Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a republican/democrat thing. It's a conservative/liberal thing. Liberal fiscal policies put us here. Conservative fiscal policy is the only way out.
Lol, says the side whose President raised the debt higher than all President's before him combined in order to wage war and continue his father's legacy.
Catering to the Billionaire corporations and war mongers is not sensible fiscal policy.
I love these threads; all engaged in pointing a finger across the floor in a useless post mortem exercise that only serves the purpose to determine the cause of death!
You people just don't get it at all!
Had you focused more of that military spending on education instead you may not have had this idiotic mindless ideology of two party politics reduce you to a naked homeless man standing on the corner with his hand out and a look on his face of "how did this happen to me?"
All we need to do is look at which politicians are pointing fingers and which are calling for cooperative effort to deal with the debt issue. It is really just a very few adults showing up.
It's CLEAR the credit agencies wanted more spending cuts. They told us this, just days before the big "deal".
Obama and the dems refused to cooperate.
“We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.â€
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
Quote:
Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.
When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that
we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also
observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the
U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others.
We all know the rhetoric from Washington was that this would happen if the ceiling were not raised.
I am curious as to the public consensus as to who is to blame more, though both parties are to blame.
I seriously think taxing the richer folks may have given a long term plan towards putting a dent on the national debt. I am not really sure if the super-rich would run away with their assets if they have to pay more taxes, an argument used against taxing them.
And clearly, S&P says the inefficiency of Washington factored in the downgrade, thanks to the pig-headedness of the GOP and the tea party.
And let's not forget the infamous stimulus package, some of which went into the alternate energy sector, for example, which has completely collapsed. Case in point: A123 systems opened their IPO at over 15 bucks, and they sit at 4 bucks now, reaching 52-week lows every quarter with steepening losses, despite millions of stimulus money, literally money went down a hole.
Well, it all started in the 5th century B.C. when "western" philosophers separated themselves into body and mind and removed themselves and their thought process from the entire physical equation.
What ensued was a chauvinistic religious materialistic consumption based future for the "west" absolutely requiring a large conflict when that materialism met the reality of a finite planet.
I don't see what's wrong with the Tea Party -- at least they want to try to get this OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING under control.
The thing about more "revenue" is that I'm not convinced that these politicians would even use it to pay down the debt. They would probably just spend more if they had more revenue available from higher taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
