total output by the amount saved (or used to pay debt). Second, as a result of decreased output, federal tax revenue will fall only exacerbating the fiscal instability. It would be helpful to actually understand the conversation before providing us with your take.

Different issue, if they are already in debt having more take home pay helps them pay down that debt if the people choose to do that. I took the Reagan tax cuts and paid off my debt. That pay off gave my creditors more money to help expand and grow their business and that helped the economy. You seem to believe that saving or paying off debt doesn't help the economy. Looks to me like as most liberals you have no concept of human behavior and that affect on the economy.

Interesting that I never expected you to pay for poor personal choices I made to create the debt in the first place but you seem to think it is my responsibility to pay off yours?
 
Strawman.

Nobody claimed to the contrary that individual Americans are amazing.

The founders were far from perfect. See Slavery

Founders created the greatest country on the face of the earth and did indeed make mistakes. It was no mistake however to promote a small central govt. and rest power at the local and state levels. Politicians in D.C. however saw an opportunity to create career jobs and dependence thus took it. Support for the current massive expansion of govt. says a lot about millions today who believe in the nanny state. None of those people however recognize that the nanny state is a failure, see, Britain where they have huge entitlements and now want more.
 
The replacement of one man, GW Bush, created the following results because it put one party in charge of the entire govt. and gave Obama a blank check, NO checks and balances there

I think you're confused. Did you mean Bush? Obama has significant opposition in congress, he is constantly in check.

Bush on the other hand enjoyed six years of a truly rubber stamp congress that accomplished nothing but war spending, expansion of gov't and domestic spying legislation.

I'm just saying... you keep saying you're not republican, yet spew forth every republican talking point and false reasoning while blind to half the picture here.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE OR WHO IS IN CONGRESS, if they are from either party, the failures will continue.
 
I think you're confused. Did you mean Bush? Obama has significant opposition in congress, he is constantly in check.

Bush on the other hand enjoyed six years of a truly rubber stamp congress that accomplished nothing but war spending, expansion of gov't and domestic spying legislation.

I'm just saying... you keep saying you're not republican, yet spew forth every republican talking point and false reasoning while blind to half the picture here.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE OR WHO IS IN CONGRESS, if they are from either party, the failures will continue.

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
 
Different issue, if they are already in debt having more take home pay helps them pay down that debt if the people choose to do that. I took the Reagan tax cuts and paid off my debt. That pay off gave my creditors more money to help expand and grow their business and that helped the economy.

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 seem to believe that saving or paying off debt doesn't help the economy. Looks to me like as most liberals you have no concept of human behavior and that affect on the economy.

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

Interesting that I never expected you to pay for poor personal choices I made to create the debt in the first place but you seem to think it is my responsibility to pay off yours?

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....
 
Founders created the greatest country on the face of the earth and did indeed make mistakes. It was no mistake however to promote a small central govt. and rest power at the local and state levels. Politicians in D.C. however saw an opportunity to create career jobs and dependence thus took it. Support for the current massive expansion of govt. says a lot about millions today who believe in the nanny state. None of those people however recognize that the nanny state is a failure, see, Britain where they have huge entitlements and now want more.
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom