S&P Downgrades US Credit - Page 16

On August 06 2011 18:14 KwarK wrote:

Because 4+1 = 5 whereas 3+0 = 3. 5 > 3.

If you're a member of the American electorate then I think I'm beginning to understand why the credit rating is getting downgraded.

On August 06 2011 23:17 Tien wrote:
You can't blame the 2 wars alone.

Social security and Medicare DOUBLED in cost within 10 years.

Medicare was 300 bill a year, now its 800 bill a year.
Social security was 400 Bill a year, now its 700 Bill a year.

In just 10 years, 2 programs added 800 Bill more to their expense figures.


By 2015, Medicare and Social security will reach 1trillion and 800 Bill respectively.


These 2 programs are going to be the wrench that breaks the American economic machine.

On August 06 2011 23:17 Tien wrote:
You can't blame the 2 wars alone.

Social security and Medicare DOUBLED in cost within 10 years.

Medicare was 300 bill a year, now its 800 bill a year.
Social security was 400 Bill a year, now its 700 Bill a year.

In just 10 years, 2 programs added 800 Bill more to their expense figures.


By 2015, Medicare and Social security will reach 1trillion and 800 Bill respectively.


These 2 programs are going to be the wrench that breaks the American economic machine.

On August 06 2011 21:41 Reborn8u wrote:
Wondering what has happened to America's middle class? It's simple, Free trade. Anything we used to produce here can be produced much cheaper in a country with people who will work for just a few dollars per day, with no unions or benefits. The U.S. used to have taxes or tariffs on imported goods from countries like China and Mexico. These taxes were to protect the American worker, so we could compete on even footing in our own markets with imported goods. Free trade only benefits corporations. They produce products for next to nothing, import it to the U.S. and make billions. This is what has happened to Americas middle class. Now we all work in the "service industry". The U.S. economy is just recycling the same money around over and over. The few areas where our country is still competing globally, are drying up fast.

On August 06 2011 23:31 TALkori wrote:


Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price.

You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources.

On August 06 2011 23:31 TALkori wrote:


Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price.

You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources.

On August 06 2011 23:35 mcc wrote:

It is not so clear cut. It does not benefit the customer if that customer cannot now afford it due to losing his job/getting paid less. I am not agreeing with him, just saying that the situation is really complex.

On August 06 2011 23:28 DeltaSigmaL wrote:


Source your facts please. Social security is currently running at a surplus. That's right, the program does not cost the government money (yet), the gov actually borrows money from the Social security fund. It is only in 2017 that Social security is projected to start costing money.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890542,00.html

On the other hand, we never saw a cent out of iraq, afganistan. (Oil prices actually went up! I jest--kinda).

On August 06 2011 23:36 DeltaSigmaL wrote:


If we didn't subsidize agriculture, our food prices would rise. Every year there is a lull in demand, or a surplus in supply (perhaps do to good weather?) food prices fall and this discourages farmers from farming the next year. They leave the industry and their fields will become abandoned. The government views agriculture as a form of national security because feeding ourselves is inportant. I would rather spend money on corn than missles. Also, do you know what one of our main exports is? Food. We sell food to countries like China.

On August 06 2011 23:41 Tien wrote:


http://usdebtclock.org/

You're right, but I was talking in aggregate terms.

Iraq is the world's 2nd biggest oil reserve and as of right now we haven't seen 1 nickle from it. Money is going somewhere, but not in American public pockets.

On August 06 2011 23:52 mcc wrote:

Well why should it, it should go to the pockets of the Iraqi's. The only way it should go to US is if it was a war of conquest.

On August 06 2011 23:52 TALkori wrote:


The main reason why one of your main exports is agricultural goods is because of government subsidies, which in turn cripples global demand for agricultural goods that COULD have been produced in a different country at a cheaper price.

On August 06 2011 23:47 Dyme wrote:
At least the Tea Party achieved preventing a tax increase for rich people.
Because god forbid what would happen if people with a lot of money had to share a bit of it.

On August 06 2011 23:55 Tien wrote:


It was a war of conquest, why do you think America is still there? To help build Iraqi homes?

American army controls the oil fields.
American government is the one that put a puppet Iraqi oil minister in place.

American government controls this oil. Money is going somewhere, just not in American or Iraqi public pockets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html


You're seeing something similar happen in Libya. Who do you think is giving all these rebels arms and supplies?

Why do you think NATO and other European countries have such vested interest in the stability of Libya?

It's all about the oil.

On August 06 2011 23:31 TALkori wrote:


Free trade does benefit the consumer. The consumer is now able to buy the same quality good imported from a country who has a comparative advantage in producing that good, at a cheaper price.

You should realise that promoting the idea that the Government should subsidise inefficient industries that are not able to compete internationally such as the agricultural sector ($20 billion a year in subsidies) is absurd and a waste of resources.