It's the DEFICIT STUPID!

[jreeves]

U.S. may lose AAA-rating, Moody's warns_English_Xinhua
NEW YORK, Oct. 22 (Xinhua) -- The United States my lose its AAA-rating if it can not control its deficit hike, rating agency Moody's Investors Service warned on Thursday.

Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States, said in a TV interview that the AAA rating of the United States is "not guaranteed." He said if the U.S. deficit does not drop to a sustainable level in the next three to four years, the U.S. rating will be "in jeopardy."

The U.S. government posted a record deficit of 1.417 trillion U.S. dollars in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. Stimulus package to combat the severe recession and a series of bailout rescues to banks and automakers have put a heavy burden on government spending.

The Obama administration has predicted that deficits would top 1 trillion dollars through fiscal year 2011.

Does anyone realize what the implications of what a less than an AAA rating would do to lending and interest rates in this country? Thanks Obama and Congress for leading us down the path of economic destruction!

 

[The Rabbi]

Unfortunately the Obamanuts' solution will be to raise taxes to "close" the deficit. That will tank tax revenues and economic growth.
The only bright side to that is it will guarantee him one term and the reputation as "worst president of the 21st century." Maybe worst president ever, although Carter is some stiff competition.

 

[tigerbob]

Unfortunately the Obamanuts' solution will be to raise taxes to "close" the deficit. That will tank tax revenues and economic growth.
The only bright side to that is it will guarantee him one term and the reputation as "worst president of the 21st century." Maybe worst president ever, although Carter is some stiff competition.

Obama is only the 2nd president of this century. The first was Dubya. I can only hope this is not a quality trend.

 

[Polk]

Kinda difficult to take you guys seriously when you're bitching about a deficit that not much larger than the one your guy was running last year. Furthermore, when the economy is in recession, there is a broad consensus among economists of all stripes that the right move is to temporarily increase government spending. So if the deficit is such a big issue for you guys, where were the complaints when Bush was running a deficit of over 500 billion a year in good economic times? You guys don't really care about the underlying issues. You just care about the extent to which you can use it as a rhetoric weapon.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It's kinda difficult to take you liberals seriously especially when you ran on a platform of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Whats the first thing you all are trying to do...put us at least 1 trillion dollars deeper into debt!!!! Obama's economic advisors have predicted a deficit of 9 TRILLION DOLLARS AT THE END OF HIS PRESIDENCY!!!!!! Where's your outcry over that!!!!!????

Obama's CURRENT 2010 BUDGET has a 1.7 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT!!!! Why aren't you bitching about that???!!!! Instead it's Boooooooooosh, Booooooooosh....the booooooooooogey man.

Grow up.

 

[Polk]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn. The idea that deficits will be trimmed in the long term by spending cuts is pretty juvenile in general. 75 percent of budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. Does anyone seriously think the budget is going to be balanced by enacting cuts in those three programs? If you do, they've got this place with white coats that may be of some assistance.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn. The idea that deficits will be trimmed in the long term by spending cuts is pretty juvenile in general. 75 percent of budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. Does anyone seriously think the budget is going to be balanced by enacting cuts in those three programs? If you do, they've got this place with white coats that may be of some assistance.

polk...you're not only an idiot but you have no idea about what you are saying.

First of all...Obama DID IN FACT run on reducing the deficit and reigning in government spending.
Second...who said anything about "massively slash government spending"? Perhaps those white coats may be able to help you with your hallucenations.
Third...EVERY SINGLE NEW PROGRAM Obama plans on starting he say's "will reduce the deficit, be deficit neutral" etc. etc. So you are now saying Obama is lying to America? Tell us something we don't know.
Fourth...54% of the budget goes to SS, Medicare and other entitlements.....add in servicing of the debt and it adds up to 64%...now you ass clowns want to add ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM TO THIS!!!!!!!

 

[Polk]

1. He ran on reducing the deficit. At no point did he say he was going to come in and slash programs left and right. The right likes to claim he did so they can shout "another broken promise". Of course, pretty hard to break a promise you never made.

2. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but introducing a new program doesn't necessarily have to increase the deficit. I know your heroes Bush and Reagan spend like drunk sailors and just put everything on the credit card (creating the perception that all spending is deficit spending), but back in the real world, programs can be financed by either redirecting funds from other sources (like reducing payments to medical device manufacturers and getting rid of subsidies for insurance companies, in the case of the health care legislation) or increasing revenues (in the case of health care, capping the amount of employer-provided health insurance that isn't taxed in the Baucus bill, or increasing taxes, as the House bills do).

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Polk

You crack me up!!!!!

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

anyway for you further education on how you are being DUPED again!!!!
House health care bill exceeds $1 trillion - Health care reform- msnbc.com

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Polk says "Let's cut Medicare" !!!!!

You have just endeared yourself to all of the senior citizens on this board who use this program!!!

 

[Polk]

Polk says "Let's cut Medicare" !!!!!

You have just endeared yourself to all of the senior citizens on this board who use this program!!!

I find it funny that you're accusing me of wanting to cut Medicare for opposing handouts to insurance companies (getting rid of Medicare Advantage doesn't cut anyone's actual benefits), while your party actually supports eliminating the program.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Oh...so you think cutting out Medicare Part "D" will then pay for healthcare reform?!

They're coming for you soon polk.

 

[Polk]

No cuts to Part D service have been proposed.

 

[jreeves]

1. He ran on reducing the deficit. At no point did he say he was going to come in and slash programs left and right. The right likes to claim he did so they can shout "another broken promise". Of course, pretty hard to break a promise you never made.

2. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but introducing a new program doesn't necessarily have to increase the deficit. I know your heroes Bush and Reagan spend like drunk sailors and just put everything on the credit card (creating the perception that all spending is deficit spending), but back in the real world, programs can be financed by either redirecting funds from other sources (like reducing payments to medical device manufacturers and getting rid of subsidies for insurance companies, in the case of the health care legislation) or increasing revenues (in the case of health care, capping the amount of employer-provided health insurance that isn't taxed in the Baucus bill, or increasing taxes, as the House bills do).

Uh--huh...sure

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OILe40aYhPg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Obama / McCain 3rd Debate, Part 13 - Cutting Programs[/ame]

 

[jreeves]

Kinda difficult to take you guys seriously when you're bitching about a deficit that not much larger than the one your guy was running last year. Furthermore, when the economy is in recession, there is a broad consensus among economists of all stripes that the right move is to temporarily increase government spending. So if the deficit is such a big issue for you guys, where were the complaints when Bush was running a deficit of over 500 billion a year in good economic times? You guys don't really care about the underlying issues. You just care about the extent to which you can use it as a rhetoric weapon.

Are you serious??

 

[jreeves]

kinda difficult to take you guys seriously when you're bitching about a deficit that not much larger than the one your guy was running last year. furthermore, when the economy is in recession, there is a broad consensus among economists of all stripes that the right move is to temporarily increase government spending. So if the deficit is such a big issue for you guys, where were the complaints when bush was running a deficit of over 500 billion a year in good economic times? You guys don't really care about the underlying issues. You just care about the extent to which you can use it as a rhetoric weapon.

are you serious??

 

[Polk]

1. He ran on reducing the deficit. At no point did he say he was going to come in and slash programs left and right. The right likes to claim he did so they can shout "another broken promise". Of course, pretty hard to break a promise you never made.

2. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but introducing a new program doesn't necessarily have to increase the deficit. I know your heroes Bush and Reagan spend like drunk sailors and just put everything on the credit card (creating the perception that all spending is deficit spending), but back in the real world, programs can be financed by either redirecting funds from other sources (like reducing payments to medical device manufacturers and getting rid of subsidies for insurance companies, in the case of the health care legislation) or increasing revenues (in the case of health care, capping the amount of employer-provided health insurance that isn't taxed in the Baucus bill, or increasing taxes, as the House bills do).

Uh--huh...sure

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OILe40aYhPg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Obama / McCain 3rd Debate, Part 13 - Cutting Programs[/ame]

That's proposing cuts to offset other spending, not cutting with reckless abandon.

 

[Avatar4321]

Kinda difficult to take you guys seriously when you're bitching about a deficit that not much larger than the one your guy was running last year. Furthermore, when the economy is in recession, there is a broad consensus among economists of all stripes that the right move is to temporarily increase government spending. So if the deficit is such a big issue for you guys, where were the complaints when Bush was running a deficit of over 500 billion a year in good economic times? You guys don't really care about the underlying issues. You just care about the extent to which you can use it as a rhetoric weapon.

Do you guys have like selective memories? We've been warning about the deficit since Bush started his out of control spending. We were warning about deficit spending during the Clinton years and actually had it under control some.

I'm sick and tired of you people pretending as though we are somehow inconsistant with this when its one of the major things we've been talking about for at least well over a freakin decade.

We havent changed our principles. Just because you change yours depending on who is in office, doesnt mean we do.

 

[Polk]

kinda difficult to take you guys seriously when you're bitching about a deficit that not much larger than the one your guy was running last year. furthermore, when the economy is in recession, there is a broad consensus among economists of all stripes that the right move is to temporarily increase government spending. So if the deficit is such a big issue for you guys, where were the complaints when bush was running a deficit of over 500 billion a year in good economic times? You guys don't really care about the underlying issues. You just care about the extent to which you can use it as a rhetoric weapon.

are you serious??

View attachment 8512

Why not compare the actual numbers? The portion of the chart for the Bush years is based on the Bush administration's cooked books. Cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not counted in those numbers. Ditto the annual Medicare "doctor fix" and spending that comes up every year for natural disaster recovery (all of which, by the way, are accounted for in Obama's budget projections).

 

[Polk]

Kinda difficult to take you guys seriously when you're bitching about a deficit that not much larger than the one your guy was running last year. Furthermore, when the economy is in recession, there is a broad consensus among economists of all stripes that the right move is to temporarily increase government spending. So if the deficit is such a big issue for you guys, where were the complaints when Bush was running a deficit of over 500 billion a year in good economic times? You guys don't really care about the underlying issues. You just care about the extent to which you can use it as a rhetoric weapon.

Do you guys have like selective memories? We've been warning about the deficit since Bush started his out of control spending. We were warning about deficit spending during the Clinton years and actually had it under control some.

I'm sick and tired of you people pretending as though we are somehow inconsistant with this when its one of the major things we've been talking about for at least well over a freakin decade.

We havent changed our principles. Just because you change yours depending on who is in office, doesnt mean we do.

O please. You do nothing more than pay lip service to the idea of deficit reduction. You complain that the deficit is too high while saying we need to ramp up defense spending further and have another round of tax cuts. That's like saying you're not really a drunk, you just like to chug a handle of vodka every day.