• 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.
What does that have to do with the statement by S&P regarding the downgrade? This country spends too much and you don't seem to have a problem with debt created by Obama
What does the S&P downgrade have any to do with our ability to pay our debts?
 
Spending always causes debt for without it there wouldn't be any debt

No, not true. If I spent a thousand and have a thounsad to pay for it, there is no debt. If I want to spend more than I presently have, I can work more to increase my revenue. While this country has relyied on debt almost since it became a country, that is not the only way to spend. We can pay for what services we want.
 
. . .We all no the only thing we need to know. Obama is evil. :coffeepap
He might be evil. He is definitely Marxist in his core beliefs. Given what Marxists have done to people, all in the name of the "Greater Good", over the years you could have a point.
 
What does the S&P downgrade have any to do with our ability to pay our debts?

It is a warning that we cannot continue to spend like "your" President has spent. Credit agencies were looking for over 4 trillion in spending cuts and basically got nothing other than a cut in the growth of spending. In order to cut spending we would have had to start by going back to the 2008 budget. Obama isn't serious about cutting anything and that is why he never put a proposal on paper. That way it is easier to shirk your responsibility and blame someone else.
 
Net public debt isn't total debt and excludes the trillions in unfunded liabiilities. Where is your SS "contribution" today?

What, the Social Security that, for all intents and purposes, does not contribute one dime to the deficit? That Social Security?

For your information you don't know the difference between debt and deficit. Obama inherited a 10.4 trillion dollar debt from Bush and a PROJECTED 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Suggest you learn the difference and then realize that Bush couldn't have created a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit in less than 4 months of fiscal year 2009 since he left office in January. Apparently you are a liberal and haven't a clue what facts really are.

Knock it off. You're just trolling now. Throwing around childish remarks such as these is not helping solidify your case except for those who blindly accept it. I am fully aware of the difference between the debt and the deficit: The latter is the rate at which the former grows. I am also aware of what a budget surplus is: The rate at which the debt shrinks. You know, kind of like the last one we had under A DEMOCRAT. Why is it that Republicans utterly refuse to accept the fact that Bush gave us a $1.3-trillion deficit? Did you even read my link? It is a FACT, but I realize that conservatives tend to be highly allergic to facts.
 
He might be evil. He is definitely Marxist in his core beliefs. Given what Marxists have done to people, all in the name of the "Greater Good", over the years you could have a point.

Hardly, but we've already established that no one should take this type of thinking seriously.
 
Nobody reads this crap, you keep posting it over, and over, and over. Get some new ****ing material, will ya?

Maybe if you did read what he posted you would have more credibility and wouldn't be posting the distortions that you do
 
You wouldn't like the results. It would likely lead to not only to cuts YOU don't want (military), but also to tax increases. In the past, I've link this from conservartive sites that oppose such a measure.
Try me out. I believe it will lead to a small, more controllable federal government.
 
Try me out. I believe it will lead to a small, more controllable federal government.

I realize this is your belief, can't argue that it isn't. However, many have raised concerns you don't seem to acknowledge. This is why conservatives also reject such a idea. Do you remember the Articles of Confederation? Care to articulate why we didn't keep that form of governace?
 
What does the S&P downgrade have any to do with our ability to pay our debts?

CNN Money said:
Rating agencies -- S&P, Moody's and Fitch -- analyze risk and give debt a "grade" that reflects the borrower's ability to pay the underlying loans. The safest bets are stamped AAA. That's where U.S. debt has stood for years.

Moody's first assigned the United States a AAA rating in 1917. The country's new S&P rating is AA+ -- still strong, but not the highest.

The downgrade puts the U.S. debt rating on par with that of Belgium, but below countries like the United Kingdom and Australia.

Why did this happen now? S&P gave two primary reasons for downgrading U.S. debt: The nation's fiscal path and its broken political system.

The agency has been harping on those two issues for months. S&P argues that the U.S. debt-to-GDP trajectory is unsustainable, and that the politics involved are so caustic that lawmakers are unable to make the tough choices needed to correct the problem.

During the debt ceiling debate, lawmakers blew their big chance to make a difference.

To avoid a downgrade, S&P said the United States needed to not only raise the debt ceiling, but also develop a "credible" plan to tackle the nation's long-term debt.

The agency has indicated it preferred a deal that would have reduced deficits by $4 trillion over ten years. Instead, lawmakers settled for a measure that will cut only $2.5 trillion.

S&P rating downgrade: What you need to know - Aug. 6, 2011


Since I know you avoid reading, the short answer is, the S&P downgrade identifies the U.S. is now at a higher risk to default on our debt. THAT is what it has to do with it.
 
For protecting jobs? How evil.
:coffeepap
It is a money laundering scheme. The taxpayers are compelled to pay. The union members get the money. They give their union dues to the union thugs, er, bosses, who, in tern provide the money back to the democratic party bosses for their re-election bids. The democrat politicians make agreements with the union thugs to provide every greater pay and benefits to public sector union members....

What could possibly go wrong? The only people left our are the ones who actually pay the bills, the taxpayers.
 
It is a warning that we cannot continue to spend like "your" President has spent. Credit agencies were looking for over 4 trillion in spending cuts and basically got nothing other than a cut in the growth of spending. In order to cut spending we would have had to start by going back to the 2008 budget. Obama isn't serious about cutting anything and that is why he never put a proposal on paper. That way it is easier to shirk your responsibility and blame someone else.
Bull****. It says nothing about our ability to pay our debts. BTW, it specifically called out the Republican party for not wanting to stop the Bush tax cuts.
 
Don't read too much into that. We are no more or no less likely than we were before the down grade.

What I read into it is irrelevant. S&P read into it and their opinion and credibility that's saying the U.S. risk is higher to not pay it's debt. What this does is shine a very bright light on the underlying problem.
 
What, the Social Security that, for all intents and purposes, does not contribute one dime to the deficit? That Social Security?



Knock it off. You're just trolling now. Throwing around childish remarks such as these is not helping solidify your case except for those who blindly accept it. I am fully aware of the difference between the debt and the deficit: The latter is the rate at which the former grows. I am also aware of what a budget surplus is: The rate at which the debt shrinks. You know, kind of like the last one we had under A DEMOCRAT. Why is it that Republicans utterly refuse to accept the fact that Bush gave us a $1.3-trillion deficit? Did you even read my link? It is a FACT, but I realize that conservatives tend to be highly allergic to facts.

That is a lie, it doesn't contribute to public debt but it is an obligation that contributes to intergovt. holding debt and thus is part of the total.

Childish remarks? learn the difference between debt and deficit instead of being caught not knowing the difference and becoming defensive. Just admit it and we can move on.

There was no surplus under Clinton as evidenced by the fact that debt increased every year under his Administration. I suggest you do better research instead of buying what you are told by someone else. That only makes you look foolish.

Bush and Congress gave us a 5 trillion dollar debt in 8 years whereas Obama and Congress has given us a 4 trillion dollar debt in less than 3 years. Let me give you a few non partisan links.

Debt by year

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

So tell me those facts again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom