The US debt (proper debate) - Page 48

On August 01 2011 03:10 cfoy3 wrote:
@ _Major

I disagree with your premise that we should loose our AAA rating. American is the biggest economy (I think as of today, China may soon eclipse), has unprecedented ability to generate income and has worldwide recognition and trust. All of your arguments are why we should get our long term fiscal policy in order. Not why we should default on the full faith and credit of the United States. There is nothing wrong with advocating that we need to reign in spending and get our deficit under control. This is a sensible conviction. However, your approach of stating the US should default does not do justice to the myriad of alternatives. We do not need such a drastic reduction in the size of the government, which ironically would do more to harm our ability to pay off our debt than help. Every time you cut government spending that is someone who loses a job. Now while I agree that does need to happen eventually, right now would be a horrible time. Look to Japan, their government did exactly what you are suggesting-drastically reduce the size of the government during a recession and they still haven't recovered. Politicians should be up front and truthful-we cannot afford the time of government that we currently have.

On August 01 2011 11:34 _Major wrote:
America is the biggest economy. So what?

On August 01 2011 11:34 _Major wrote:
This new deal smells so bad. Give us the ability to borrow up to $2.4 trillion more, and we'll cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Don't worry about the interest or the fact that we're scheduled to have a ~$1.5 trillion deficit this year, we've changed - we promise. /sigh

On August 01 2011 09:00 cfoy3 wrote:
@ Senorcuidado

I do not think they will be rewarded with it long term. The democrats and Obama will push this issue hard next election. They also probably lost the senior vote. Ultimately they only get rewarded if you decide to cast your vote for them next election.

On August 02 2011 03:22 Senorcuidado wrote:


I wish I still believed that. It might backfire on them in the presidential race, maybe, although the economy will more likely decide the victor. Congress, however, wil still be insane. Too many districts are too safe, with the primary voters mattering more than the general electorate. What scares them is not the challenge of a moderate (they can label them socialists) but rather the challenge of a radical outflanking them and stealing their base. I don't think most of them believe the garbage they spew out, but they have to spew it because that's what their core constituency wants to hear. The voters and the media are at least as guilty as the politicians, if they were rational they would have kicked out the crazies a long time ago.

The democrats probably won't punish them effectively because historically they really suck at it. They can't really pretend to be the anti-war party anymore, at least Obama can't. They won't say Republicans held unemployed people hostage in order to secure the extension of tax cuts for the rich in 2010, and brought the country within a day of collapsing TWICE in 2011 in order to cut programs that help the people hardest hit by the recession. They won't say sweeping cuts means sweeping job losses which means a worse economy. They won't remind us of the two years we lost while every single bill in the Senate was filibustered to death with a 41-59 minority. They might accuse the Republicans of sabotaging the economy so they could take the White House, but while that's probably true it won't play well with moderates. Look at 2010, crazy paid off big in the midterm elections. 41 Senators spent two years with the sole purpose of stopping the government from functioning, then pointed at the governing party and said "look, they're not getting anything done!" The only thing crazier than that is the fact that so many voters fell for it. It sounds like I'm bashing Republicans, but like I said I'm mad at everyone involved. I know so many reasonable conservatives that agree with most of what I just said. Who are they supposed to vote for? Who am I supposed to vote for? Ham sandwich 2012.

Listening to the radio on the way to work I heard Rush Limbaugh repeatedly insist that the compromise was all a big trick orchestrated by Obama to score the biggest tax increase in the history of America. Like it or not THAT is the guy voters listen to and come November he will tell them what they think. I don't have high hopes.

One thing about Mitt Romney: Rush Limbaugh hates his guts so he can't be all that bad.

On August 02 2011 06:15 TheGlassface wrote:
See, that's why I hate modern politics.
NO ONE WON in this debate.
NO ONE.

On August 02 2011 06:15 TheGlassface wrote:
See, that's why I hate modern politics.
NO ONE WON in this debate.
NO ONE.

What happened was a president attempted to get grown men to sit down and act like adults about a serious issue in our country. They were meant to do their job.

Instead, we got got a bunch of idiots pandering to a camera. Even the president.

I have been saying for years, and i would vote for it in an instant, that there be some kind of limit placed on campaign money/media time. Level the entire field so it's not about running around on the airwaves slamming "opponents." Rather, make it so that it's not about looks, how they tweet, how they pulled numbers out of one hat that the other guy isn't using. No, let's make it about

The economy, the wars, the poverty, the infrastructure collapse, the education system...
You know...the damn issues.

I can't wait to see this next "choose the lesser of two evils" election coming up. Just like last time...and the time before that...

On August 01 2011 11:49 Zooper31 wrote:


This. Democrats were the ones who were willing to compromise the most and we got shafted because the Republicans knew this. Why negotiate when the other person will eventually give in...

Nothing changed in Washington, everything is business as usual and nothing is going to change for the better.

On August 02 2011 08:57 Gamegene wrote:


Have to put some of the blame on the voters too, not very politically savvy/properly informed.

Have to say that there's definitely an interest in politics after the 2008 election, but the problem is that you have a bunch of people eating up bullshit on facebook and twitter.

On August 02 2011 09:26 cfoy3 wrote:
@SnK-Arcbound most of the money was spent under Bush. The democrats aren't in the right by any means, but the Rep are way way more wrong. They held a gun to the economy and threated to pull the trigger if they didn't get their way. Obama should have be tougher and submitted his fair plan into the senate so it could be debated in public. I am confident that Obama will push this issue hard next election. All he has to say that the GOP wanted no new revenue and wanted to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. That they where willing to destroy the US economy to get their way.

On August 02 2011 09:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

The house controls spending. Republicans controlled all 3 branches of the government for 4 years (2002-2006), which means Democrats were responsible for all the spending from 2006-2010, even if Bush signed off on some of it. That's the 10 trillion and 4 trillion debt.

Democrats create a fiscal trap by not passing a budget (illegal) and spending trillions, and then blaming Republicans for passing a budget they disagree with. Democrats specifically didn't pass a budget because this is what they would hope would happen, Republicans would win an election and then be blamed for the fiscal disaster that they had no part in producing (this soon that is).

You also ignore the factual nature of needing to raise the debt ceiling in order to not default means that the US government is running a ponzie sheme. Oh no the ponzie scheme will collapse if Republicans don't raise the debt ceiling (ignoring the fact that the ponzie scheme in itself is the reason why it doesn't mattter either way, it's going to collapse).

Also you are trying to claim that republicans are responsible for spending if even one republican signs off on it (bush 2006-2008), but that democrats aren't responsible for things if one of them sign off on it (obama and tax rates). You are entirely hypocritical and obviously biased.

edit: by "Republicans" I mean the current republicans elected to the Congress, since they had minority/super minority votes from 2008-2010, not Bush even though he was a Republican.

On August 01 2011 11:45 sunprince wrote:
Having the biggest economy = having the most revenue. It's quite standard to assign higher credit ratings to people or institutions with more revenue.