S&P calls out the Republicans!

Lowaicue said:
That's simple. Work together.
Click to expand...

The democrats are too busy blaming the republicans to actually work together

Lowaicue said:
Republicans are indeed tools. They are the blind, unthinking tools of the fat cats. They are the foot soldiers of the Koch-up brothers. Up to their ears in muck and bullets they still prefer to shine the shoes of Fox rather than come to their senses. Tools they are. Tools with which the rich will get richer and when the tool is no longer needed it will be discarded.
Click to expand...
 
Damn Yankee said:
I knew you'd fail miserably at this.

Low IQ:
'stop assigning blame and fix the problem'
'fix the problem then worry about who caused it'
'work together'
'shut up and let The Obama fuck you in the ass. That's how a democracy works.'

:rofl:
Click to expand...

You are so knowledgable. How come you are not the president? Or a senator? or a teacher? instead of a self opinionated hick yank with the sense of a jackass.
Well, Yank, it's your country and you are the ones who are going to suffer. You are the ones who must shoulder the responsibility for what is quite likely to be a depression. You are the American equivalent of the London yobs. Screwing up your country and blaming someone else.
Like them you are too f****** thick to see what you are doing. But, yank, the world sees and it's the world who is going to get even with stupid people like you.
 
dixon76710 said:
I guess thats your admission you just made that part up about the Obama plan, in an attempt to argue your view.
Click to expand...

It matters not to me. What matters, to those who watch from afar, is that the ghost of Palin rides her polar bear, reloading constantly and generally screwing up the American market. Every time an American wants to argue the toss about whose fault it is or whether S&P got it right or wrong, he just proves to us that your country may well not be worth saving.
I have heard no one outside the US argue party politics over this horrendous scenario. Most point the finger at the constant, childish bickering. Your main creditor (save for the American people themselves) has told you to stop behaving like spoilt kids and sort yourselves out (paraphrase). And has stressed tha fact that, as the main creditor, they have the right to demand a stop to this stupidity.
 
LowIQ is arguing from the position that socialism is what is right and good, and we hicks and yanks should just shut up and let it happen.
 
Damn Yankee said:
How incredibly ironic. :)
Click to expand...

Do explain how you might spell it or are you criticising my syntax? You may, if you wish, include an 'e', but both spellings are correct. (In English, that is - there may be a difference in your language)
 
Lowaicue said:
Do explain how you might spell it or are you criticising my syntax? You may, if you wish, include an 'e', but both spellings are correct. (In English, that is - there may be a difference in your language)
Click to expand...

LowIQ spelling: knowledgable
American English spelling: knowledgeable
Oxford English spelling: knowledgeable
 
Lowaicue said:
No I am not. But certainly you hicks and yanks would do well to shut up.
Click to expand...
Oh you are, definitely. You're just so unsure of your position that you're afraid to take a stand. But when your "solution" is for us hicks and yanks to shut up and let The Obama have his way with us, you can no longer hide your agenda.
 
Lowaicue said:
It matters not to me. What matters, to those who watch from afar, is that the ghost of Palin rides her polar bear, reloading constantly and generally screwing up the American market. Every time an American wants to argue the toss about whose fault it is or whether S&P got it right or wrong, he just proves to us that your country may well not be worth saving.
I have heard no one outside the US argue party politics over this horrendous scenario. Most point the finger at the constant, childish bickering. Your main creditor (save for the American people themselves) has told you to stop behaving like spoilt kids and sort yourselves out (paraphrase). And has stressed tha fact that, as the main creditor, they have the right to demand a stop to this stupidity.
Click to expand...

To a certain degree you are correct. That said, had republican's gone along with any plan put forth by the democrats, there would have been a much worse outlook. The democrats want to spend money that just does not exist. You cannot put a further tax upon the wealthy that could curb the spending this president has created. He was told by the global community to stop spending over a year ago while in Canada...he simply will not hear any message that tells him to do so. The main point coming from S&P was that there were no cuts in entitlement spending. Obama is spending 4 billion a day...it is untenable to continue doing so.
 
Lowaicue said:
I have heard no one outside the US argue party politics over this horrendous scenario. Most point the finger at the constant, childish bickering. Your main creditor (save for the American people themselves) has told you to stop behaving like spoilt kids and sort yourselves out (paraphrase). And has stressed tha fact that, as the main creditor, they have the right to demand a stop to this stupidity.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. The point about stopping the partisan bickering is spot on. However, while no one outside the U.S. has said "we support the democratic plan" or "we support the republican plan" specifically, what they HAVE said is "you gotta stop spending money you do not have", which is far more what the republicans and TEA party has been saying than the democrats. The democrats are far more about raising revenues (ie: increasing taxes), as if an extra $940 billion over 8 years is going to balance a $1.2 trillion per-year deficit. Democrats first came to the table with NO plans to cut spending. When republicans sent them packing, they came back with cut proposals so minimal as to be ludicrous, and again got sent packing.

On the other side of the aisle, republicans came to the table with spending cuts - not nearly big enough, but far more than democrats were willing to even consider, and the democrats sent the republicans packing. At the same time we have the TEA party movement demanding massive cuts in spending: over $15 trillion over the same 10 years as the republicans and democrats talk about - which, when talking about a $1.2 trillion and rising deficit, is the ONLY plan proposed which would have any real chance of leading to a balanced budget.

Now, considering practically everyone outside the U.S., including our larger creditors, are calling for significant cuts in spending, which party's proposals do YOU think they would be more likely to support?
 
Good Luck said:
Well, yes and no. The point about stopping the partisan bickering is spot on. However, while no one outside the U.S. has said "we support the democratic plan" or "we support the republican plan" specifically, what they HAVE said is "you gotta stop spending money you do not have", which is far more what the republicans and TEA party has been saying than the democrats. The democrats are far more about raising revenues (ie: increasing taxes), as if an extra $940 billion over 8 years is going to balance a $1.2 trillion per-year deficit. Democrats first came to the table with NO plans to cut spending. When republicans sent them packing, they came back with cut proposals so minimal as to be ludicrous, and again got sent packing.

On the other side of the aisle, republicans came to the table with spending cuts - not nearly big enough, but far more than democrats were willing to even consider, and the democrats sent the republicans packing. At the same time we have the TEA party movement demanding massive cuts in spending: over $15 trillion over the same 10 years as the republicans and democrats talk about - which, when talking about a $1.2 trillion and rising deficit, is the ONLY plan proposed which would have any real chance of leading to a balanced budget.

Now, considering practically everyone outside the U.S., including our larger creditors, are calling for significant cuts in spending, which party's proposals do YOU think they would be more likely to support?
Click to expand...


Obama proposed a $4 trillion in spending cuts and $800 billion in revenue increases. The Republicans rejected it outright notwithstanding that Obama's proposal called about same amount that the budget that the House Republicans passed a short while ago. Pretending that the Democrats are "far more about raising revenues" is ridiculous. Obama's proposal was 17% revenues and 83% cuts. Also, pretending that Obama's cut proposals were "so minimal as to be ludicrous" is silly where his proposal was roughly equal to what the House Republicans passed.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Obama proposed a $4 trillion in spending cuts and $800 billion in revenue increases. The Republicans rejected it outright notwithstanding that Obama's proposal called about same amount that the budget that the House Republicans passed a short while ago. Pretending that the Democrats are "far more about raising revenues" is ridiculous. Obama's proposal was 17% revenues and 83% cuts. Also, pretending that Obama's cut proposals were "so minimal as to be ludicrous" is silly where his proposal was roughly equal to what the House Republicans passed.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse them with Facts Dung....they want tea...lots and lots of tea to drink.
 
Ice Dancer said:
To a certain degree you are correct. That said, had republican's gone along with any plan put forth by the democrats, there would have been a much worse outlook. The democrats want to spend money that just does not exist. You cannot put a further tax upon the wealthy that could curb the spending this president has created. He was told by the global community to stop spending over a year ago while in Canada...he simply will not hear any message that tells him to do so. The main point coming from S&P was that there were no cuts in entitlement spending. Obama is spending 4 billion a day...it is untenable to continue doing so.
Click to expand...

Correction: Obama is spending much much MORE than $4 bil. per day... That's the amount of daily deficit he is ringing up!
 
Lowaicue said:
It matters not to me. What matters, to those who watch from afar, is that the ghost of Palin rides her polar bear, reloading constantly and generally screwing up the American market. Every time an American wants to argue the toss about whose fault it is or whether S&P got it right or wrong, he just proves to us that your country may well not be worth saving.
I have heard no one outside the US argue party politics over this horrendous scenario. Most point the finger at the constant, childish bickering. Your main creditor (save for the American people themselves) has told you to stop behaving like spoilt kids and sort yourselves out (paraphrase). And has stressed tha fact that, as the main creditor, they have the right to demand a stop to this stupidity.
Click to expand...

???? I dont think you comprehend how a treasury works. THE only thing they have is a right to repayment when it matures. Nothing else.
Rest of the tripe is funny coming from a brit.
 
Damocles said:
They weren't 'designed' to sunset, they were passed under the reconciliation clause that set's a 10 year limit on any such budgetary items because of the Byrd Rule.
Click to expand...

And it's the same result no matter how you word it Damo , it's was scheduled to END at a specific time period....God damn, WTF is the matter with you neocon/conservative/teagagger/libertarian wonks? You're so pissed that your religious beliefs in reaganomics are getting punched full of holes that you've gone picayune crazy! Grow up, man.
 
Dixie said:
they were a temporary measure to give the rich folks/big business owners breathing room to get their acts together, take in some cash and then reinvest that cash into their businesses (aka jobs for the rest of America).
Click to expand...

Then why did they target ALL taxpayers?
Click to expand...

Go ask your neocon/teabagger/conservative/libertarian economic tin gods, that one Dixie.....because the Bush tax cuts FAVORED the rich folk to do exactly what I stated.....and it sure as hell didn't work out, now did it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top