• 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.
LOL!

the headlines say it all

Now I understand. The reason you miss somuch of what is actual in the articles you link is because you only read the headlines. That explains a lot. :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Do you remember the Articles of Confederation? Care to articulate why we didn't keep that form of governace?

vote obama, 2012!

remember THE ARTICLES!

LOL!
 
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.

Receiving a scolding from a conservative on alleged lying is like receiving a scolding from Michael Jackson on alleged child abuse. I'm very sorry, but the mere fact that you are a conservative severely impairs your credibility in this regard. Hey, you may be one of the very few conservatives that can honestly handle these kinds of conversations well. Strictly from a statistical point-of-view, however, it isn't likely.

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.

Pot, meet kettle. Besides, I already answered this question.

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.

rulings%2Ftom-false.gif


FederalDeficit(1).jpg


Care to explain to me what that $236.2-BILLION dollar mark means? Or at least what the colors on the chart stand for?

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?

You are twisting and distorting the numbers to suit your agenda. And again, it's crap like that why liberals and conservatives have very little chance of having a civil debate.

The US government is mostly bound by its deficit that it passed the prior year. (Note: I am a bit shaky in terms of the exact lag time, but I know it is on the order of a year or so.) In other words, strictly from a budgetary point-of-view, how much we spend this year was mostly determined by what we budgeted back in 2010 (I think). Which, getting back to the OP, underscores one of the many follies of the debt ceiling crisis: Raising it merely gave the Treasury permission to fund that which Congress had already agreed to. It would be like an adult having to receive permission from her husband just to pay the bills that she was contractually obligated to pay.
 
Now I am going to try this one last time.
Wouldn't that be cool?
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?

I have already answered your question with my own. I shall ask it in a new form especially for you. Do you believe there is any relationship between giving an extra-constitutional agency dictatorial powers and clean air and water? I do not believe any identifiable harm would come from closing down the EPA and repealing its regulations.

OR

(2) What is the difference between bond-based debt and loan-based debt?
Who cares? It is not relevant to closing down the extra-constitutional departments and agencies.

Ignore me if you wish.
 
Now I understand. The reason you miss somuch of what is actual in the articles you link is because you only read the headlines. That explains a lot. :lamo :lamo :lamo

Yes, that's it.
 
I don't expect you to refute any facts. I merely point to the dishonesty of your ad homs

I haven't attacked you, or even your source for that matter. I merely stated that your source has no credibility. And that's a factual statement. It doesn't. You have, in no way, proven that Obama created jobs. Presidents don't create jobs. That's more bs partisan politics which is mostly what this thread has devolved into. People are so predictable. :roll:
 
There are no Marists here, and saying there is shows both ignorance and a wild partisan ship that defies reason.
I cannot help that you do not recognize nor care that the one term president grew up with Marxists and Communists. I cannot help that you do not recognize that his hero figures were communists and Marxists. I cannot help that you do not recognize that a community organizer is likely to be a radical. But there it is.

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.
So you agree with my central point after all. Money was transferred from the productive people in the private sector to Obama supporters in public sector unions. That was pretty hard for you, wasn't it?

Also, were you awake during the Bush administration? :coffeepap
About half of the time. How about you?
 
Now I understand. The reason you miss somuch of what is actual in the articles you link is because you only read the headlines

now, who would be so stupid as to post a link to an article he or she didn't read

there are very few 60 second clickers who might post, for example, a link to a source from NEW SOUTH WALES

on behalf of SCHOOL TEACHERS

in NEW YORK CITY

LOL!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...gop-sen-sheila-harsdorf-filed-tuesday-26.html

yup, those unions are doing a great job of protecting those jobs

that's why rahm called em in and FIRED EM on the spot

just like malloy in connecticut, which is as blue as it gets

that's why bing and bobb are ripping up collective bargaining in detroit

but then...

Personally I prefer Detroit's choice to Milwaukee's

deep thoughts

LOL!
 
Sothose (sic) that kept that jobs due to their efforts and due to government money weren't saved?

support your local!

those who WEREN'T FIRED (and who didn't see their collective bargaining shredded) were protected!

LOL!
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't that be cool?

You just don't get it, do you. You refuse to accept the documented, verified FACT that THE CLINTON BUDGET GAVE US A SURPLUS.

I have already answered your question with my own. I shall ask it in a new form especially for you. Do you believe there is any relationship between giving an extra-constitutional agency dictatorial powers and clean air and water? I do not believe any identifiable harm would come from closing down the EPA and repealing its regulations.

You did it! You dodged AGAIN. And your stupid question is equivalent to my asking you, When will you stop beating your wife?

Who cares? It is not relevant to closing down the extra-constitutional departments and agencies.

Ignore me if you wish.

You utterly refuse to accept the fact that you blindly support one position--shutting down government agencies--without the slightest regard to the dire consequences of such situation. You are either unwilling or unable--my vote is for the former--to weigh the pros and cons of such a move. But most of all, you think this is one big joke. You have a clear disdain for the United States of America, and you'd just assume to trash it if it means advancing your political agenda. I have no patience for such extremist positions as yours. <AOL voice>Goodbye.
 
I cannot help that you do not recognize nor care that the one term president grew up with Marxists and Communists. I cannot help that you do not recognize that his hero figures were communists and Marxists. I cannot help that you do not recognize that a community organizer is likely to be a radical. But there it is.

No, you can't help that I can actually think. Thank God some can, regardless of party.


So you agree with my central point after all. Money was transferred from the productive people in the private sector to Obama supporters in public sector unions. That was pretty hard for you, wasn't it?

No where did I even suggest that. 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.

About half of the time. How about you?

Did you close your eyes and plug your ears while awake? You seem to have missed a lot.
 
Although you are wrong, What does this have to do with the subject of this thread?.
Let's see. The government takes nearly a trillion dollars out of the economy to provide a safe haven for government workers. We don't actually have the money to do everything so in addition to the two plus trillion the taxpayers are forced to give the government borrows another 1.6 trillion, or so. The debt to GDP ratio goes to 100%. Nations that go above 80% or so, have real trouble repaying. S&P says we are likely to have trouble repaying. I agree with S&P. We are become Greece.

Did that help?
 
now, who would be so stupid as to post a link to an article he or she didn't read

there are very few 60 second clickers who might post, for example, a link to a source from NEW SOUTH WALES

on behalf of SCHOOL TEACHERS

in NEW YORK CITY

LOL!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...gop-sen-sheila-harsdorf-filed-tuesday-26.html

yup, those unions are doing a great job of protecting those jobs

that's why rahm called em in and FIRED EM on the spot

just like malloy in connecticut, which is as blue as it gets

that's why bing and bobb are ripping up collective bargaining in detroit

but then...



deep thoughts

LOL!
Why don't you find a more relevant thread to post this stuff in? MAYBE YOU COULD CREATE ONE!!!
 
Phys251;1059726909]Receiving a scolding from a conservative on alleged lying is like receiving a scolding from Michael Jackson on alleged child abuse. I'm very sorry, but the mere fact that you are a conservative severely impairs your credibility in this regard. Hey, you may be one of the very few conservatives that can honestly handle these kinds of conversations well. Strictly from a statistical point-of-view, however, it isn't likely.

Except I gave you the link to the actual data and facts. There was no surplus under Clinton as proven but liberals love to use public debt instead of total debt even though total debt is what we pay debt service on. Does it really matter if public debt has a surplus if the total debt thus debt service increases?


P
ot, meet kettle. Besides, I already answered this question.

rulings%2Ftom-false.gif


FederalDeficit(1).jpg


Care to explain to me what that $236.2-BILLION dollar mark means? Or at least what the colors on the chart stand for?

Again, why would you buy politifact instead of actual Treasury data? Could it be because that is what you want to believe? Do you realize that CBOis posting public debt not total debt? Again you don't seem to know the difference just like you don't understand the difference between deficit and debt

You are twisting and distorting the numbers to suit your agenda. And again, it's crap like that why liberals and conservatives have very little chance of having a civil debate.

The US government is mostly bound by its deficit that it passed the prior year. (Note: I am a bit shaky in terms of the exact lag time, but I know it is on the order of a year or so.) In other words, strictly from a budgetary point-of-view, how much we spend this year was mostly determined by what we budgeted back in 2010 (I think). Which, getting back to the OP, underscores one of the many follies of the debt ceiling crisis: Raising it merely gave the Treasury permission to fund that which Congress had already agreed to. It would be like an adult having to receive permission from her husband just to pay the bills that she was contractually obligated to pay.

Sorry, but didn't know that posting actual data was twisting and distorting numbers.

Your understanding of the budget process is better than your understanding of the debt and deficit. The govt. uses baseline budgeting meaning that the next year's budget process starts with the baseline budget which is this years thus a 100 billion budget item this year is then the starting point for next year and a proposal of 150 billion that is reduced to 125 billion is called a cut by Congress when the reality is it is a cut in growth but no cut at all.
 
As this would be a factual type of thing, evidence is needed.

says the 60 second clicker who goes a thousand posts

before finally submitting a link

to whitehouse.gov

LOL!

or the sydney morning herald
 
Not a downgrade though.

Both the downgrade and the statement by Moody's is a warning. Doesn't appear that Obama has heeded that warning as he has yet to submit a plan on paper to cut spending
 
Let's see. The government takes nearly a trillion dollars out of the economy to provide a safe haven for government workers. We don't actually have the money to do everything so in addition to the two plus trillion the taxpayers are forced to give the government borrows another 1.6 trillion, or so. The debt to GDP ratio goes to 100%. Nations that go above 80% or so, have real trouble repaying. S&P says we are likely to have trouble repaying. I agree with S&P. We are become Greece.

Did that help?
Only that the predator banksters on Wall Street destroyed Greece.
 
Both the downgrade and the statement by Moody's is a warning. Doesn't appear that Obama has heeded that warning as he has yet to submit a plan on paper to cut spending

Again S&P specifically called out the Republicans and the Bush tax cuts.
 
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.

that's nice

exactly how much of the 5.3T does the party in power propose come via taxes?
 
Again S&P specifically called out the Republicans and the Bush tax cuts.

You read what you wanted to believe, the problem is spending. I am still waiting for you to explain how you keeping more of your money is an expense to the govt?
 
You just don't get it, do you. You refuse to accept the documented, verified FACT that THE CLINTON BUDGET GAVE US A SURPLUS.
It was not one of my points but as long as you bring it up it was just an accounting gimmick.
You did it! You dodged AGAIN. And your stupid question is equivalent to my asking you, When will you stop beating your wife?
Well no. There you go again.
You utterly refuse to accept the fact that you blindly support one position--shutting down government agencies--without the slightest regard to the dire consequences of such situation.
I am counting on the consequences of closing down the extra-constitutional departments and agencies. I am not ignoring the consequences. I am planning on them. Do you understand the difference?
You are either unwilling or unable--my vote is for the former--to weigh the pros and cons of such a move. But most of all, you think this is one big joke. You have a clear disdain for the United States of America, and you'd just assume to trash it if it means advancing your political agenda.
I see your point. Pressing for a Constitutionally limited government is clearly a radical agenda. Why hadn't I seen that before?
I have no patience for such extremist positions as yours. <AOL voice>Goodbye.
See point directly above. The Founders were radicals. They were just the wrong sort. Would you be more comfortable with Radical Karl (Marx) than Radical James (Madison)? I believe you would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom