S&P calls out the Republicans!

Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it folks, I provide DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE S&P REPORT THAT CONTRADICTS IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS CONTRADICTS THE NEOCON MANTRAS OUR DIXIE DUNCE IS PARROTING.

Standard & Poor's puts the bead on the neocon/teabagger driven Republicans for causing them to down grade...it's there in plain English for all to see (in bold).

What Dixie demonstrates is either an inability to comprehend what he's reading or a deadly combination of insipid stubborness and willful ignorance that seem to be the cornerstone of the teabagger/neocon mindset regarding this matter. Whatever his problem, I'm not going to waste anymore time and space arguing with this Dixie Dunce. I leave him to his predictable lies, distortions, parroting and ranting.
Click to expand...

You're post is demeaning towards yourself.

I could do a better job of arguing with Dixie.
 
Dixie said:
Well it's really simple logic, before we can start paying down the $17 trillion debt, we have to FIRST balance the budget and stop spending more than we take in... isn't that just plain old common sense?
Click to expand...

Not if you don't have the $14.5 trillion to begin with.
 
Liberty said:
$14.5 trillion says, "I don't have it now."
Click to expand...

Yes, and a $1.6 trillion budget deficit says "I won't have it tomorrow."

Before we can even begin to address the $14~17 trillion debt, we have to address the deficit spending. Until we do that, we can't do a thing about the debt, it will only continue to grow larger. If we can cut spending enough to balance the budget, it is possible to start paying off some of that $14~17 trillion, but it is impossible to do that if we refuse to balance the budget.
 
Lowaicue said:
Lets reword that then, just for you. Let the elected president do the job he was democratically elected to do. America entrusted its well being to a president. Change your president in 2012 by all means if you still have a country worth governing, but until then shut up.
If by some quirk of politics you are in fact the president then you may shout. But I would want proof of your election to the post first.
Click to expand...
Let me word this, succinctly. An ACTIVE citizen of the United States verbalizes their opinions. We let our government know what we think about issues, and where we expect them to stand on them. Of course, different people are going to express different opinions about how they believe issues should be handled. But that is part of the job: to sort out our opinions. We elect our officials, and then we expect them to PAY ATTENTION to us, not ignore us until we the next election. And we CERTAINLY are NOT going to "shut up" waiting for elections.

If you don't LIKE it, get your sorry ass off the internet, plug your useless British ears, scream NYA NYA NYA, and, for the measure, why don't YOU shut the fuck up about that which you obviously know NOTHING.
 
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...
Let's see, 4 trillion over 10 years is 400 billion/year. Budget projects have the budget increasing by more than that. So yes, the offer of 400 billion/year is ludicrously low because it doesn't even dent the deficit. And the claims they were "about the same amount" as the republicans proposed is an outright lie. The bill passed by the House, which was met with chants of "DOA" by the mature, adult democrats of the Senate, proposed slightly over $6 trillion in cuts, which is NOT "about the same", even though it, too, was ludicrously inadequate to meet the needs of the economy. (I just love the way you liberals use numbers. 6 trillion is almost the same as 4 trillion. LOL Can you even balance your own checkbook?)

And, of course, you fail to mention that the $6 trillion proposal from the House was significantly reduced from initial proposals that ranged from 17 trillion down to 9 trillion in previous proposals. No, the republicans REFUSED to do ANY negotiations according to you lying sacks. Republicans, like democrats, were moving their lines in the sand in response to the other side. The sticking point was taxes. The democrats can't mentally function unless they are trying to take more of people's money away from them. Republicans understand one basic economic principle: you do NOT increase taxes by ANY means or for ANY reasons when you are in the middle of an economic downturn that is constantly threatening to turn into a double-dip recession.

Democrats are so single-mindedly set on their idea that the rich are not paying their share, (which is ludicrous, also) they don't care what the effect will be, they just want to tax people more, the mantra of the democratic party these days. They demand more revenues because they want to spend more, making their offer of cuts quite suspect.

Of course, it's all moot because, as usual with this administration, the democrats decide to push the situation just beyond the next election (let the next congress worry about it), and we end up with a bill that is so pathetically inadequate, several of our economic allies, as well as rating agencies have put them on notice, while S&P actually took the step of downgrading the government's credit.
 
Lowaicue said:
Lets reword that then, just for you. Let the elected president do the job he was democratically elected to do. America entrusted its well being to a president. Change your president in 2012 by all means if you still have a country worth governing, but until then shut up.
If by some quirk of politics you are in fact the president then you may shout. But I would want proof of your election to the post first.
Click to expand...

You're describing a form of government that is sort of an "elected dictatorship". In the USA we have what's called 'balance of power'.
 
Good Luck said:
Let me word this, succinctly. An ACTIVE citizen of the United States verbalizes their opinions. We let our government know what we think about issues, and where we expect them to stand on them. Of course, different people are going to express different opinions about how they believe issues should be handled. But that is part of the job: to sort out our opinions. We elect our officials, and then we expect them to PAY ATTENTION to us, not ignore us until we the next election. And we CERTAINLY are NOT going to "shut up" waiting for elections.

If you don't LIKE it, get your sorry ass off the internet, plug your useless British ears, scream NYA NYA NYA, and, for the measure, why don't YOU shut the fuck up about that which you obviously know NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Try saying that to me. I do know something about it all. I am an active, native-born citizen of the United States, and have just as much right as you do, to express my displeasure with the Republican Congress, the current GOP presidential field, all who have, since Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency, sought to destroy him, and now , to undermine him.
The government and country were "off the rails" even before Obama took office...and what? We're suppose to summarily dismiss that as "in the past", "fantasy", or "wishful thinking"?????
Why? Because Republicans never ever want to take responsibility when they fuck up shit. They so believe in "pointing fingers" (i.e. "the Dems voted for the war, too!"; The Dems voted for the Patriot Act, too. The Dems voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. The voted for the "surge", but Obama said he would have the troops home by now. Obama got us into the Libyan war. Where's the Democrats' budget? We won't accept stimulus money, except for when we do, we can justify it (Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, et al.))
The reality is we're in the worlds of shit that we're in, due in large part, to the previous administration. Without question. And the two-faced, good for nothing, lying, thieving, lazy ass, agenda-laden, obstructionist, Republican masturbaters are the only ones to blame. Now tell me to shut up.
 
poet said:
The reality is we're in the worlds of shit that we're in, due in large part, to the previous administration. .
Click to expand...

Dutiful parrot. Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2007 with about $8.5 Trillion in debt. IF obama can get by on this latest debt increase, by the end of 2012 we will have $17 trillion in debt. DOUBLED in 6 years and you want to blame a president who has been out of office for almost 3 years
 
dixon76710 said:
Dutiful parrot. Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2007 with about $8.5 Trillion in debt. IF obama can get by on this latest debt increase, by the end of 2012 we will have $17 trillion in debt. DOUBLED in 6 years and you want to blame a president who has been out of office for almost 3 years
Click to expand...

Parrot? You don't talk to your mother that way. Debt due to mismanagement of government at the hands of the Bush administration, which started two wars, nearly impossible to resolve without consequences, and not to mention the 'saber-rattling" at Iran and N. Korea. I'm sorry, but the roots of that evil tree runs too deep to even begin to associate the fallout to Barack Obama, who clearly has to listen to the "seasoned advice" of his military advisors, some, tethered to the previous administration, and, thus, part of the problem.
And any semblance of "control" is only an illusion...matters are hardly one-dimensional, and complex beyond pondering.
 
poet said:
Parrot? You don't talk to your mother that way. Debt due to mismanagement of government at the hands of the Bush administration, which started two wars, nearly impossible to resolve without consequences, and not to mention the 'saber-rattling" at Iran and N. Korea. I'm sorry, but the roots of that evil tree runs too deep to even begin to associate the fallout to Barack Obama, who clearly has to listen to the "seasoned advice" of his military advisors, some, tethered to the previous administration, and, thus, part of the problem.
And any semblance of "control" is only an illusion...matters are hardly one-dimensional, and complex beyond pondering.
Click to expand...

Looks like youve moved from your rant about economics to a general anti war rant.
 
Country Comparison :: Public debt
(% of GDP)

14 Canada- 84.00- 2010 est.
15 France- 83.50- 2010 est.
20 Germany- 78.80- 2010 est.
24 United Kingdom- 76.50- 2010 est.
25 Austria- 70.40- 2010 est.
27 Netherlands- 64.60- 2010 est
38 United States- 58.90- 2010 est.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

And the US is the only country without the AAA rating. All because of an accounting gimmick called the SS trust fund. $4,676,045,686,788.21 that one part of government owes the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top