Hell, if you are accusing me of being a left wing drone you must know nothing about my political beliefs.
I have to agree with FEOS here that the downgrade has to do with S&P's outlook on US politics rather than hard facts and numbers. I can't say that this is unfair though, they are right in the fact that what preceded the raising of the debt ceiling was irresponsible 'political brinkmanship', as they put it. They're pushing the downgrade as a wake up call to both parties.
inane little opines
It's called sarcasm and dry humor, ghetto. Nobody who knows me would describe me as a cunt. I'm a very easy-going person. I just have a low tolerance level for certain things, chief among them laziness of all sorts.ghettoperson wrote:
Oh fuck off, I'm not saying it because you're hurting my feelings, I'm saying it because it makes me think you're a huge cunt. Which I'm quite sure you are, but I'd rather pretend that you weren't, since it ruins the debate somewhat if your cuntiness is distracting me.FEOS wrote:
Sorry if I wounded your inner child. I'll try to be more sensitive to your feelings the next time I point out how you were intellectually irresponsible. That better?ghettoperson wrote:
Is there any particular reason you have to sound like an asshole in every post? Debate is quite possible without it, you know.
I said I'd read news articles on it, since I didn't want to trawl through the document.
From what the head of S&P has said, it seems quite clear that the near-default played a big part in their decision. That's a bigger risk to lenders. Other countries can run up more debt because they don't have political parties holding the country hostage in an attempt to get their own way. Were the US less partisan I'm quite sure GDP:Debt would be less of an issue.
Toughen up, Nancy.
If you bother to actually read the S&P report then analyze what they said in light of the facts of what transpired--as opposed to others' views of what transpired--you would see that S&P criticized "the republicans" for being the only group to offer up a plan that met their criteria to avoid a downgrade. That plan was DOA with the opposing party. How was the S&P decision to downgrade the compromise solution and then blame the downgrade on the one group that offered a solution that met their criteria NOT political in that light?
I'll get around to reading the report eventually, but for the moment reading BBC analysis and the comments made in the media by the head of S&P is much easier.
However, the report criticises both parties, "The political brinkmanship 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." S&P obviously wanted cuts, but they also wanted tax increases, something the Republicans refuse to do.
I don't understand why everything has to be political with you, what do S&P have to gain from blaming the pro-business Republicans?
S&P wanted a $4T reduction in our debt, irrespective of method. The only party whose actions they criticized by name in their report was the republicans, when it is clear both parties share in the buffoonery. So why don't you tell me why it looks political? Not everything has to be political with me. I hate politics. It stands in the way of getting things done. I was merely pointing out how out of place (and factually incorrect) that was in the S&P report, driving one to the conclusion there may be political ties to their decision, rather than strictly economic reasons. Remember, the mainstream republican party doesn't care for the tea partiers, either.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The republicans deserve to be criticised tbh. The dem plan of last sunday was reasonable by any measure and they rejected it, displaying a severe lack of long term planning. They missed a good opportunity.
inane little opines
It was a horribly bad plan. I'm tired of paying for other people's free shit. Just because they suck oxygen for they live under the same Flag (which is now arguable) as I, doesn't mean I owe them shit by default. Time to trim back.Shocking wrote:
The dems plan was rejected as well. Wasn't a bad plan either, it actually was a compromise as it offered spending cuts and tax increases.13rin wrote:
That's bullshit. The house weeks before passed 3 different fiscally responsible bills, all rejected by the dem controlled Senate. Obamerfail and the rest of the drooling idiots had no plans or solutions... They merely wanted a blank check. Compromise doesnt mean giving into the democrats position.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were prepared to risk default instead of getting the deal they wanted weren't they?
Now they have a credit downgrade, what an achievement.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Same argument could be made the other direction. Reasonable is all perspective.Shocking wrote:
The republicans deserve to be criticised tbh. The dem plan of last sunday was reasonable by any measure and they rejected it, displaying a severe lack of long term planning. They missed a good opportunity.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If you want to deal with all the retirees in the coming years you have to increase tax revenue. That or significantly cut back on gov spending. Probably both actually
Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-06 11:05:32)
inane little opines
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?Shocking wrote:
significantly cut back on gov spending.
Fine. Start with the 51% that pay nothing.Shocking wrote:
If you want to deal with all the retirees in the coming years you have to increase tax revenue. That or significantly cut back on gov spending. Probably both actually
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Yes. And for a balanced budget. My State has one. During hard economic times, hard choices have to be made, but it is the responsible thing to do.RTHKI wrote:
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?Shocking wrote:
significantly cut back on gov spending.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
The repubs offered significant spending cuts (which the dems rejected) and tax reform to increase the tax base without raising rates (and possibly lowering them) while still increasing revenue. Dems were hard over on increasing rates without meaningful spending cuts.Shocking wrote:
If you want to deal with all the retirees in the coming years you have to increase tax revenue. That or significantly cut back on gov spending. Probably both actually
BL: We would never have gotten to S&P's target with the dem's plan. We would have with the republican plan.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Your state has one because states can't run deficits.13rin wrote:
Yes. And for a balanced budget. My State has one. During hard economic times, hard choices have to be made, but it is the responsible thing to do.RTHKI wrote:
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?Shocking wrote:
significantly cut back on gov spending.
Some can (Calyfornya). It depends on the state.Macbeth wrote:
Your state has one because states can't run deficits.13rin wrote:
Yes. And for a balanced budget. My State has one. During hard economic times, hard choices have to be made, but it is the responsible thing to do.RTHKI wrote:
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wasn't nearly enough. If they don't want to increase tax revenue, they're going to have to cut in their favorite programs. Call me when the GOP decides the Defense budget needs to be cut. I doubt they'll agree to at least that one.RTHKI wrote:
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?Shocking wrote:
significantly cut back on gov spending.
Aren't most of these low income homes on welfare? & why not consider raising the limit on payroll taxes, why should that be at ~105,000 anyway?13rin wrote:
Fine. Start with the 51% that pay nothing.
inane little opines
Your phone should be ringing off the hook.Shocking wrote:
Wasn't nearly enough. If they don't want to increase tax revenue, they're going to have to cut in their favorite programs. Call me when the GOP decides the Defense budget needs to be cut. I doubt they'll agree to at least that one.RTHKI wrote:
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?Shocking wrote:
significantly cut back on gov spending.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'm pretty sure they knew there was no way that bill was going to pass if the cuts were mainly centered in areas where the dems promised to increase spending. If I recall correctly the increase in tax revenue that was promised didn't amount to all that much either. It didn't look like much of a compromise to me.FEOS wrote:
The repubs offered significant spending cuts (which the dems rejected) and tax reform to increase the tax base without raising rates (and possibly lowering them) while still increasing revenue. Dems were hard over on increasing rates without meaningful spending cuts.Shocking wrote:
If you want to deal with all the retirees in the coming years you have to increase tax revenue. That or significantly cut back on gov spending. Probably both actually
BL: We would never have gotten to S&P's target with the dem's plan. We would have with the republican plan.
Wouldn't call a plan to cut 2.2T meaningless either.
Going by S&P's statements I think they may have downgraded regardless of which plan was accepted.
inane little opines
Reading the release just confirmed for me even further that we need to break away from the two party system. All the infighting between the dems and repubs are going to destroy America.
Some would argue by design.
Some would argue by design.
I've only seen them state that leaving Iraq & Afghan would save money. I don't equate stopping those wars to being defense cuts.FEOS wrote:
Your phone should be ringing off the hook.Shocking wrote:
Wasn't nearly enough. If they don't want to increase tax revenue, they're going to have to cut in their favorite programs. Call me when the GOP decides the Defense budget needs to be cut. I doubt they'll agree to at least that one.RTHKI wrote:
i havent been paying attention to this whole thing so forgive me if im wrong but isnt that what the repubs want?
Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-06 11:37:03)
inane little opines
The cuts weren't real, or enough for that matter.Shocking wrote:
The dems plan was rejected as well. Wasn't a bad plan either, it actually was a compromise as it offered spending cuts and tax increases.13rin wrote:
That's bullshit. The house weeks before passed 3 different fiscally responsible bills, all rejected by the dem controlled Senate. Obamerfail and the rest of the drooling idiots had no plans or solutions... They merely wanted a blank check. Compromise doesnt mean giving into the democrats position.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were prepared to risk default instead of getting the deal they wanted weren't they?
Now they have a credit downgrade, what an achievement.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
youre a real weirdoJay wrote:
not disagreement, eleven bravo level thought put into posts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats before you expressed a differing opinion.Macbeth wrote:
I liked it back two months ago when we were friends and you would send me karma highfives and jokes in PM's.
Also:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14430643Probably the only thing to be said with any confidence is that the downgrade could hardly have come at a worse time, in that conditions in global markets are febrile.
With the integrity of the eurozone, one of the three great economic areas, in some doubt, it is seriously discombobulating for banks, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, insurers and central banks that the safe harbour of US Treasury Bonds, US government debt, no longer looks quite the comforting refuge in a storm that it once was.
Tu Stultus Es
The republicans offered up the "tripwire" that applied across the board cuts (to include defense) that amount to $1.2T if an agreement isn't reached by Nov. Additionally, it was republicans in the "gang of six" that offered hundreds of billions in defense cuts...and got excoriated by their base for it.Shocking wrote:
I've only seen them state that leaving Iraq & Afghan would save money. I don't equate stopping those wars to being defense cuts.FEOS wrote:
Your phone should be ringing off the hook.Shocking wrote:
Wasn't nearly enough. If they don't want to increase tax revenue, they're going to have to cut in their favorite programs. Call me when the GOP decides the Defense budget needs to be cut. I doubt they'll agree to at least that one.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Fun Fact: All AAA rating countries now have socialized medicine (now that US is not AAA).
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Fun fact: the US's socialized medicine is one of the primary contributors to the debt that drove the downgrade.Uzique wrote:
Fun Fact: All AAA rating countries now have socialized medicine (now that US is not AAA).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
lol $800 billion military budget says hi