 | |
Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
This is a discussion on Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ? within the Tea Party forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Stephanie Yeah, REMEMBER when they told us the TEA PARTY was INSIGNIFICANT. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERY FUCKING THING WRONG ...
| |||||||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-06-2011, 10:09 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Stephanie  Yeah, REMEMBER when they told us the TEA PARTY was INSIGNIFICANT. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERY FUCKING THING WRONG IS THEIR FAULT. you have to laugh and shake your head with the sheepish like usefulness and pure IGNORANCE of the Democrat voters. This is why we are HERE TODAY. fine job. you all should BE PROUD.
__________________ "The darkies put Obama in office." -JoeB131 http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/up...ats-racist.gif  |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
|
08-06-2011, 10:17 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Sentinel 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. - S&P Analysis Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt.
__________________ http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/ |
|
08-06-2011, 10:18 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen
Quote: Originally Posted by Ragnar Quote: Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ? The one group that wanted a balanced budget and has held miniscule power for almost two years is at fault. If we balance the budget the "terrorist" have won! Didn't you get the memo? Partisan politics not real morals and such. Quote: The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. |
|
08-06-2011, 10:20 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris
Quote: Originally Posted by Sentinel 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. - S&P Analysis Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt. I can't wait to see what pops out of your ass on this one.
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Big Fitz For This Useful Post: | ||
LadyGunSlinger (08-07-2011) | ||
|
08-06-2011, 10:28 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro
Quote: Originally Posted by Sentinel 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. - S&P Analysis Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt. S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices. |
|
08-06-2011, 10:34 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro
Quote: Originally Posted by Sentinel 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. - S&P Analysis Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt. S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices. Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. |
|
08-06-2011, 10:34 PM
| |||
| |||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro
Quote: Originally Posted by Sentinel 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. - S&P Analysis Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt. S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices. I agree, I got from the article that S&P wanted to see both spending cuts and revenue increases and they believe that the rancor between the two parties is only going to get worse and the problem will not be solved. The closer to the election we get the less likely any kind of common ground will be met. |
|
08-06-2011, 10:38 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro No, its not just the Tea Party, though they are part of it. It is because of the intractability of the entire political process, of which the Tea Party are a part. S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices. Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time. The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem. Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke. You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?
__________________ http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/ |
|
08-06-2011, 10:43 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote: True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above. Quote: You mean the same group that did not complain about Bush spending?
__________________ The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943 |
| The Following User Says Thank You to C_Clayton_Jones For This Useful Post: | ||
uscitizen (08-07-2011) | ||
|
08-06-2011, 10:45 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above. Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time. The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem. Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke. You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military? But you're right. You can't maintain the military with global power projection and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Let's cut the ones not in the constitution: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Oh wait... not the answer you were looking for was it. Hey, I'll even compromise, we'll pull all our foreign bases, and put the troops on our southern boarder and start shooting at the mexican military which we armed as they escort drug cartel shipments into the nation! Sound like a fair solution?
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. |
|
08-06-2011, 10:46 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above. Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time. The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem. Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke. You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?
__________________ "The darkies put Obama in office." -JoeB131 http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/up...ats-racist.gif |
|
08-06-2011, 10:49 PM
| ||||
| ||||
__________________ http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/ |
|
08-06-2011, 10:51 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth. Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time. The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem. Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke. You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military? But you're right. You can't maintain the military with global power projection and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Let's cut the ones not in the constitution: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Oh wait... not the answer you were looking for was it. Hey, I'll even compromise, we'll pull all our foreign bases, and put the troops on our southern boarder and start shooting at the mexican military which we armed as they escort drug cartel shipments into the nation! Sound like a fair solution? No, all we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and cut back our bloated military. That's what Clinton did and he balanced the budget and had a strong economy.
__________________ http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/ |
|
08-06-2011, 10:54 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed. This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs.
__________________ "The darkies put Obama in office." -JoeB131 http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/up...ats-racist.gif |
|
08-06-2011, 10:56 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed. This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs. Obama saved us from another Great Depression.
__________________ http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/ |
|
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
Loading links...
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:43 PM.
