sleeper;856139 wrote:I was watching MSNBC last night, and whoever the host of the show was went all out on bashing S&P and trying to strip any credibility the company had left. There's no doubt in my mind, if Bush was president, we'd be hearing how much of a failure he is for letting it happen.

I'm hearing that from a ton of people about Obama. Several of you on here have called for him to resign over this even.

I Wear Pants;856265 wrote:I'm hearing that from a ton of people about Obama. Several of you on here have called for him to resign over this even.

Good. Now if you can get the leftist media to call a spade a spade, we'll be making progress.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html

The US credit rating would be even worse than its recent downgrade from Standard & Poor's if the nation was judged as a private company, banking analyst Dick Bove told CNBC Tuesday.

Speaking amid the hotly contested debate over whether the US should have lost its coveted triple-A rating in favor of the new Double-A plus, Bove said the US balance sheet and the burdensome national debt tell a clear story.

"You've got a company which is losing about $1.4 trillion this year, probably will lose somewhere around a trillion dollars over the next couple of years. It owes $14.4 trillion (and) over the next five years that will get up to $20 trillion," the Rochdale Securities analyst said.

"So there's no likelihood whatsoever that this particular company is able to pay down from its own resources the amount of debt that it has, nor is there any likelihood that it's going to get rid of its deficit," he added. "If that was a real company, of course, that would be a junk bond."

gut;856250 wrote:Ahhhh, yes, the "Axis of Deficit"

The axis of deficit? Let's not forget the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or LBJ either. Anyone that thinks McCain would have spent one penny less than Obama has, doesn't have a very good long term memory. In fact, McCain would have spent more...based on his lust for expanding wars.

Footwedge;856466 wrote:The axis of deficit? Let's not forget the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or LBJ either. Anyone that thinks McCain would have spent one penny less than Obama has, doesn't have a very good long term memory. In fact, McCain would have spent more...based on his lust for expanding wars.

And the axis of deficit is out-deficiting them all COMBINED...And, what, with McCain we'd be in 4 wars instead of 3, is that what you're saying?

QuakerOats;856454 wrote: "You've got a company which is losing about $1.4 trillion this year, probably will lose somewhere around a trillion dollars over the next couple of years. It owes $14.4 trillion (and) over the next five years that will get up to $20 trillion," the Rochdale Securities analyst said.

"So there's no likelihood whatsoever that this particular company is able to pay down from its own resources the amount of debt that it has, nor is there any likelihood that it's going to get rid of its deficit," he added. "If that was a real company, of course, that would be a junk bond."

No, no those S&P hooligans are FINANCIAL TERRORISTS!!!!!

gut;856478 wrote:And the axis of deficit is out-deficiting them all COMBINED...And, what, with McCain we'd be in 4 wars instead of 3, is that what you're saying?

Not really. We might be in 3 wars but I highly doubt we'd be bitching about the insanity of $800 billion in porkulus or McCainKare.

believer;856536 wrote:Not really. We might be in 3 wars but I highly doubt we'd be bitching about the insanity of $800 billion in porkulus or McCainKare.

Not to mention the overall economy might be improving by now because businesses wouldn't be worrying whether more draconian regulations were on the way, not to mention the costly components of ObamaCare that are weighing down businesses that are thinking about hiring or expanding.

gut;856478 wrote:And the axis of deficit is out-deficiting them all COMBINED...And, what, with McCain we'd be in 4 wars instead of 3, is that what you're saying?

Out deficiting them combined? Your math skills blow...just sayin. As for 4 wars...at the very least 4...and probably 5. He wasn't too fond of Russia defending Ossetians in Georgia.

Footwedge;856619 wrote:Out deficiting them combined? Your math skills blow...just sayin. As for 4 wars...at the very least 4...and probably 5. He wasn't too fond of Russia defending Ossetians in Georgia.

Yeah, and Obama was going to bring everyone home right away and close Gitmo. How'd that work out?

The office changes people dramatically in some ways. I have no doubt that McCain would not have expanded the military into other battles, since they were/are already stretched too thin. Of all people, he would understand this.

Footwedge;856466 wrote:The axis of deficit? Let's not forget the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or LBJ either. Anyone that thinks McCain would have spent one penny less than Obama has, doesn't have a very good long term memory. In fact, McCain would have spent more...based on his lust for expanding wars.

Oh for God's sake, obama has racked up more debt than all US presidents combined - Washington thru Reagan, and he is not even through one term. QUIT GIVING HIM A PASS; HE IS RUINING YOUR COUNTRY!. This guy is the greatest debt-creator in the history of the planet, and it's not even close. On top of that, he is a pathetic leader, and that is because all he ever was was a socialist community activist, he has zero business experience - zero. He should resign today; he is stupid and his background is diametrically opposed to everything that made this nation great.

derek bomar;853345 wrote:I said the Republican party needs to shed themselves of the Tea Party, or else we are all fucked.

Really? The TEA Party is to blame for the S & P downgrade? Is your name, Axelrod? Only a partisan hack would believe the garbage of blaming the TEA Party.

Without the TEA Party's November uprising, we'd still have a Congress hell-bent on spending as much money as they could possibly print.
Without November, we'd never even have known the debt-limit needed raised. The MSM certainly wouldn't have covered it. Then the S & P decision on Friday would have really been a stunner, eh? Without November, Paul Ryan's plan to save $7,000,000,000,000 wouldn't have seen the light of Nancy's desk.
Without November, we'd be talking about how much more stimulus is needed to line union and government employee's pockets.

Without the TEA Party, we'd be f*cked, not the other way around.

LJ;853548 wrote:Bringing in more revenue to pay down debt won't do shit? Man, I think I need to go turn my degree in and probably never work another day in my life. And quit bringing up what Obama wanted. NOTHING proposed in Congress is what S&P wanted. NOTHING

S & P wanted $4,000,000,000,000. Paul Ryan offered, and the House PASSED, a budget with $7,000,000,000,000 in proposed cuts, including a big swing at Medicare reform. What did Harry do with that, again? The House also passed a bill called, "Cut, Cap, and Balance", which had the potential to reduce spending by up to $4,000,000,000,000. What did Harry do with that, again?

Finally, it is intellectually impossible to have a discussion about budgets without including the President. I realize he wanted nothing to do with the Congressional sausage-making and failed to lead, but the fact he signed the POS debt ceiling bill automatically makes him part of the discussion. To claim Standard and Poor's only put the onus on the Congress means they either don't understand our Constitution, they are as politically-poisoned as any ratings agency has ever been, or they're just morons. Seeing as how they gave their approval to all the unqualified mortgage swaps, I'm inclined to believe they fall into the final category.

LJ;853822 wrote:Also, my "plan" is 1% on the 2 highest tax brackets and on capital gains. To say someone who is in the highest tax bracket is waging "class warfare" is downright ignorant and honestly, it kind of pisses me off to the point where I think you are just spewing shit at this point trying to downgrade my educated opinion. It's quite pathetic.

I didn't know you were in the highest tax bracket. I guess I need to bone up on my OC moderator history. I didn't mean anything personal, but it appears you took it that way. My apologies. The Left has been instigating class warfare for decades. You know, the latest is the corporate jet owners flitting about to and fro need to pay "their fair share".

LJ;853822 wrote:As for the government deciding where to spend it? It would be spent on paying down the debt. Now, either you can start sending them checks that say "use this money to pay off the national debt" or you can let them take it in taxes. To be honest though, it's quite clear that you are probably not in one of those tax brackets to begin with, so it doesn't really matter.

Nice slam. Thanks. I didn't know a tax bracket indicated intelligence. I strongly disagree that your tax plan of taxing the rich will do squat. Even if your idea of 1 to 2% raises $400,000,000,000 per year, it would take over 37 years to eliminate the current debt. At this rate, we won't be around in 10 years, let alone 37. Adding in the minimum $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion of new debt per year, your plan will also never pay it off, only siphon off more money out of the private, job-creating sector. Got a "Plan B"?

QuakerOats;856728 wrote:Oh for God's sake, obama has racked up more debt than all US presidents combined - Washington thru Reagan, and he is not even through one term. QUIT GIVING HIM A PASS; HE IS RUINING YOUR COUNTRY!. This guy is the greatest debt-creator in the history of the planet, and it's not even close. On top of that, he is a pathetic leader, and that is because all he ever was was a socialist community activist, he has zero business experience - zero. He should resign today; he is stupid and his background is diametrically opposed to everything that made this nation great.

I challenge both you and Gut to link your garbage numbers. He hasn't even spent more than Bush did. One last time....When Bush's budgets were tallied, the national debt went from 5.9 trillion to 10.7 trillion. Right now, the n.d. stands at 14.3 trillion. Obama wins the per year spending crown by quite a large margin...but this "he spent more than all the other presidents combined" crap...is an out and out lie. Maybe Rush's tongue has been flappin again.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Footwedge;856876 wrote:I challenge both you and Gut to link your garbage numbers. He hasn't even spent more than Bush did. One last time....When Bush's budgets were tallied, the national debt went from 5.9 trillion to 10.7 trillion. Right now, the n.d. stands at 14.3 trillion. Obama wins the per year spending crown by quite a large margin...but this "he spent more than all the other presidents combined" crap...is an out and out lie. Maybe Rush's tongue has been flappin again.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

this should be interesting

Footwedge;856876 wrote:Obama wins the per year spending crown by quite a large margin...but this "he spent more than all the other presidents combined" crap..

So, yes, I was actually correct. However, intentionally misleading (which should impress you) with a bit of hyperbole thrown in. And it's going to be $17T by the end of 2012, not to mention the trillions more committed to that hopefully someone with a brain cleans up post 2012, so a bit of forward looking statement but also true, again, in that context. Oh, let's also not forget TARP was really part of Bush's debt and has been mostly repaid, with interest, so there's what $800B more that Obama's spent that's not even in his numbers?

LOL, I knew you'd jump all over this to finally win a point, but as I've shown it depends on the context or comparison which was deliberately left out.

BGFalcons82;856813 wrote:
Adding in the minimum $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion of new debt per year, your plan will also never pay it off, only siphon off more money out of the private, job-creating sector. Got a "Plan B"?

How about you actually read my "Plan A"?

BGFalcons82;856754 wrote:Really? The TEA Party is to blame for the S & P downgrade? Is your name, Axelrod? Only a partisan hack would believe the garbage of blaming the TEA Party.

Without the TEA Party's November uprising, we'd still have a Congress hell-bent on spending as much money as they could possibly print.
Without November, we'd never even have known the debt-limit needed raised. The MSM certainly wouldn't have covered it. Then the S & P decision on Friday would have really been a stunner, eh? Without November, Paul Ryan's plan to save $7,000,000,000,000 wouldn't have seen the light of Nancy's desk.
Without November, we'd be talking about how much more stimulus is needed to line union and government employee's pockets.

Without the TEA Party, we'd be f*cked, not the other way around.

No. You can't ever actually fix the problem unless you have some sort of change to the tax code - and the Tea Party won't allow it. Bc of this, we're fucked.

gut;856911 wrote:So, yes, I was actually correct. However, intentionally misleading (which should impress you) with a bit of hyperbole thrown in. And it's going to be $17T by the end of 2012, not to mention the trillions more committed to that hopefully someone with a brain cleans up post 2012, so a bit of forward looking statement but also true, again, in that context. Oh, let's also not forget TARP was really part of Bush's debt and has been mostly repaid, with interest, so there's what $800B more that Obama's spent that's not even in his numbers?

LOL, I knew you'd jump all over this to finally win a point, but as I've shown it depends on the context or comparison which was deliberately left out.

Didn't Bush leave out the cost of the wars in the budget deficit? http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx
So there's something else you need to factor in...

Here's a crazy thought to increase revenue...how about some more taxpayers?

derek bomar;857116 wrote:Didn't Bush leave out the cost of the wars in the budget deficit? http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx
So there's something else you need to factor in...

Umm, you do realize that regardless of whether they were or weren't in the budget, you can't spend money you don't have without adding to the debt? If your understanding of basic accounting is that bad you probably would be a good fit for politics in Washington.

fish82;857117 wrote:Here's a crazy thought to increase revenue...how about some more taxpayers?

That's a major part of the problem I don't see either Dems or Repubs touching. Social "insurance" implies everyone pays a premium, but that is often not the case and in the instances it is, we pay too little. A great point I heard was there's "welfare" for the poor and the rich, but the middle class gets screwed. That pretty well sums up my position. Problem is, you can't effectively tax the rich at the level we'd like (and, for the most part, I think many are willing to pay) without raising the capital gains tax to levels that would be hugely destructive to investment. Certainly it should go back to 20%, but 25% would be REALLY pushing it (and I think it is actually 15% or lower in many European countries). And that's another argument for a consumption tax (unfortunately, it doesn't fit the class warfare agenda because the rich don't consume proportionately more in line with their income).

gut;856911 wrote:So, yes, I was actually correct. However, intentionally misleading (which should impress you) with a bit of hyperbole thrown in. And it's going to be $17T by the end of 2012, not to mention the trillions more committed to that hopefully someone with a brain cleans up post 2012, so a bit of forward looking statement but also true, again, in that context. Oh, let's also not forget TARP was really part of Bush's debt and has been mostly repaid, with interest, so there's what $800B more that Obama's spent that's not even in his numbers?

LOL, I knew you'd jump all over this to finally win a point, but as I've shown it depends on the context or comparison which was deliberately left out.

"So I was actually correct".

SMH while facepalming. You didn't really just say that, did you?

You and Oats should be ashamed of yourselves for spewing those kind of misinformed lies. Really you should.