RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 3:54:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave @ Owner 59 FYI Did YOU flunk gradeschool? I said Obama and his regime. Ie: Pelosi, Reid, etc. Maybe you should consider some remedial reading courses... Democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first half of Obamas Presidency. It only took 2 years of a Democratic President, Democrat controlled House, and Democrat controlled Senate to effect the first downgrade. The blame game on the GOP doesn't hold any water. I'm sure we all agree that the Congress controls the purse strings. The Democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2007 to 2011. -SD- Guess you flunked revisionist history too.

dcnovice -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 3:58:04 PM)
FR So far as I can tell, the first downgrade, by S&P, took place on August 5, 2011. At that point, I believe, the House was in the hands of the Republicans, who had, just a few months earlier, brought the government to the edge of a shutdown and, if memory serves, the possibility of a first-ever default on our debts. In its press release, S&P specifically cited "political brinksmanship" as a key part of the problem: quote: The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Press release at S&P I'm not saying the Democrats are blameless. But the key players in changing S&P's judgment of America's credit-worthiness appear to have been the House Republicans.

TheHeretic -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 4:10:59 PM)
Yes, if only the Framers had envisioned some sort of executive branch of our government, to lead, and find resolutions to such legislative gridlock... Oh wait. They did. We just have someone who isn't up to doing the job. (cue next attempt to derail the subject)

dcnovice -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 4:17:48 PM)
quote: (cue next attempt to derail the subject) Derail? I addressed the lead sentence in the OP--"Last year the idiot and his regime managed to get America's credit rating lowered for the first time in history"--and linked to a pertinent primary source. I don't know how much more on topic I could have been.

Owner59 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 4:19:35 PM)
Well...cooperation requires willing participants....... Give the obstinance and belligerence of the party controlling the H-o-Rs.....no one in wondering why the cons haven`t done shit.......other than fuck things up more.

hardcybermaster -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 4:20:27 PM)
partisan politics is fun to read but does not solve the problem http://www.usdebtclock.org/

TheHeretic -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 4:28:11 PM)
Not you derailing, DC. Sorry if you got that impression. I just meant one of the Obamabots could be counted on to try and shift the discussion away from the inability of this President to do anything but turn petulant when he can't get his way.

Musicmystery -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 4:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh, Music, that doesn't fit with the ideological narrative the OP is trying to get us to buy. Which narrative do you prefer? That it doesn't matter how big your credit card balances are, as long as you can make the minimum payment? Ah, the Reagan/Cheney narrative. Changing the subject, Rich. The question was why U.S. credit rating was dropped. And the answer--by objective fact, not opinion, is -- quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Last year the idiot and his regime managed to get America's credit rating lowered for the first time in history. That would be Boehner and this Congress -- as specified explicitly by the rating agency. The problem wasn't financial ability, but willingness to embrace fiscal irresponsibility, adding an element of risk to owning U.S. paper.

subrob1967 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 5:17:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh, Music, that doesn't fit with the ideological narrative the OP is trying to get us to buy. Which narrative do you prefer? That it doesn't matter how big your credit card balances are, as long as you can make the minimum payment? Ah, the Reagan/Cheney narrative. Changing the subject, Rich. The question was why U.S. credit rating was dropped. And the answer--by objective fact, not opinion, is -- quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Last year the idiot and his regime managed to get America's credit rating lowered for the first time in history. That would be Boehner and this Congress -- as specified explicitly by the rating agency. The problem wasn't financial ability, but willingness to embrace fiscal irresponsibility, adding an element of risk to owning U.S. paper. Nah, it had nothing to do with the credit agencies warning the Democratic cough Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi cough led congress to curb it's spending[8\|]

Politesub53 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 5:25:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne did you expect any less when they put a fucking brit in the presidency! god save the queen! So now your President is a Brit, a normal person couldnt make this shit up, yet you do it continually.

Politesub53 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 5:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave @ Owner 59 FYI Did YOU flunk gradeschool? I said Obama and his regime. Ie: Pelosi, Reid, etc. Maybe you should consider some remedial reading courses... Democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first half of Obamas Presidency. It only took 2 years of a Democratic President, Democrat controlled House, and Democrat controlled Senate to effect the first downgrade. The blame game on the GOP doesn't hold any water. I'm sure we all agree that the Congress controls the purse strings. The Democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2007 to 2011. -SD- Seems to me you cant even read your own title for the thread. It clearly says President Hopeless.

DomKen -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 5:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Yes, if only the Framers had envisioned some sort of executive branch of our government, to lead, and find resolutions to such legislative gridlock... Oh wait. They did. We just have someone who isn't up to doing the job. (cue next attempt to derail the subject) How soon you forget. The President tried to meet the House more than halfway but they would not agree to any increase in taxation on the wealthiest in exchange for a trillion+ in spending cuts.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 6:21:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Does the person who began this know anything? Assuming S&P rating to be correct (it is absurdly not), it was lowered because of Republican posturing over the debt ceiling and has nothing to do with our ability to pay bondholders. Look at the rates on a ten year treasury and do not post if ignorant of the most basic facts. The interest rate is LOWER than when the S&P downgraded. LOL.. I was just about to say the exact same thing. Well said :)

pghays04 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 6:53:30 PM)
I have seen both pro and con about taxing the wealthy on this thread. I ask that the people wanting to 'tax the wealthy' to think a little deeper about the mechanics of carrying out such a plan. If you raise the taxes on the wealthy they might wright the check, but they get someone else ( tenants, customers, their employees, etc.) to actually carry the extra burden by raising prices and/or reducing expenses. And no, when taxes are lowered they don't spread the windfall to customers, etc. Why do you think they are wealthy (unless they inherited their wealth)? They have advisers to help them NOT pay the increase. Under our current tax system I see no way to have the wealthy actually carry the burden of increased taxes. It would be very interesting to see a tax system that could actually meet the goal of taxing the wealthy.

Hillwilliam -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 6:54:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I sincerely wish they were doomed to fail.[8\|] Whether it is convenient for the Dems and Obamabots to remember at the moment or not, laws passed by democratically constituted legislatures get thrown out by unelected judges, when they don't meet Constitutional muster, HillWilliam. That depends on where those judges are from. Appointed judges tend to reflect the political views of their constituency. My problem is with all the REAL problems we have, why is the Tennessee legislature, for instance, passing laws regarding teaching of evolution in schools and saggy pants. Yo guys, we're fucking in a goddam RECESSION. There's more important things than trying to get science teachers to teach mythology instead of science and some damn kid's saggy pants. Balance the budget first and then worry about sucking up to the fundies.

Musicmystery -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 7:20:01 PM)
quote: Nah, it had nothing to do with the credit agencies warning the Democratic cough Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi cough led congress to curb it's spending Not an opinion piece, Rob. The rating cited the willingness of this Congress to abdicate financial responsibility explicitly. Include Reid if you like. But this was Boehner's watch. Probably not worth mentioning, re your spending point, that the Congresses before them, from 2000, did the same. Beginning with an irresponsible tax cut. But this thread is about the credit rating, and sorry, that's Boehner's Congress.

jlf1961 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 7:32:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 That's a whole lot of speculation and conjecture... Got any proof? Republican Tax Plan Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[10] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[11] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East Source Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness. I will admit that the debt has increased under Obama, HOWEVER, economists attribute the increased national debt due to decreased tax revenues due to the late 2000's recession and stimulus spending. Part of the Stimulus Spending was done by the LAME DUCK Bush. Now, under Bush we had these wonderful tax cuts and INCREASED spending on TWO wars, also there is a proportional increase in spending for disabled veterans wounded while serving in Bush's wars.

Musicmystery -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 7:46:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pghays04 I have seen both pro and con about taxing the wealthy on this thread. I ask that the people wanting to 'tax the wealthy' to think a little deeper about the mechanics of carrying out such a plan. If you raise the taxes on the wealthy they might wright the check, but they get someone else ( tenants, customers, their employees, etc.) to actually carry the extra burden by raising prices and/or reducing expenses. And no, when taxes are lowered they don't spread the windfall to customers, etc. Why do you think they are wealthy (unless they inherited their wealth)? They have advisers to help them NOT pay the increase. Under our current tax system I see no way to have the wealthy actually carry the burden of increased taxes. It would be very interesting to see a tax system that could actually meet the goal of taxing the wealthy. I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts. All of them.

Musicmystery -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 7:50:58 PM)
quote: Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness. I will admit that the debt has increased under Obama, HOWEVER, economists attribute the increased national debt due to decreased tax revenues due to the late 2000's recession and stimulus spending. Part of the Stimulus Spending was done by the LAME DUCK Bush. Now, under Bush we had these wonderful tax cuts and INCREASED spending on TWO wars, also there is a proportional increase in spending for disabled veterans wounded while serving in Bush's wars. It's not either or -- both contributed. That said, the House had nothing but a fantasy as a budget.

pghays04 -> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again (4/7/2012 8:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: pghays04 I have seen both pro and con about taxing the wealthy on this thread. I ask that the people wanting to 'tax the wealthy' to think a little deeper about the mechanics of carrying out such a plan. If you raise the taxes on the wealthy they might wright the check, but they get someone else ( tenants, customers, their employees, etc.) to actually carry the extra burden by raising prices and/or reducing expenses. And no, when taxes are lowered they don't spread the windfall to customers, etc. Why do you think they are wealthy (unless they inherited their wealth)? They have advisers to help them NOT pay the increase. Under our current tax system I see no way to have the wealthy actually carry the burden of increased taxes. It would be very interesting to see a tax system that could actually meet the goal of taxing the wealthy. I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts. All of them. An interesting idea. If you remember the Regan 'trickle down economics', he had it half right. Increased taxes will certainly trickle down. I understand it could be argued that rolling back tax cuts is not an 'increase', but it has the same effect when compared to current rates. The wealthy would merely pass along the added expense. Remember the wealthy are experts at using other peoples money.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875