Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

What an utterly worthless thread of bickering and idiocy.

Tea Party, you fought so hard to be able to wear this Scarlet Letter.

Wear it and let the world see what your Political Posturing has helped to bring forth.

Wear it Proudly now that financial Institutions officially bestow it onto you.

This is your shame to wear.

Wow. Everything comes down to blaming the other party. Everything. Even this. The report speaks for itself, yet we continue to blame the other party. It's sickening what we've become.

How can we continue to defend either of these parties? Why do we do it? They are both vastly flawed, and both have agendas which don't include us. They don't defend us, yet we continue to stand up for them.

Here is a simple statement made in the OP and it has become an arguement over who to blame. We're fighting like children standing up for "our side".

For God's sake,if we can't get past it, how the hell do we expect them to do it in Washington?

ETA: They day after he was elected, the Republicans started trying to bring Obama down. If we elect a Rublican in 2012, the day after inauguration, the Democrats will begin trying to bring him down.

What's even scarier now than all our economic troubles, is the dangerous game involving egos which are clearly out of control, which has become a sickness unto itself.

Another member posted this:

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

If I didn't like my current signature so much, I would engage this.

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Grow up please, pointing out the author's ignorance isnt insulting just simply stating a fact here.

So you defend your name calling, now defend your policies.

Please.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
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.

We agree on this... Let us hope this blows over, S&P can kiss my butt

Yeah, I don't think this is as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

When I first heard about the downgrade I was worried, because I thought this meant to U.S would lose it reserve currency status overnight but now, as I understand it, financial institutions have recently been changing their by-laws, allowing them to carry assets rated below AAA.

There's no doubt in my mind that S&P gave the govt a heads up about the downgrade.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Wow. Everything comes down to blaming the other party. Everything. Even this. The report speaks for itself, yet we continue to blame the other party. It's sickening what we've become.

You have two children and one starts a fire and the other tries to put it out.
Are you going to blame them both?
Will you still be taking about this silly blame game?
Will you let the child who started the fire ever baby sit again?

Do you see where I am going with this.

Try replacing your dirty word blame with ACCOUNTABILITY and you might have a different rational.

People need to be accountable or you are bound to repeat your mistakes.
I do not say blame...I say accept the truth and move on.
If someone has a problem with the truth - it is only civil and decent to point it out to them.

Deny ignorance. Right?

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Love hearing the surplus argument brought up.

You do realize that the surplus was smoke and mirrors?

But, believing that it was not, the surplus was nothing more then tax dollars, taken from tax payers. It was not and is not the Govt's money. So the surplus should have never been.

But, even with that. It is a combined effort steaming back all the way the creation of the great society.

So to hear you tell it, the government has no money? Just exactly where is the government supposed to get "it's money" if not from taxpayers? How are we supposed to fund our military, build roads & bridges, dams & levees, provide police & fire protection or educate our children, etc... without revenue from taxpayers?

Furthermore, even if it were all "smoke & mirrors," apparently by the time Bush left office, despite the fact that he had "smoke & mirrors" to work with, he still couldn't show a surplus. So what the hell happened?

Wow just wow. Let's see Obama has never held a job in the private sector, or has ever been an executive of anything or never ran a state. The treasurey secretary couldnt even do his turbo tax correctly and you have the nerve to throw this on the republicans. Simply amazing.

Originally posted by SyphonX
What an utterly worthless thread of bickering and idiocy.

Luckily we have a place available to engage in an utterly worthless thread of bickering and idiocy.

And I see you join us

reply to post by Onewhoknowsjesus


Get off the "blame Bush" horse.

This country has been on the path to ruin since the 60s when the government in its infinite wisdom thought that by giving folks cash they would eliminate poverty and all of the attendant problems that go along with poverty and thus create a healthy society. Any reasonable analysis of those policies show them to have been abject failures and have only excerbated and deepened the problems.

We have social and medical programs that have expanded in scope only as folks have begun to live longer and high tech medicine made end of life medical support a massively expensive reality. The demographic and economic trends were obvious, easy to prove in an actuarial sense. Everyone knew the thing was going to blow. Every President from Nixon to Obama knew it, yet failed to act. Failed to ease into a decade long model of means testing for these entitlements. Failed to slowly move to a more liberalized/privatized retirement scheme such as they have in Australia, failed to address the tremendous burden placed on society by our over reaching military and corruption of the military industrial complex. Failed to implement common sense regulatory reforms that would limit the professional class of politicians. Failed to address the growing regulatory burdens that were increasingly killing business and jobs. Failed to enact tax policies that meant that more citizens were actually paying for government, thus having a stake in the governance of their country rather than allowing tax policies evolve that reduced those who pay for government and thus don't care about its quality, only that they get more of it.

Each one of these tools knew what was happening or was going to happen. Each of them were in positions to do something about it. Each one of them lacked the courage to act.

Now Obama is unlucky enough to have been elected at the time when this is coming home to roost. Too bad for him. He's a very smart gent. He, too knew this was happening or likely to happen when he threw his hat in the ring to get the job he now holds. He ran on the fact that he knew these things were going to happen and was going to build broad coalitions to solve these seemingly intractable problems. He has failed and failed miserably on every measure. We can dissect the past years and come up with answers as to why he has failed, but it really does not matter. Only the failure matters.

I doubt that any of the cast of tools who wanted the office would have fared any better, but that is immaterial. He wanted the job, he got the job and now this is his problem. Of course it is everyone's problem, but he needs to be the solution or at least the genesis of one.

Originally posted by professornurbs
Wow just wow. Let's see Obama has never held a job in the private sector, or has ever been an executive of anything or never ran a state. The treasurey secretary couldnt even do his turbo tax correctly and you have the nerve to throw this on the republicans. Simply amazing.

Wow just wow. How pertinent is that? How true even? Not much. Read up a little and when you are better informed maybe you can come up with a better understanding of the issues and you might see what all the fuss is about. You might even take a new position yourself or at least pull you out of that stupefied shock you apparently suffer from in this thread.

The debt started mainly in each war, revolutionary then Civil War, but went back to normal after they ended.
WWI saw the next increase but began to go down until the depression.

ocial programs enacted during the Great Depression and the buildup and involvement in World War II during the F.D. Roosevelt and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused the largest increase – a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, the national debt was almost $20 billion; a sum equal to 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). During its first term, the Roosevelt administration ran large annual deficits between 2 and 5 percent of GDP. By 1936, the national debt had increased to $33.7 billion or approximately 40 percent of GDP.[11] Gross debt relative to GDP rose to over 100% to pay for WWII.

Wiki

I will blame all of our past governments for the increase, even Reagan, it quadrupled under his terms. It is not about the Black guy as some stated. His skin color has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling again and putting us in more debt.The spending needs to stop, the Bush tax cuts are not the problem which Obama re-signed. They are now his cuts.
How the Tea Party to blame. They were not around until recent elections? An excuse by the current parties to place the Blame elsewhere than on themselves.

reply to post by dolphinfan

Get off the "blame Bush" horse.

Again it is called accountability.

And why not tell that to your friends dumping it all on the President now?

reply to post by newcovenant


Explain where I didn't tell the truth.

reply to post by newcovenant

You have two children and one starts a fire and the other tries to put it out

The analogy doesn't work, sorry.

In this scenario both children started the fire; they are both lying, and both blaming the other.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


If that is what you choose to believe who am I to talk you out of it?
Enjoy your fantasy world.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by beezzer

 

Evidently you didn't read the words of the guy from S&P... he clearly stated the reasons... and they weren't Obamas policies...

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.

You really should read the full OP and reflect before posting

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

Yep, all the doing of the evil GW Bush.

Obama had no hand in this what so ever.

So why did he taught the debt ceiling being raised as SO important?
Why is it that you left out the fact that man-child Obama is pushing back stating that the issue is a 2 trillion dollar miscalculation on the part of the credit rating company?
If spending where not the issue, then this would not be an issue.

Spending, plain and simple.

If Obama and the Govt weren't spending like a drunken sailor, then this would not have happened.


But, again. It is the fault of Bush and the Tea party

Sure sure.

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

The debt was handed to us by Bush -- cut the taxes spend like a drunken sailor on vanity wars.

Obama has tried to get some money circulating -- the repub/baggers whined
The debt ceiling was raised because it had to be -- spending was reduced because it had to - revenues NOT increased because of the baggers-- baggers threaten to keep governing by holding the country hostage -- credit rating lowered face lost because the baggers are ideological idiots. We told you this would happen you would rather trash the county.

You had to protect the rich and corporations even though the are just using the country as a cash cow.

Thank you Macman thank you very much.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by beezzer

 

Not defending Obama...

I am fighting your grandstanding and lies

Just because I don't like Obama's policies, doesn't mean I like your policies anymore

Especially since all of you enlightened folks are the ones who looked the other way for nearly a decade
without a peep.

and now...

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

Without a peep???
Surely you jest.


Bush's spending was outrageous, Clinton was a joke and Obama is just compounding the issue.

Do you think we would be in this station had you and TEA party taken the same approach at this point in 2003?

No

There would have been too many of us complaining...

Now, I am not even sure

You work on the false premise that the Tea Party backs, or would back Bush.

They would not.

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by beezzer

 

Not defending Obama...

I am fighting your grandstanding and lies

Just because I don't like Obama's policies, doesn't mean I like your policies anymore

Especially since all of you enlightened folks are the ones who looked the other way for nearly a decade
without a peep.

and now...

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

Just because I'm blaming Obama now, doesn't mean I didn't fault Bush in the past.
Obama is in the big chair now.
HE gets the blame.

Originally posted by professornurbs
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Explain where I didn't tell the truth.

Business International Corporation
New York Public Interest Research Group
Sidley Austin Law Firm
Hopkins & Sutter Law Firm
University of Chicago Law School
Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland Law Firm