• 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 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.

If you claim illegal actives you should note two things:

1) Illegal means it is against the law, so we should approach it that way.

2) You have to give some evidence to your claims and not just make accusations. As this would be a factual type of thing, evidence is needed.

And you do know everyone gives mony to politicians, including business leaders and corporations. So you argument is that you want business leaders to have all the politician buying power? I see. :coffeepap
 
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?
Do you believe that an amendment that requires the nation to only spend what it takes in will lead to a central government so weak that we cannot defend ourselves nor make the states play nicely with one another? Is that your argument?
 
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.

Prove to me that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt? Why are liberals so adicted to govt. spending and so against keeping more of what they earn? These are bureaucrats that have created a 14.5 trillion dollar debt that has yet to solve a social problem. You would think that all those trillions spent on compassion would have generated some actual compassionate results.
 
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.

Key word, opinion. They lack faith in us to work together, for good reason, but we haven't been working together for a sometime now. So, taking them too seriously, especially since they could be bought if we wanted to, seems rather foolish to me.
 
If you claim illegal actives you should note two things:

1) Illegal means it is against the law, so we should approach it that way.

2) You have to give some evidence to your claims and not just make accusations. As this would be a factual type of thing, evidence is needed.

And you do know everyone gives mony to politicians, including business leaders and corporations. So you argument is that you want business leaders to have all the politician buying power? I see. :coffeepap

You mean like "illegal" Immigrants? Just curious even though off topic
 
Do you believe that an amendment that requires the nation to only spend what it takes in will lead to a central government so weak that we cannot defend ourselves nor make the states play nicely with one another? Is that your argument?

As we are already in debt, yes. And you do understand it is possible to handle debt responsibily. The problem isn't debt in general, but that we as a people want services but not to pay for them. If you tie hands too greatly, you make it too weeak. We've always had to worry about the proper balance, and will continue to do so, but it is balance we should seek and not destruction.
 
Do you have other wonders that are dishonest?

Trolling is not going to suffice as an answer to my question. You said:

"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."​

I replied:

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?​

To which you said:

I understand. That pesky constitution and the very idea of a limited government is bothersome. Give me a break, man. I mean, really--do liberals even THINK about this stuff before saying it?​

And I responded:

Can you please try to debate as an adult, or are you going to just spew off childish strawmen arguments such as these?

May I ask what your reservation is to clean air and water and to solid education?​

To which you said:

Do you believe that it requires federal regulations for either? As people become wealthy they do a better job of cleaning of the environment. We have arrived. We don't need the federal government to burden us with thousands of pages of regulations and criminal statutes.

The extra-constitutional Education Department does no educating. They provide parking spots for liberals and a means to funnel taxpayer money to public sector unions. Fire them all, sell the buildings. The students and the taxpayers will be far better off.​

In a side conversation, I said:

I honestly wonder whether most conservatives understand the basic difference between bond-based debt and loan-based debt.​

To which I replied:

Do you have other wonders that are dishonest?​

===================

No offense but I seriously question your ability to carry on a civilized debate. You dodged both of my questions--see above--and instead, you willfully and intentionally tried to carry on down some bizarre path of trolling.

Now I am going to try this one last time. If I cannot get a straight answer from you--not necessarily an answer I *like*, so much as one that ACTUALLY ANSWERS the question--then you will be the newest contestant on my Ignore List. And I'll go one step farther: I'll let you decide which question to answer. They are:

(1) Do you believe that the likely harm to our water and skies that an EPA shutdown would cause is worth it?

OR

(2) What is the difference between bond-based debt and loan-based debt?
 
Sothose that kept that jobs due to their efforts and due to government money weren't saved? Never mind, an answer would require more than a link. :coffeepap
The federal government, or at least the one term Marxist president Obama, lied to you. The stimulus was not about shovel ready jobs. It was about transferring nearly a trillion dollars from productive people to his voter base, the public sector unions. It worked. The size of state governments did not shrink. Obama kept his voter base and defunded his enemies, the productive people. Aren't politics grand?
 
You would think that all those trillions spent on compassion would have generated some actual compassionate results.


Ya mean like poor people having refrigerators?


oh wait they do now!
 
If you claim illegal actives you should note two things:

1) Illegal means it is against the law, so we should approach it that way.

2) You have to give some evidence to your claims and not just make accusations. As this would be a factual type of thing, evidence is needed.
Are you really denying this? Awesome.
 
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.

On Tuesday, Moody's said the United States will keep its sterling AAA credit rating, but lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."
Even after a downgrade, the United States will likely still be able to pay its bills for years to come and remains a good credit risk.

A downgrade really just amounts to one agency's opinion. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke articulated that view in April when S&P placed the United States on credit watch. "S&P's action didn't really tell us anything," Bernanke said. "Everybody who reads the newspaper knows that the United States has a very serious long-term fiscal problem."

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating - Aug. 5, 2011
 
The federal government, or at least the one term Marxist president Obama, lied to you. The stimulus was not about shovel ready jobs. It was about transferring nearly a trillion dollars from productive people to his voter base, the public sector unions. It worked. The size of state governments did not shrink. Obama kept his voter base and defunded his enemies, the productive people. Aren't politics grand?

There are no Marists here, and saying there is shows both ignorance and a wild partisan ship that defies reason.

Second, a politician from either party lying is neither new or inexpected. However, the stimulus did save jobs. In the past myself and others have linked teacher and service jobs that were saved by the stimulus.

Also, were you awake during the Bush administration? :coffeepap
 
Ya mean like poor people having refrigerators?


oh wait they do now!

Interesting that I never expected for you to buy me a refrigerator and wonder why you would expect me to do the same for you. Guess it makes sense to a liberal to send money do Washington, have them deduct administrative costs, and then determine what is the best use of that money. Hopefully some of it gets back to you and your community. Guess that is liberal logic instead of the people of your community helping each other out without administrative expenses.
 
On Tuesday, Moody's said the United States will keep its sterling AAA credit rating, but lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."
Even after a downgrade, the United States will likely still be able to pay its bills for years to come and remains a good credit risk.

A downgrade really just amounts to one agency's opinion. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke articulated that view in April when S&P placed the United States on credit watch. "S&P's action didn't really tell us anything," Bernanke said. "Everybody who reads the newspaper knows that the United States has a very serious long-term fiscal problem."

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating - Aug. 5, 2011

lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

That is a warning
 
Key word, opinion. They lack faith in us to work together, for good reason, but we haven't been working together for a sometime now. So, taking them too seriously, especially since they could be bought if we wanted to, seems rather foolish to me.
Well that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is we've been working together too closely and too much. The distinction between Washington's main two party system is now blurred. Both cut deals that benefits each other but go on camera and complain about the other... I used this in a different thread today, it's akin to Washington = WWE Pro Wrestling.
 
Prove to me that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
It is the Marxist-core-belief in them. All wealth properly belongs to the government, to be used for government, not private purposes. So when someone does not have the maximum amount take from them by force (From each according to his abilities...) so that the politician can give their resources to someone they consider deserving (...to each according to his needs...) it is clearly an expense to the government.
 
Well that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is we've been working together too closely and too much. The distinction between Washington's main two party system is now blurred. Both cut deals that benefits each other but go on camera and complain about the other... I used this in a different thread today, it's akin to Washington = WWE Pro Wrestling.

Oh I agree the distinction is blurred, leaving us no real choice, but as with pro wrestling, they have to fool the faithful. So when they have to sign pledges, and tie hands, they can't break character, and thus leave us stuck, and too hamstrung to actually govern.
 
The federal government, or at least the one term Marxist president Obama, lied to you. The stimulus was not about shovel ready jobs. It was about transferring nearly a trillion dollars from productive people to his voter base, the public sector unions. It worked. The size of state governments did not shrink. Obama kept his voter base and defunded his enemies, the productive people. Aren't politics grand?
Although you are wrong, What does this have to do with the subject of this thread?.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that I never expected for you to buy me a refrigerator and wonder why you would expect me to do the same for you. Guess it makes sense to a liberal to send money do Washington, have them deduct administrative costs, and then determine what is the best use of that money. Hopefully some of it gets back to you and your community. Guess that is liberal logic instead of the people of your community helping each other out without administrative expenses.


You were just complaining about compassionate results, and now this?

Amazing how fast you change tune:lamo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom