RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 3:54:25 PM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to SadistDave)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 3:58:04 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 4/7/2012 4:10:21 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to SadistDave)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 4:10:59 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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)

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 4:17:48 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 4:19:35 PM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 4:20:27 PM

hardcybermaster

Posts: 904
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline

partisan politics is fun to read but does not solve the problem

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

< Message edited by hardcybermaster -- 4/7/2012 4:22:14 PM >

_____________________________

insert something clever or profound that someone else thought of

vanilla burger flipper

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 4:28:11 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 4:46:41 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 5:17:33 PM

subrob1967

Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 5:25:16 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 5:29:25 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 5:32:46 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 6:21:55 PM

MasterJaguar01

Posts: 2433
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

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 :)

(in reply to PatrickG38)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 6:53:30 PM

pghays04

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/16/2012
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 6:54:58 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I sincerely wish they were doomed to fail.

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.

< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 4/7/2012 6:55:22 PM >

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 7:20:01 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 4/7/2012 7:21:32 PM >

(in reply to subrob1967)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 7:32:36 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by jlf1961 -- 4/7/2012 7:33:36 PM >

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to subrob1967)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 7:46:56 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to pghays04)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 7:50:58 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: President Hopeless Change strikes again - 4/7/2012 8:17:13 PM

pghays04

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/16/2012
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 40