Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you make $150,000 a year and owe $150,000 on your mortgage, are you broke? No.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ser...lobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
"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. "
Controversy and policy debate regarding the issues. NOT the issues themselves.
Seriously, don't be stupid. You can look this stuff up.
If you made $150,000 this year, spent $200,000 and did that year after year...then yes, you would be "broke" which is exactly what we as a nation have been doing. And to say that the deficit isn't the "issue" on our downgrade is laughable. It most certainly WAS. The rating agency downgraded us because they didn't believe our leaders have the stomach to make tough cuts to entitlements. In what way is that incorrect? We can't even get a budget passed by Democrats in the Senate because they don't want to be on record for the amount needed in an election year and everytime someone even TALKS about reforming entitlements, people like YOU accuse them of wanted to "kill" Social Security and Medicare.
If you compare our GDP with our total debt, it's the equivalent of saying $150K vs $150K. Your $200K is a completely made up number.
And I gave you the quote from the report about the downgrade. It clearly says the downgrade is due to the controversy and policy debate and not the actual debt itself. Sure, if there was never any debt there would be no debate, but that's like me saying if you had never been born we wouldn't be talking now.
Every President spends more in 4 years than the previous President. It's called inflation.
And Obama passed and signed the 2010 budget back in 2009.
Seriously dude ...
So you're saying the increase in our spending since Barry took office is due to "inflation"? Really, dude?
Most of it, yes. That doesn't change the fact that claiming "He's spent more in 4 years than anyone in history." is a completely pointless statement because EVERY President has spent more than the previous.
It's like complaining because he was breathing.
Ron Paul will save us...
How is it a joke? Most of what a President has to budget is required by law.
If you made $150,000 this year, spent $200,000 and did that year after year...then yes, you would be "broke" which is exactly what we as a nation have been doing. And to say that the deficit isn't the "issue" on our downgrade is laughable. It most certainly WAS. The rating agency downgraded us because they didn't believe our leaders have the stomach to make tough cuts to entitlements. In what way is that incorrect? We can't even get a budget passed by Democrats in the Senate because they don't want to be on record for the amount needed in an election year and everytime someone even TALKS about reforming entitlements, people like YOU accuse them of wanted to "kill" Social Security and Medicare.
If you compare our GDP with our total debt, it's the equivalent of saying $150K vs $150K. Your $200K is a completely made up number.
And I gave you the quote from the report about the downgrade. It clearly says the downgrade is due to the controversy and policy debate and not the actual debt itself. Sure, if there was never any debt there would be no debate, but that's like me saying if you had never been born we wouldn't be talking now.
We're running TRILLION dollar deficits that are projected out for YEARS and you accuse me of making up numbers?
The "controversy" is about the deficit, Einstein! What part of that concept don't you grasp? The rating agency that downgraded us was looking for cuts to the size of the deficit. The Obama Administration didn't come even close to delivering them. We got downgraded. It really isn't a hard thing to understand.
So you're saying the increase in our spending since Barry took office is due to "inflation"? Really, dude?
Most of it, yes. That doesn't change the fact that claiming "He's spent more in 4 years than anyone in history." is a completely pointless statement because EVERY President has spent more than the previous.
It's like complaining because he was breathing.
Inflation in 2009 averaged -.34%
Inflation in 2010 averaged 1.64%
Inflation in 2011 averaged 3.16%
Is it really your position that Bam Bam only increased spending to match inflation?
Most of it, yes. That doesn't change the fact that claiming "He's spent more in 4 years than anyone in history." is a completely pointless statement because EVERY President has spent more than the previous.
It's like complaining because he was breathing.
Inflation in 2009 averaged -.34%
Inflation in 2010 averaged 1.64%
Inflation in 2011 averaged 3.16%
Is it really your position that Bam Bam only increased spending to match inflation?
Not sure why you're talking about the Flintstones all of a sudden. Maybe it's past your nap time. Anyway ...
Tell your mother you've been talking with the nice people on the internet and then ask her to explain to you the difference between core inflation and the mandated by law increases in the Federal Budget.
How is it a joke? Most of what a President has to budget is required by law.
It's the same budget he introduced the last time which was voted down by his own party.
I don't have to believe it because I know it's true. If you ever decided to look something up for yourself, you would see I'm right.
ummm ummm. you SAY so, so that makes it true..
and your ass kissing of the Obama is shown to be true too.
As for who the cigarette tax hit, well, it hit the President, since he was a smoker at the time
If you make $150,000 a year and owe $150,000 on your mortgage, are you broke? No.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ser...lobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
"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. "
Controversy and policy debate regarding the issues. NOT the issues themselves.
Seriously, don't be stupid. You can look this stuff up.
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate
fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently
assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand,
as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with
other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated,
and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's
debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
ummm ummm. you SAY so, so that makes it true..
and your ass kissing of the Obama is shown to be true too.
If you make $150,000 a year and owe $150,000 on your mortgage, are you broke? No.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ser...lobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
"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. "
Controversy and policy debate regarding the issues. NOT the issues themselves.
Seriously, don't be stupid. You can look this stuff up.
also from your link...
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate
fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently
assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand,
as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with
other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated,
and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's
debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
Those would be the recommendations President Obama declined to put into play.
Higher debt could further reduce our rating.
If you make $150,000 a year and owe $150,000 on your mortgage, are you broke? No.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ser...lobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
"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. "
Controversy and policy debate regarding the issues. NOT the issues themselves.
Seriously, don't be stupid. You can look this stuff up.
also from your link...
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate
fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently
assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand,
as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with
other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated,
and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's
debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
Those would be the recommendations President Obama declined to put into play.
Higher debt could further reduce our rating.
Yup. It could further reduce our rating. That's different though from saying it did reduce our rating.
Nope. The CBO Budget and Economic Outlook found the $1.1 trillion deficit projected for 2012 is 2 percentage points lower than 2011's and represents 7 percent of gross domestic product.The president's budget for 2011 was 3.8 trillion. For 2011 it's 3.7 trillion.
His projected deficit for 2012 was supposed to be around $900 billion....it's about 50% higher. If he were the CEO of a private corporation he'd be dumped like a turd after a a night of heavy drinking and 4am Mexican food.....
That's a revision, the original deficit projection prepared by the CBO for the Obama Admin was projected to be even less- around $400 trillion by 2012. Reality?? It's 300% higher. That's what failure looks like.Nope. The CBO Budget and Economic Outlook found the $1.1 trillion deficit projected for 2012 is 2 percentage points lower than 2011's and represents 7 percent of gross domestic product.The president's budget for 2011 was 3.8 trillion. For 2011 it's 3.7 trillion.
His projected deficit for 2012 was supposed to be around $900 billion....it's about 50% higher. If he were the CEO of a private corporation he'd be dumped like a turd after a a night of heavy drinking and 4am Mexican food.....
CBO: 2012 deficit projected at $1.1T - UPI.com
also from your link...
Those would be the recommendations President Obama declined to put into play.
Higher debt could further reduce our rating.
Yup. It could further reduce our rating. That's different though from saying it did reduce our rating.
You're ok with that as a potential with this new budget?
How about a budget where that's not a potential, wouldn't common sense say we should demand that from our politicians?
That's a revision, the original deficit projection prepared by the CBO for the Obama Admin was projected to be even less- around $400 trillion by 2012. Reality?? It's 300% higher. That's what failure looks like.Nope. The CBO Budget and Economic Outlook found the $1.1 trillion deficit projected for 2012 is 2 percentage points lower than 2011's and represents 7 percent of gross domestic product.His projected deficit for 2012 was supposed to be around $900 billion....it's about 50% higher. If he were the CEO of a private corporation he'd be dumped like a turd after a a night of heavy drinking and 4am Mexican food.....
CBO: 2012 deficit projected at $1.1T - UPI.com
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf
Yup. It could further reduce our rating. That's different though from saying it did reduce our rating.
You're ok with that as a potential with this new budget?
How about a budget where that's not a potential, wouldn't common sense say we should demand that from our politicians?
Personally, yes, I'm okay with it because I think most of these ratings agencies are full of shit. We were downgraded and interest rates did change at all. That shows how much the market cares about the rating.
As for the budget, I've said it before and I will say it again, the President is bound by existing laws when it comes to creating a budget. He can't slash SS or burn Medicare because it wouldn't be following the law. If he submitted a perfectly balanced budget right now, the GOP would cream in their pants and start screaming about how Obama isn't following the law.
Now, Obama could submit a flawed balanced budget, one that cuts all discretionary spending, but that would be eliminating the entire military. See the above paragraph about the GOP creaming in their pants.
The reality is, that no President, from either party, could submit a balanced budget at this time. Too many laws need to be changed in order for that to happen, and the President doesn't change laws.
It's not that no one cares, but rather the two sides can't agree on what to do about it. The problem can only be solved if both sides agree on a long term solution. Any action carried out by one side would be nullified by the other when it gains control of government.Why does it seem that no one cares that this country is in massive dept and we keep adding to it?
That's a revision, the original deficit projection prepared by the CBO for the Obama Admin was projected to be even less- around $400 trillion by 2012. Reality?? It's 300% higher. That's what failure looks like.Nope. The CBO Budget and Economic Outlook found the $1.1 trillion deficit projected for 2012 is 2 percentage points lower than 2011's and represents 7 percent of gross domestic product.
CBO: 2012 deficit projected at $1.1T - UPI.com
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf
NOW you think the CBO is the gospel truth of Economics?
Cut the crap already.
Why don't we demand government surpluses? Sure everyone thinks the government spends too much money and they want to see spending cut; that is spending that does not effect them. One in every 3 households receives some form of government support, Medicaid, food stamps, or welfare. If you include Social Security and Medicare it's well over 50%. Then there's corporate welfare, fat government contracts and tax loopholes that you could drive a truck through.Inflation in 2009 averaged -.34%
Inflation in 2010 averaged 1.64%
Inflation in 2011 averaged 3.16%
Is it really your position that Bam Bam only increased spending to match inflation?
Not sure why you're talking about the Flintstones all of a sudden. Maybe it's past your nap time. Anyway ...
Tell your mother you've been talking with the nice people on the internet and then ask her to explain to you the difference between core inflation and the mandated by law increases in the Federal Budget.
Are all increases mandated?
If some increases are mandated, can't cuts be made elsewhere?
Why don't we demand budget surpluses from our politicians?
