EPTAnd when its 2012, the republicans will talk about how obama failed to improve the economy (mostly b/c he was carrying out republican policies) lol
Politics is such bullshit, if we had a king or something stuff would actually get done
S&P Downgrades US Credit - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
zala2023
United States228 Posts
And when its 2012, the republicans will talk about how obama failed to improve the economy (mostly b/c he was carrying out republican policies) lol Politics is such bullshit, if we had a king or something stuff would actually get done | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:38 EtherealDeath wrote: A frightening/illuminating picture from that article: ![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20110730_USC300.gif) Uh... It's neither frightening nor illuminating. "Compromising to get things done" is essentially a euphemism for "forever expanding government." Getting things done of course means expanding government, almost by definition, which is something many republicans oppose. I'm against compromise, and I'm certainly not a republican. I'm in favor of gridlock, of more NOT getting done. Whenever republicans and democrats "compromise," it usually means the American people are getting screwed, and the debt and the deficit are expanding. There is a reason our constitution established 3 competing branches of government, that are meant to check and balance each other... it was to ensure that the government didn't GET TOO MUCH DONE! | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
|
TofuFox
374 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:38 DeepElemBlues wrote: Obama demanded the 400 billion additional revenue come from tax increases, reversing his compromise position with Boehner at literally the end of negotiations when there wasn't much left to do but shake hands and say "nice working with you." Knowing full well that Boehner was not going to accept tax increases as part of the deal. After working with Boehner for weeks and leading him on to believe that Obama was not going to demand tax increases. 3 billion in cuts to 1.2 billion in revenue is a significant compromise. Also, you seem to know a remarkable amount about a) How close Boehner was to accepting the deal. b) How successful he would be at getting the Republican caucus to accept any revenue increases. Are you psychic? Because you appear to have read the minds of everyone involved. Capital is already deep, deep, deep in hiding thanks to the idiotic Big Government policies of this administration, let's encourage more companies to move out of America, more rich people to move their assets offshore, by raising taxes in a recession! It's a brilliant religion, Democrats have, where you can tax your way out of a recession. Taxes are at the lowest point in a long time. Moreover, cutting government spending isn't the way out of a recession either. That's one of the sucky things about a recession. | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:34 Zergneedsfood wrote: Politifact says that the GM statistic was false I believe. Check it out. But ultimately, I agree on revenue. I don't know about increasing taxes, but closing tax loopholes is definitely an option. Idk man, wsj and other sources all have articles about this. Anyway, it is true that taxes are lowest in years. If the trickle down effect was real, why are low tax rates and bad economy happening at the same time? Everyone hates giving the govenment their money, until they become down on their luck and need to government to save them. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:46 Sufficiency wrote: I think in time people will compare Obama with Hoover. I think only a fool could compare the two administrations in any way that makes them seem similar. | ||
|
taLbuk
Madagascar1879 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:38 EtherealDeath wrote: A frightening/illuminating picture from that article: Don't tell me you're seriously taking a graph from a non-objectionable source as "frightening and illuminating" They definitely have some points spot on in that article, but its hardly worth that graph meaning a damn. Edit: For those not familiar "YouGov" previously "PollingPoint" is one of those internet polling companies based out of UK who give the 20 minute surveys to people of certain demographics who have registered with them, in return they get checks worth £50 | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:45 Saryph wrote: On another note, S&P put out a statement saying the reason for the downgrade was because BOTH sides are fighting too much, and that the government wasn't properly look at cutting spending AND raising taxes. Not one, but both. Yet even after that release, all you see here is one person after another blaming only the republicans, or only the democrats. S&P is paid to be completely politically neutral, they can't show bias or favoritism without losing credibility on the markets. I feel a storm blowing. I'm stepping out before the black hole seizes me. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote: Uh... It's neither frightening nor illuminating. "Compromising to get things done" is essentially a euphemism for "forever expanding government." Getting things done of course means expanding government, almost by definition, which is something many republicans oppose. I'm against compromise, and I'm certainly not a republican. I'm in favor of gridlock, of more NOT getting done. Whenever republicans and democrats "compromise," it usually means the American people are getting screwed, and the debt and the deficit are expanding. There is a reason our constitution established 3 competing branches of government, that are meant to check and balance each other... it was to ensure that the government didn't GET TOO MUCH DONE! If you really wanted to fix our debt, you wouldn't be saying that. On August 06 2011 10:47 DeltaSigmaL wrote: Idk man, wsj and other sources all have articles about this. Anyway, it is true that taxes are lowest in years. If the trickle down effect was real, why are low tax rates and bad economy happening at the same time? Everyone hates giving the govenment their money, until they become down on their luck and need to government to save them. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of tax reform, but I'm not ready to say we need tax increases. Ending the Bush Tax cuts? Alright. Ending tax loopholes? Alright. But I'm not ready yet announce taxes anywhere else just yet. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011. There was a huge battle about spending and taxes then; I'm not sure what you're getting on about. If it had been passed the day Obama originally proposed his 2011 budget on February 10th, 2010 the exact same thing would have happened. I'm sorry but this must be a joke. You are aware that the 2011 budget was for the Fiscal Year 2011, which runs from Fall 2010 until a few months from now? That isn't the budget that was at issue here, it's Fiscal Year 2012's budget. The Tea Party and everyone else didn't need the budget to mess with the debt ceiling; Incorrect :D the debt ceiling must be raised independent of the budget and there is no conceivable budget that would have prevented the need for it to be raised, given the current economy. Both parties have said they want to reduce the deficit. Democrats said "let's deal with it later" and with the same kind of "spending cuts" we've seen from Washington for years; no real spending cuts at all. Republicans said not this time, if you're serious about cutting spending, then be serious about it. The "crisis" we have originated from the right deciding to demagogue the debt ceiling to a greater extent that had ever previously been done; Hilarious, the Right are being "demagogues" about the debt ceiling while Moody's and S&P were saying again and again that the Democrats' preferred choice, a clean debt ceiling raise, would result in a downgrade. for better or worse, the left would have happily left the budget discussion to the 2012 budget. Yeah, this sure is accurate, what with the political media reporting from actual Democratic operatives that they wanted to kick the can until 2013 precisely because they did not want to have that discussion during an election year. Who should I believe, them or you... Where do you get your information, Democratic Underground? | ||
|
SgtWaffles
United States38 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:44 Cambium wrote: They had very little data to work with in terms of mortgage-backed bonds and their CDOs, and a lot of industry influences that strong-armed them into handing out AAA ratings. Just because they fucked up before, doesn't mean they should purposely fuck up some more indefinitely into the future. I say good for S&P. Good point. I'm just pointing out they are quite hypocritical, considering they never admitted any wrong doing from before as well. Not to mention, AAA scores are still quite common. | ||
|
Ripense
Austria23 Posts
All rating agencies are utterly pro US. It is ridiculous how those agencies are able to influence the global financial markets. I think they currently have too much power. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:46 TofuFox wrote: 3 billion in cuts to 1.2 billion in revenue is a significant compromise. Also, you seem to know a remarkable amount about a) How close Boehner was to accepting the deal. b) How successful he would be at getting the Republican caucus to accept any revenue increases. Are you psychic? Because you appear to have read the minds of everyone involved. Taxes are at the lowest point in a long time. Moreover, cutting government spending isn't the way out of a recession either. That's one of the sucky things about a recession. yup we all know that tax cuts and spending cuts in government grows an economy it's why the U.K. has a 0% growth rate. herp at least that's what people at tea party tell us which has no basis in fact. Way to grow an econ is to spend, improve infrastructure, and educate/train, but what do academics that study this stuff know. | ||
|
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:18 Deadlyhazard wrote: What exactly does this mean? I'm not really familiar with this stuff......anything bad for day-to-day life in the U.S. for the future? Basically the market is going to tank hard on Monday. I don't know why a lot of people are blaming the tea party, is asking a government to balance its budget and to cut wasteful spending so bad? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: Hilarious, the Right are being "demagogues" about the debt ceiling while Moody's and S&P were saying again and again that the Democrats' preferred choice, a clean debt ceiling raise, would result in a downgrade. One month ago or so (maybe 1 1/2), S&P directly stated a clean ceiling increase was acceptable and that the (-) outlook was completely Congress. They tacked on the rest about three weeks ago (two and a half weeks? Four weeks? I forget), citing that Congress was stupider than they expected and.they had no hope for the future. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote: Uh... It's neither frightening nor illuminating. "Compromising to get things done" is essentially a euphemism for "forever expanding government." Getting things done of course means expanding government, almost by definition, which is something many republicans oppose. I'm against compromise, and I'm certainly not a republican. I'm in favor of gridlock, of more NOT getting done. Whenever republicans and democrats "compromise," it usually means the American people are getting screwed, and the debt and the deficit are expanding. There is a reason our constitution established 3 competing branches of government, that are meant to check and balance each other... it was to ensure that the government didn't GET TOO MUCH DONE! Sure is a lot of baseless claims hidden as fact in this post. Are you a politician? Also, people stop saying "S&P fucked up during the earlier therefore they must have fucked up now." That is fallacious logic. Either prove their account isn't right now or be quiet. On that topic there are some clear number errors in their report, which does diminish it's credibility. However I still agree with the general principle about the volatility of politics atm leading to uncertainty in our ability to pay our debts. The market was ahead of the curve earlier this week when we lost 500points... | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
Capital is already deep, deep, deep in hiding thanks to the idiotic Big Government policies of this administration, let's encourage more companies to move out of America, more rich people to move their assets offshore, by raising taxes in a recession! It's a brilliant religion, Democrats have, where you can tax your way out of a recession. Wait, you think capital is in hiding because of gov? If it wasn't for gov bailouts, we would be in 2nd depression right now! The funny thing is that bush began these programs, which did save our economy, and now its being lampooned by tea partiers as "big government". Also, moving assets offshore is illegal. It's tax evasion. To say one will break the law if we enact a law is not an arguement against the law. We have a debt that needs to pay back. Taxing will have some negative effect, but at the same time, spending cuts will also have a negative effect. Don't forget that the USGOV is the biggest employer in America. So to say we shouldn't raise taxes because it hurts the economy is also an invalide agruement because our other option, to cut spending, hurts the economy as well. | ||
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
I expect gold will hit new highs again next week. | ||
| ||
