We're so scrooed

[David Jamieson]

S&P was the ONLY one who made the downgrade on US credit rating from AAA to AA+

They then made a statement that essentially blame the republicans.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011...press-release/


Other banks have NOT downgraded the US.

the problem is 100% political and it is essentially frame worked around some kind of weird values/morals/class war that is happening in the states as the divide of money and no money grows wider and wider.

American people are the power and are the money of the country.
American people DO NOT have unity and therefore are locked in this battle where they have what amounts to self serving politicians speaking on no one's behalf or in their best interest.

So, yes, you are screwed. If you cannot get the people together, you won't get anything together. That's how a country is strongest and right now, it would appear that the market manipulations will make you weak because of small greedy factions within your gates.

[BJJ-Blue]

I guess the Earth is flat.

It isnt. And you didn't post any budget the community organizer put forth. Do you know why you didn't? Because he never did, and he himself hasn't denied this[ Nor has he shown a propsal either.

Now he did comment on others proposals, as you posted above. But never did he roll out a proposal of his own.

Do you have a video or something of him rolling out a proposal? I know he wanted to increase taxes (he called it "revenue"). Since you're familiar with this supposed proposal, what taxes did he propose to raise in this alleged proposal?

And I noticed you can't refute the fact that for over 2 years the Democrat-conrolled Congress failed to even pass a budget as required by law. If they had such brilliant budget ideas, why didn't they enact them when they had huge majorities in Congress?

[BJJ-Blue]

When the facts change, blue, so should your opinion.

How so?

I've been consitant that tax cuts stimulate economic growth, that we need to cut regulations, and that the stimulus and bailouts would be failures. Can you show where I've called for more taxes, more regulation, or said the stimulus and bailouts would be successful?

control of the executive branch, wtf you think im talkin bout son?

So the Party that holds 1 House of Congress is responsible now?

Dude, the Democrats had 2 years with a huge majority in both Houses of Congress, and some time where they even had a filibuster-proof Senate.

right.... by that logic, anything that happens today is the republicans fault cause they control the house... and thats bullsh1t... republicans and democrats love pointing fingers, but both are just as responsible as the next...

So please show Bush and/or GOP polices enacted during the Bush years caused the mess we are in.

[Reality_Check]

It isnt. And you didn't post any budget the community organizer put forth. Do you know why you didn't? Because he never did, and he himself hasn't denied this[ Nor has he shown a propsal either.

Now he did comment on others proposals, as You posted above. But never did he roll out a proposal of his own.

From February 2011:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Looks like a budget to me.

RE: The debt ceiling hostage negotiation

From July 20, 2011:

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/Polit...spx?Id=1669588

Poll Shows Majority Support Obama's Debt Ceiling Proposal

The poll showed that 58 percent support the president's proposal, which would cut the deficit by $4 trillion by cutting federal spending, increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and reducing the level of spending on Medicare.

From April 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us...s/14obama.html

Obama’s Debt Plan Sets Stage for Long Battle Over Spending

President Obama made the case Wednesday for slowing the rapid growth of the national debt while retaining core Democratic values, proposing a mix of long-term spending cuts, tax increases and changes to social welfare programs as his opening position in a fierce partisan budget battle over the nation’s fiscal challenges.

After spending months on the sidelines as Republicans laid out their plans, Mr. Obama jumped in to present an alternative and a philosophical rebuttal to the conservative approach that will reach the House floor on Friday. Republican leaders were working Wednesday to round up votes for that measure and one to finance the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. Obama said his proposal would cut federal budget deficits by a cumulative $4 trillion over 12 years, compared with a deficit reduction of $4.4 trillion over 10 years in the Republican plan. But the president said he would use starkly different means, rejecting the fundamental changes to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by Republicans and relying in part on tax increases on affluent Americans.

The president framed his proposal as a balanced alternative to the Republican plan, setting the stage for a debate that will consume Washington in coming weeks, as the administration faces off with Congress over raising the national debt ceiling, and into next year, as the president runs for re-election.

[Reality_Check]

Dude, the Democrats had 2 years with a huge majority in both Houses of Congress, and some time where they even had a filibuster-proof Senate.

The Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during President Obama's term.

[BJJ-Blue]

from now on, whenever blue says anything, im gonna just quote this post...

Go ahead, it's inaccurate. Right off the bat I saw it left out the cost of the Libya war he started.

"A Pentagon memo whose content was revealed today by the Financial Times shows that the cost of America’s involvement in the war in Libya is around $2 million per day, putting the cost well ahead of previous estimates of $40 million a month to more like $60 million a month.

Despite the growing opposition and two resolutions from both houses of Congress chiding the administration about the war, officials insist it will continue. Admiral Michael Mullen insisted NATO has no clue when the conflict will end, but Secretary of Defense Robert Gates assured that US troops would still be involved whenever that is."

"The Pentagon reports that through March 28, the U.S. military operation has cost $550 million. The bulk of that is for munitions. The cost for the 199 Tomahawk missiles fired alone is somewhere between $220 to $298 million."

Sources:
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/06/09/p...n-war-soaring/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...libya-war-cost

did bush put out a balanced budget every year??? or any budget EVERY year?

I doubt all were balanced. Heck, maybe none were. But he at least signed a budget into law, and passed by Congress, every year of his 2 terms.

I also love this graphic, it says it all...well almost all.

LMFAO at "almost all". Yeah, just leave out the war he started. And when do the trillions of new Obamacare spending kick in? Be sure to repost updated graph when those costs kick in. 10-1 it will make Bush look like a miser.

The key point that it shows that no one mentions at all, is that Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have been in place now for about 12 years...these are the people that the Fox News types like to call the 'Job Creators'...

Where you were you around the year 2000? You are aware we were heading for a recession due to the dot-com bubble burst before Bush took office? FYI, those tax cuts prevented a recession. Too bad the community organizer didn't learn from history, or we might be having 5.2% unemployment like we did under Bush instead of the 9.37% we have now.

And again, you have economists saying both things. Some say the tax cuts were successful and more than paid for themselves, and some say they cost us money. We should leave it at that, and not turn this into a battle of who can type their side's date/sources more than the other.

But no one can argue unemployment averaged 5.3% under Bush. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office. It's averaged 9.37% under the community organizer.

Sources:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Econo..._George_W_Bush
http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/u...resident-bush/ (includes graph)
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

well the reality is that they have been getting richer, much wealthier in fact, the divide between the richest Americans and the middle classes has continued to deepen under this policy. Its a famous fallacy from Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory...ask some one when last time a wealthy person's trickled down some dough to them

.

Actually I've shown more than once that the tax burden paid by "the rich" increases EVERY TIME tax cuts are encated. Do you not get this? Or have you just been lied to so much and for so long you can't admit (or comprehend) this fact? Maybe Goebbels was right in this case.

I'm still waiting for this influx of job creation by lower taxes of the rich.

So am I. And it will happen when taxes and regulations are cut. It will not happen under the current Administration's policies. Mark my words.

You know what people, we had deregulation of corporations, no unions, no pensions, no medical care, no social security, and little taxes for the rich...you know what we were working 12-16hrs a day for pennies, your kids were forgoing school to work at an early age, and we had Robber Barons running the country...your Rockefellers...it was late 19th century early 20th and life really sucked for the common man. Let the Right Wing Teabaggers get their way and its really going to suck unless you're rich.

You know what else we didn't have at that time? Record national debt.

And I'm not even stipulating what you said is true. If it was so bad, why was the economy growing during that time? FYI, consumer speding is the biggest factor in our economy. If we were all working for peanuts and living hand-to-mouth, consumer spending would have fallen through the cellar and wrecked the entire economy.

Let me footnote this by saying I'd much rather see a flat tax rate for all americans and elimination of tax credits, loopholes, tax code, etc...its a nightmare.

I agree 100%

And this is true too: If we did do as you suggest, none of the arguing we've done would matter a hill of beans. No one would be arguing about how the rich cheat, or who pays more, or how the poor pay nothing, or who gets away with using loopholes, etc. It would solve so many problems, and alot of people on the left and right who fight like cats and dogs on so many issues agree on this. So why won't a flat tax pass? Because the politicians have tremendous power with the current tax code. And no one wants to give that power up. Of all we should demand from our Government, this should be one of the first. So will you be voting for candidtates who support a flat tax?

[BJJ-Blue]

The Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during President Obama's term.

Are you sure of that?

[Reality_Check]

Are you sure of that?

Yes. Currently, there are 51 Democratic Senators, with 2 independents who caucus with them. In the last Congress there were 57 and 2. A filibuster-proof majority would require 61.

[BJJ-Blue]

The Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate during President Obama's term.

Yes. Currently, there are 51 Democratic Senators, with 2 independents who caucus with them. In the last Congress there were 57 and 2. A filibuster-proof majority would require 61.

It actually requires 60.

"After months of recounts and legal challenges, Democrat Al Franken has been declared the winner of the Minnesota Senate seat previously held by Republican Norm Coleman, after the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Coleman’s legal appeal and he resigned from the race.

The Franken win gives Democrats in the U.S. Senate 60 votes, which means they can prevent the Republicans from filibustering bills – an important stalling tactic that can stop bills from becoming law."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe...ken_07-02.html

"Washington confronted a new world order Thursday as the Democrats' supermajority died, taking with it much of President Barack Obama's agenda and any certainty of his party maintaining control of Congress.

Republican Scott Brown took over the seat of the late Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on Thursday, vowing to be an independent voice in a bitterly divided Senate."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35235106...-capitol_hill/

Al Franken took office on July 7, 2009. Scott Brown took office on February 4, 2010.

So they had a filibuster-proof Senate for 7 months.

So will you man up and admit you were incorrect or will you be like Jamieson and repeatedly refuse to, even when shown you were actually incorrect?

[Reality_Check]

So will you man up and admit you were incorrect or will you be like Jamieson and repeatedly refuse to, even when shown you were actually incorrect?

Sure, as soon as you man up and admit you were wrong about:

President Obama not presenting a budget
President Obama not presenting a proposal re: the debt ceiling
The CRA being a cause of the housing market meltdown
John McCain not supporting the bailouts back in 2008
Not using the "but they do it too" argument

[BJJ-Blue]

S&P was the ONLY one who made the downgrade on US credit rating from AAA to AA+

Other banks have NOT downgraded the US.

This is also incorrect.

"Credit rating agency Egan-Jones has cut the United States' top credit ranking, citing concerns over the country's high debt load and the difficulty the government faces in significantly reducing spending.

The agency said the action, which cut U.S. sovereign debt to the second-highest rating, was not based on fears over the country not raising its debt ceiling.

Instead, the cut is due the U.S. debt load standing at more than 100 percent of its gross domestic product. This compares with Canada, for example, which has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 35 percent, Egan-Jones said in a report sent on Saturday."

Source: (full article)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76H0ZH20110718

And they even cut our rating before S&P did.

[BJJ-Blue]

Sure, as soon as you man up and admit you were wrong about:

President Obama not presenting a budget
President Obama not presenting a proposal re: the debt ceiling
The CRA being a cause of the housing market meltdown
John McCain not supporting the bailouts back in 2008
Not using the "but they do it too" argument

WTF is this garbage? Can you liberals NEVER admiot you're wrong? Do I have to just put you on ignore for not being a rational person and admitting what is is what is?

But I'll humor you, for now and take on what you said:

Show me the budget proposal the community organizer trotted out, within the last 2 years, and I'll admit I was incorrect. As I did on the filibuster issue, you must present evidence showing I was wrong.

The CRA was a cause, albeit not the major one. I'll even admit it was a small factor. But it was a factor nonetheless. The deregulation done under Clinton was the biggest factor, imo.

I never said McCain did not support the bailouts. I actually think he voted for them. So I'm clueless why you want me to admit I was wrong about something I never said.

As to the last one, I'm not gonna play that one. I made assertions, backed them up, then you made assertions and have so far not backed them up. So I don't see either of us playing that card in the first place.

One more thing, you should be above this garbage. Just admit you were wrong. It wont kill you. Don't start saying 'Well 1bad must do all these various things before I'll admit to being wrong about something he proved I was wrong about'. Man up, admit the truth. You were wrong. But it's ok, we're all wrong at times. I even admit I've been wrong before, and on this very site. Can you admit that too?

[Reality_Check]

Show me the budget proposal the community organizer trotted out, within the last 2 years, and I'll admit I was incorrect. As I did on the filibuster issue, you must present evidence showing I was wrong.

Um...on this very page...

From February 2011:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Looks like a budget to me.

RE: The debt ceiling hostage negotiation

From July 20, 2011:

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/Polit...spx?Id=1669588

Poll Shows Majority Support Obama's Debt Ceiling Proposal

The poll showed that 58 percent support the president's proposal, which would cut the deficit by $4 trillion by cutting federal spending, increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and reducing the level of spending on Medicare.

From April 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us...s/14obama.html

Obama’s Debt Plan Sets Stage for Long Battle Over Spending

President Obama made the case Wednesday for slowing the rapid growth of the national debt while retaining core Democratic values, proposing a mix of long-term spending cuts, tax increases and changes to social welfare programs as his opening position in a fierce partisan budget battle over the nation’s fiscal challenges.

After spending months on the sidelines as Republicans laid out their plans, Mr. Obama jumped in to present an alternative and a philosophical rebuttal to the conservative approach that will reach the House floor on Friday. Republican leaders were working Wednesday to round up votes for that measure and one to finance the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. Obama said his proposal would cut federal budget deficits by a cumulative $4 trillion over 12 years, compared with a deficit reduction of $4.4 trillion over 10 years in the Republican plan. But the president said he would use starkly different means, rejecting the fundamental changes to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by Republicans and relying in part on tax increases on affluent Americans.

The president framed his proposal as a balanced alternative to the Republican plan, setting the stage for a debate that will consume Washington in coming weeks, as the administration faces off with Congress over raising the national debt ceiling, and into next year, as the president runs for re-election.

The CRA was a cause, albeit not the major one. I'll even admit it was a small factor. But it was a factor nonetheless.

No, it was not, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

I never said McCain did not support the bailouts. I actually think he voted for them. So I'm clueless why you want me to admit I was wrong about something I never said.

Actually, you claimed repeatedly that Senator McCain did not support the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie (my apologies I should have specified that in my previous post). When presented with the evidence that he did, you resorted to claiming that they did not meet your definition of bailout.

As to the last one, I'm not gonna play that one. I made assertions, backed them up, then you made assertions and have so far not backed them up. So I don't see either of us playing that card in the first place.

You repeatedly claim that you do not use the "but others do it too" argument. When confronted with the facts, you dig in your heels and refuse to admit that you do use it.

One more thing, you should be above this garbage. Just admit you were wrong. It wont kill you. Don't start saying 'Well 1bad must do all these various things before I'll admit to being wrong about something he proved I was wrong about'. Man up, admit the truth. You were wrong. But it's ok, we're all wrong at times. I even admit I've been wrong before, and on this very site. Can you admit that too?

I've even admitted I've been wrong before...on this very site too. However, I just feel like giving you a taste of your own medicine.

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...on this very page...

I was wrong about that, it appears. I do still maintain they did not pass a budget for FY 2011, as required by law to do.

But as to the original assertion, I was wrong.

No, it was not, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

Fair enough. But I will not admit I was wrong as I can also cite sources saying it was. It's one of those cases where experts on both sides are making conflicting claims, so neither of us can prove or disprove either theory.

But you do agree deregulation was the primary cause, right?

Actually, you claimed repeatedly that Senator McCain did not support the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie (my apologies I should have specified that in my previous post). When presented with the evidence that he did, you resorted to claiming that they did not meet your definition of bailout.

I do recall McCain and bailouts being discussed several years ago, so can you post those posts to freshen my mind, please?

I do recall saying McCain was not my choice in the GOP primaries, and that I was going to be holding my nose when voting for him as he was the lesser of two evils. Considering the community organizer's economy, I think I was correct on that one. I cant fathom anyone doing worse than this idiot has done.

I've even admitted I've been wrong before...on this very site too. However, I just feel like giving you a taste of your own medicine.

So you do admit you were wrong, and that the community organizer had 7 months of a filibuster-proof Senate as well as a large majority in the House of Representatives?

[Reality_Check]

I was wrong about that, it appears. I do still maintain they did not pass a budget for FY 2011, as required by law to do.

Fiscal 2011 Budget: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html

Passage of the Fiscal 2011 Budget:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...EN083620110409

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ng-cuts-ahead/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-many-to-come-

It was passed late, but it was passed.

Fair enough. But I will not admit I was wrong as I can also cite sources saying it was. It's one of those cases where experts on both sides are making conflicting claims, so neither of us can prove or disprove either theory.

Alas, but you did not provide any evidence. I provided links to studies and speeches by Federal Reserve Governors that support my remarks. Heck, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report supports my remarks. You linked to a polemic. Assertion is not fact. I provided factually supported studies/reports proving that you were objectively wrong.

I do recall McCain and bailouts being discussed several years ago, so can you post those posts to freshen my mind, please?

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=525

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=528

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=533

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=536

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=543

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=559

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=560

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=562

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=563

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=566

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=568

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=570

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=572

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=574

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=577

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=578

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=579

So you do admit you were wrong, and that the community organizer had 7 months of a filibuster-proof Senate as well as a large majority in the House of Representatives?

Yes, I was incorrect. I thought one needed 61 votes to break a filibuster.