U.S. To Loose Its AAA Credit Ratings...
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:37 am
wow, for the first time since 1917...this nation is crumbling beneath us.
nice work by both political parties.
nice work by both political parties.
https://forums.metalsludge.tv/forums/
https://forums.metalsludge.tv/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=215682
Not only is the title of the thread premature, DK's opening statement is also incorrect, given that he seemingly bypassed the Great Depression of 1929-1940:Drunk Kennedy wrote:wow, for the first time since 1917...this nation is crumbling beneath us.
i could not disagree with this more. and lmao at tarp funds ever being paid back at all...let alone with interest.I believe Mr Obama is leading us in the right direction, & I believe him when he pledges to address our deficits, as in today's press conference regarding the TARP funds that are being paid back with interest, & possibly redirected.
Don't take my word for it, while you're laughing your ass off:Drunk Kennedy wrote: lmao at tarp funds ever being paid back at all...let alone with interest.
I wonder if poster DK is perhaps "too loose" with inaccurate predictions & assessments?Drunk Kennedy wrote:i said too loose...
They both went through public education in the 40s. Shit was different then.Drunk Kennedy wrote:as for grammar errors...i always thought you were a better poster than itwalks...please dont make me re-think that stance.
I really don't care about silly grammatical errors. We all make them on occasion.Drunk Kennedy wrote:as for grammar errors...i always thought you were a better poster than itwalks...please dont make me re-think that stance.
YourMomma wrote:What has Obama done to make you confident he will do anything else other than continue to increase the deficit and national debt? Other than what he says of course.pooldude wrote:
I believe Mr Obama when he pledges to address our deficits, as in today's press conference regarding the TARP funds that are being paid back with interest, & possibly redirected.
In fact, the TARP funds being paid back by the banks who want no part in government control should be going towards the national debt, but just like you would expect from a leftist administration they are going to spend it anyway. Spend any money they can find anywhere regardless of what it is for. Screw the debt. Even though this pattern of irresponsible governance is unsustainable even in the short term. Unbelievable.
What makes you confident anyone else would do any better, given our situation?YourMomma wrote:What has Obama done to make you confident he will do anything else other than continue to increase the deficit and national debt? Other than what he says of course.
So let's see, what part of the equation are you overlooking that the previous administration didn't have to deal with until its last couple of months in office. Hmmm, what could it be?YourMomma wrote:The previous administration spent like drunken sailors. And that's giving a bad name to drunken sailors. Unfortunately this administrations deficit spending has made their spending look like childs play. It's not going in the right direction when the deficit quadruples in just one year under Obama.
I get the feeling you are confused as to what most of the money has been spent on. Let me help you out:YourMomma wrote:Health care reform and cap and trade legislation have nothing to do with turning around an economy. This group finds ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars at a time regardless of its impact on the economy. Give them credit, they are good at what they do.
The world was never 24 hours away from global financial collapse even if CNN said so.
Just look at that statement right there. It's everything that's wrong with liberalism. You may not be one, but that statement is. It's not like Bush gave those evil rich people anything. He allowed them to keep more of the money that they earned. Who the fuck are you to decide who needs what? And the people in the top income bracket pay the most taxes in this country, provide jobs etc...Let me know when you get a job from a bum.Ugmo wrote:- Yeah, you got a tax cut. A few hundred bucks presumably (I don't know how much money you make). But you know who got the lion's share of it? People who absolutely did not need it. Bush gave away future generations' money to people in the top income bracket,
No you fucking dunce, he presided over the dramatic redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich. That is everything that's wrong with Republican politicians. They bleed everyone else dry for their own goddamned greedy purposes.Nevermind wrote:Just look at that statement right there. It's everything that's wrong with liberalism. You may not be one, but that statement is. It's not like Bush gave those evil rich people anything. He allowed them to keep more of the money that they earned. Who the fuck are you to decide who needs what? And the people in the top income bracket pay the most taxes in this country, provide jobs etc...Let me know when you get a job from a bum.Ugmo wrote:- Yeah, you got a tax cut. A few hundred bucks presumably (I don't know how much money you make). But you know who got the lion's share of it? People who absolutely did not need it. Bush gave away future generations' money to people in the top income bracket,
ME ME ME!!!! Give me my government handout! My grandkids can pay for it! Shut the fuck up. Your taxes are already lower than everyone else's in the world. You don't need a tax break, you need some fucking sense knocked into you. Reduce spending huh? So Bush reduced spending to offset those enormous tax breaks that overwhelmingly went to the rich?YourMomma wrote:Who the fuck are you to tell me or anyone else that we didn't a tax break? Are you even an American citizen? I bet you aren't judging on the way you speak.
And the answer to soaring national debt is to REDUCE SPENDING. Something that seems to be foreign to you.
I don't believe you. Let's see the data. And even if revenues did reach an all-time high, it's probably because the population also reached an all-time high - more people paying taxes than ever before.YourMomma wrote:And for the record, after the previous administration cut taxes the federal government enjoyed an all time high in revenues. Go put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Tax cuts work in theory. The problem is, politicians are beholden to backers so they all spend which negates the tax cuts.bane wrote:Uh, getting to keep your own money isn't a "government handout" Ugmo. The wisdom of the practice is certainly debatable, particularly while we were in the middle of not one, but two wars, but getting to keep something that was yours in the first place isn't a "handout". As for the grandkids comment, who do you think is going to pay for that pork laden stimulus package that you've been praising the president for? The top two percent are going to feel Obama's spending more so than the rest of us to be sure, but it's foolish to think that it won't affect all of our wallets, including those of our children. He's raised taxes a shit ton already. Go price a pack of cigarettes.
Well said. "Billy Bob vs. Dartanian" was good for an early morning chuckle.thejuggernaut wrote:Tax cuts work in theory. The problem is, politicians are beholden to backers so they all spend which negates the tax cuts.bane wrote:Uh, getting to keep your own money isn't a "government handout" Ugmo. The wisdom of the practice is certainly debatable, particularly while we were in the middle of not one, but two wars, but getting to keep something that was yours in the first place isn't a "handout". As for the grandkids comment, who do you think is going to pay for that pork laden stimulus package that you've been praising the president for? The top two percent are going to feel Obama's spending more so than the rest of us to be sure, but it's foolish to think that it won't affect all of our wallets, including those of our children. He's raised taxes a shit ton already. Go price a pack of cigarettes.
The Democrats are tax and spend, whereas the Republicans are borrow and spend.
If both sides are hell bent on spending, then at least it should be tax and spend.
The other problem is the pendulum game. The Republicans borrow like crazy and devalue the dollar, the Democrats have to tax the piss out of everyone to recover, the Republicans give it all away, etc etc etc.
If They could just get their shit together and settle on a reasonable, fixed rate, plus various other consumption taxes, everything would be fine.
However, that will never happen, so long as you have Billy Bob "I should pay no taxes" arguing against Dartanian "rich people should pay more even though they produce the capital in the first place".
In a fantasy world where unicorns eat butterflies and shit rainbows, nobody has to pay any taxes. In the real world that guy's taxes are already very low, so when he says he "needed" a tax cut what he means is he wanted a tax cut. It was an unbelievably irresponsible tax cut in view of the fact that Bush was already spending money like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war in Iraq.bane wrote:Uh, getting to keep your own money isn't a "government handout" Ugmo. The wisdom of the practice is certainly debatable, particularly while we were in the middle of not one, but two wars, but getting to keep something that was yours in the first place isn't a "handout". As for the grandkids comment, who do you think is going to pay for that pork laden stimulus package that you've been praising the president for? The top two percent are going to feel Obama's spending more so than the rest of us to be sure, but it's foolish to think that it won't affect all of our wallets, including those of our children. He's raised taxes a shit ton already. Go price a pack of cigarettes.
bane wrote:During his campaign Obama promised he wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone except the top 2%. My point is, he already has.
The stimulus may or may not have made the difference. It's hard to say whether it's working or if the economy would have recovered on it's own anyway. All those world economists that you're quoting are pretty torn on that one. Regardless, I do agree that the stimulus was probably necessary. All the extra pork in it wasn't though.
The pork question is hard to quantify. In a bill that is designed to stimulate economic growth and jobs, pretty much anything can be labeled as viable. For example, there is 150 million dollars in that thing for parking lot improvements at a little league park in Puerto Rico. Seriously, 150 MILLION dollars for a little league parking lot? In a bill like that one it's incredibly easy for politicians to pay back a few favors. One article I read had roughly 300 billion of the bill going to discretionary spending. That means that it's very difficult to keep tabs on where it goes.Ugmo wrote:bane wrote:During his campaign Obama promised he wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone except the top 2%. My point is, he already has.
The stimulus may or may not have made the difference. It's hard to say whether it's working or if the economy would have recovered on it's own anyway. All those world economists that you're quoting are pretty torn on that one. Regardless, I do agree that the stimulus was probably necessary. All the extra pork in it wasn't though.
How much extra pork was really in it? I know people (rightfully) bitch a lot about pork, but it doesn't actually account for a high high percentage of the average budget.
I'll let you search it, maybe you can even provide a nice graph to illustrate your point. I've already seen it. Are you seriously stating that there is no pork in that bill or are you just being your usual contrarian self?enter your username wrote:It's 105,000,000 for their highway program. The word "parking" doesn't appear anywhere in the Stimulus Bill. You got played.bane wrote: The pork question is hard to quantify. In a bill that is designed to stimulate economic growth and jobs, pretty much anything can be labeled as viable. For example, there is 150 million dollars in that thing for parking lot improvements at a little league park in Puerto Rico. Seriously, 150 MILLION dollars for a little league parking lot?
Go ahead and search the bill and show us where it says 150,000,000 for a little league parking lot.stimulus bill wrote:Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, $105,000,000 shall be for the Puerto Rico highway program
http://readthestimulus.org/index.php
Yep, I certainly am. I laugh about this shit every time some conservative fuckhead brings up the "You're not even American, it's none of your business" argument. I am American and I vote every 2 years (against the Asshole Party).YourMomma wrote:Are you an American citizen? You never said if you were. Something tells me you are not. Which would explain a lot.
I used that as one example among many. How about the golf carts cars? Do you want me to go dig that one out? Hell yes there is wasteful spending in there. It's all over the place in that bill. I guess it depends on what you consider "wasteful". The guys that build golf cart cars don't consider it "wasteful" but the rest of us probably do.enter your username wrote:I didn't say there wasn't "pork" in the stimulus bill. I said there wasn't the type of wasteful spending you are describing. There is nothing in the bill about a parking lot in Puerto Rico. You heard that and decided to whine about it without checking your facts.bane wrote: I've already seen it. Are you seriously stating that there is no pork in that bill or are you just being your usual contrarian self?
Not any more no. Although I'm probably slightly less liberal than I was when I lived in America.YourMomma wrote:Do you live in America? I would assume you do since you have such strong opinions about it. Though something still tells me you don't. Very few Americans have communist views such as yourself. Much more prevelant in countries outside the United States. Which is why I'm asking.Ugmo wrote:
Yep, I certainly am. I laugh about this shit every time some conservative fuckhead brings up the "You're not even American, it's none of your business" argument. I am American and I vote every 2 years (against the Asshole Party).
Now let me flip the question on you: ever been outside your hometown?
Where have you been, Canada? You don't even know what communism means, you tard.YourMomma wrote:I have. And really, you don't even live in this country? I knew my suspicions were correct. Nothing against your choice of residence, but please, spare me your opinions on this country. It means nothing if you don't even live in it. If you live in Europe than you have exactly what you want. A socialist utopia. Leave us alone and let us regain what this country was founded upon. And it ain't 7 dollar gasoline and 60% tax confiscation.
YourMomma wrote:Your opinions are worthless if you don't even live here. It would be like me campaigning for policy change in Venezuela.Ugmo wrote:
Where have you been, Canada? You don't even know what communism means, you tard.
U.S. policies affect the entire world. And my opinions mean more than yours, considering what a dumbfuck you are.