Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
You Obama-defenders are going to be reaching for quite some time.





posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
the S&P is still giving the US a AA+ which is I think way too high in my opinion if they were more truthful the US would get a FFF- and that's not just me, a lot of other people agree the dollar is junk or at least a D- not a AA+



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


If there wasn't all the unwanted attention regarding the debt ceiling we would have had an increase in our credit rating and borrowing power. Some say this is like a death knell but it is no worse than before...when you are already in this much debt, a couple trillion more hardly makes a ripple.

We might have had a little more world confidence and whether or not we could make good in it...the world would see we fully are responsible and can handle our debt.

This may not be true. But what good is pointing this out to our creditors. Why not do what everyone else does. Quietly move and change our phone numbers.


I say lighten up. The damage is already done.
Arguing with me won't repair it.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
S&P's opinion really means nothing.

They're the same rating agency they gave bad mortgage paper triple A ratings and they also allow Germany, France and the UK to keep their triple A rating. While U.S debt, as a percentage of GDP, is much lower than all of theirs.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
the S&P is still giving the US a AA+ which is I think way too high in my opinion if they were more truthful the US would get a FFF- and that's not just me, a lot of other people agree the dollar is junk or at least a D- not a AA+


Many foreigners do.
Smelling the sugar the ants will attack.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
directly from the standard and poors website


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.


The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again.


www.standardandpoors.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by macman
 


Another non reader...



Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."


He clearly states it's not because of Obama....
Funny, he doesn't blame Bush either.

Prior means before.

Who was before Obama?
Oh goody, now we get to argue over sentence structure? Technically, since there were only 2 items in the series, a comma should not have been used at all. That being said, the sentence should be read as a series of items; to wit:


1. Use commas to separate items in a series. Place a comma after each item in the series except for the last item. Place the last comma before the coordinating conjunction. For example:

Dogs, cats, mice, and squirrels are mammals.
Farmers grow yellow corn, orange pumpkins, green peppers, and purple grapes.
The movie is long, dull, and overrated.
Performers sing, dance, or act.


Thus, according to the admittedly poor structure of the sentence, the sentence should be read as:

"This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration and(possibly or) the prior administration. Will it be necessary for me to diagram the sentence for you?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I heard what he said. The agencys want a minimum of $4T in actual cuts. They just passed a smoke and mirrors bill that has some $40BN in cuts next year and merely slows the growth in spending and actually cuts nothing. Is the $950 material? Sure it is, but it is an increase in tax revenue and that is not primarily what they are look for. In 10 years at current burn rates this country will be $25T in debt. Letting these measly tax cuts expire will not have a material impact on that



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

‘AAA’—Extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments. Highest Rating.

‘AA’—Very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.

‘A’—Strong capacity to meet financial commitments, but somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions and changes in circumstances.

‘BBB’—Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions.

‘BBB-‘—Considered lowest investment grade by market participants.

‘BB+’—Considered highest speculative grade by market participants.

‘BB’—Less vulnerable in the near-term but faces major ongoing uncertainties to adverse business, financial and economic conditions.

‘B’—More vulnerable to adverse business, financial and economic conditions but currently has the capacity to meet financial commitments.

‘CCC’—Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.

‘CC’—Currently highly vulnerable.

‘C’—Currently highly vulnerable obligations and other defined circumstances.

‘D’—Payment default on financial commitments.

Note: Ratings from ‘AA’ to ‘CCC’ may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories.
www.standardandpoors.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 




‘B’—More vulnerable to adverse business, financial and economic conditions but currently has the capacity to meet financial commitments.
‘CCC’—Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.
So, one of these 2 is where we really sit imo.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No, it's not shallow, Beezer. It's the truth. Social Security was wiped out during the Bush administration, the funds were diverted after 911, and they were never replaced.

We got so far in over our heads during those eight years, they knew we would never get out.
I honestly to God believe sometime that they didn't rig the last election because they wanted a Democrat in, to try and clean up the mess they made.

The money was spent on everything from wars, to give-aways to other countries, trying to buy allies.
It was spent on everything but the citizens.

We cannot continue without raising taxes. "READ MY LIPS".

WE WILL HAVE TO RAISE TAXES. Any fool can see that.

The tea party members should be ashamed of themselves. They are having the exact opposite effect of what most of them really want, but are too ill informed to know better, and like everybody else, they don't know how to fix it.

We will have to raise taxes, period.

We can pay them now, or we can pay them later, but pay them, we must.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by macman
 


If there wasn't all the unwanted attention regarding the debt ceiling we would have had an increase in our credit rating and borrowing power. Some say this is like a death knell but it is no worse than before...when you are already in this much debt, a couple trillion more hardly makes a ripple.

We might have had a little more world confidence and whether or not we could make good in it...the world would see we fully are responsible and can handle our debt.

This may not be true. But what good is pointing this out to our creditors. Why not do what everyone else does. Quietly move and change our phone numbers.


I say lighten up. The damage is already done.
Arguing with me won't repair it.


Ah, whats a trillion here, several billion there. Spread the wealth, right??
So again, Obama had nothing to do with this.

But wait, the Obama team is screaming from the mountain tops that the issue way reside with a calculations error of 2 trillion dollars.

Oh wait, I forgot. Merely just a drop in the bucket.

So which is it.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You can't just blame the GOP as the last line in your OP states that both administrations are at fault.

Something many of us here already knew.

Hmmmm.....maybe I'll go get a job as a talking head/pundit.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by macman
 


Another non reader...



Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."


He clearly states it's not because of Obama....
Funny, he doesn't blame Bush either.

Prior means before.

Who was before Obama?
Oh goody, now we get to argue over sentence structure? Technically, since there were only 2 items in the series, a comma should not have been used at all. That being said, the sentence should be read as a series of items; to wit:


1. Use commas to separate items in a series. Place a comma after each item in the series except for the last item. Place the last comma before the coordinating conjunction. For example:

Dogs, cats, mice, and squirrels are mammals.
Farmers grow yellow corn, orange pumpkins, green peppers, and purple grapes.
The movie is long, dull, and overrated.
Performers sing, dance, or act.


Thus, according to the admittedly poor structure of the sentence, the sentence should be read as:

"This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration and(possibly or) the prior administration. Will it be necessary for me to diagram the sentence for you?





Well, it is important, don't you think??

If it was the prior administration (Singular) that would be Bush. Thus, Bush's and his economic ideas at fault.

If it were the prior administrations (Plural) it would be many of them, thus pointing to the downward path towards a socialistic Govt, and away from Capitalism.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by angeldoll
reply to post by beezzer
 


No, it's not shallow, Beezer. It's the truth. Social Security was wiped out during the Bush administration, the funds were diverted after 911, and they were never replaced.

We got so far in over our heads during those eight years, they knew we would never get out.
I honestly to God believe sometime that they didn't rig the last election because they wanted a Democrat in, to try and clean up the mess they made.

The money was spent on everything from wars, to give-aways to other countries, trying to buy allies.
It was spent on everything but the citizens.

We cannot continue without raising taxes. "READ MY LIPS".

WE WILL HAVE TO RAISE TAXES. Any fool can see that.

The tea party members should be ashamed of themselves. They are having the exact opposite effect of what most of them really want, but are too ill informed to know better, and like everybody else, they don't know how to fix it.

We will have to raise taxes, period.

We can pay them now, or we can pay them later, but pay them, we must.



Social Security was gone long before Bush.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 

*egads*
I can't believe that you can ignore the spending that brought us here.
Obama has been president for the past 3 years. He's had a checkbook with the mindset that, "I can't be overdrawn, I still have checks."

Blame Bush, blame the Tea Party, but you'll just make yourself look foolish.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Nope... but he does blame the tax cuts... that originated in that admin.


He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.


If you quote that one more time I am going to scream. It's like you can only say the same thing over and over again.

It does not make your argument stronger to repeat it over and over. It's like arguing with a toddler.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 

If the current administration had never spent they way they have, thn we'd not be in this mess in the first place.

Blaming republicans is a shallow and baseless argument.



Standard & Poors clearly stated in their remarks that much of their decision was based on the recent display of just how dysfunctional and combative our Congress has become, (since the recent addition of the right wing Tea Party influence) with respect to dealing with our nation's debt. This is precisely why section 4 of the 14 amendment states that this nation's debt "Shall not be questioned."

But because Beezer says so; It all happened because Obama spent all the money, Right!


G.W. Bush turns a budget surplus into a record deficit in 8 yrs. and now it's all Obama's fault, please! This had nothing whatsoever to do with engaging us in two wars, (at least one of which was based totally on lies) 1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy, the TARP bailout program or the unfunded medicare drug benefit either, I'm sure.


Don't get me wrong, I don't blame it all on Bush either, but I'm definitely not about to blame it on the guy who got left holding the bag, so to speak.

Clinton didn't do us any favors by enacting NAFTA or by awarding China with the "Permanent Most Favored Trading Status" which amounted to nothing more than opening the flood gates for american corporations to begin outsourcing our jobs along with our economy. Once corporate america had it's "permanent" guarantee that the goods made in China could be traded in America, they began their mass exodus.

Remember, that loud sucking sound that Ross Perot described as the sound of american jobs being sucked out of this country? You may have even noticed the numerous threads that have cropped up here on ATS recently, regarding this weird and very loud noise in the atmosphere, well that's the sound that Ross Perot was talking about.


All I can say is; If you really think that Obama has singlehandedly driven this country into bankruptcy in less than 3 yrs., then he must really be some kind of a super magician or something. David Copperfield himself, couldn't accomplish what you're accusing President Obama of doing.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 
I've done nothing but read about this issue. Focusing on increases in taxes is myopic at best. No one, apparently, has the stones to admit that this administrations keynesian spending tactcs have caused this.



Riiight...

Obama was able to destroy the American economies' faith and good credit in two years


I suppose the 6,700 Dow in March of 2009 was due this administrations keynesian spending tactics.

Maybe somebody should have pulled their finger out and supported a balanced approach with raised revenue.

You tell me Beezer, your own personal credit depends on your income, sooo ya.

edit on 6-8-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Hunka, this is an important thread, but you see how it is being received. There are people who are so emeshed inside the box, they don't realize there are things more important than those four walls, which is all they allow themselves to see.

People will believe lies if they are big enough, and if success is more important.
........Adolph Hitler

Enjoy your tea. It will sour in your mouth before long.





new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join