Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Oct 9, 2013.
Well ... if you haven't heard about it then it obviously did not happen.
I didn't say or even imply that. In fact, the opposite. I said very explicitly if he has that offer, he's a fool not to take it at this point.
Speaking of patterns. The deficit as a percentage of GDP starting dropping before Republicans became the majority party in 1995 (following the 1994 election). It started to increase after George W. Bush took office in 2001. The largest increase was in 2008, as a result of bursting of housing bubble and the resulting collapse of the financial system, the direct result of financial deregulation. Also, note the other large jump in the deficit as percentage of GDP during the period from 1981 through 1985. If I recall a Republican occupied the White House at the time.
really. how odd that they reacted differently in 2011. not to mention the fact that there are OTHER agencies who can (and will) downgrade us. most notably s&p.
Moody’s Warns of Downgrade for U.S. Credit
By JACKIE CALMES and CARL HULSE
Published: June 2, 2011
WASHINGTON — Moody’s Investors Service warned Thursday that it might downgrade the United States government’s sterling credit rating if Congress did not increase the nation’s debt limit “in coming weeks,” putting a spur to the sputtering talks between party leaders and the White House on a plan to restore fiscal stability.
This is from S&P's historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating on Aug. 5, 2011:
More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/debt...ors-downgrade-of-the-us-2013-10#ixzz2hX5IMxm1
lastly, i don't have to tell you what DOES happen when our credit rating is downgraded, right? i'm sure i don't.
Libs will never accept any responsibility for our outrageous spending
sure, we'll accept blame where it's due, but c'mon, dubya and reagan both ran up huge spending bills, and the right didn't seem to even blink! at least be fair. republicans spend a lot as well.
Verti- this guy has doubled W's debt and he ain't done yet
And cons will never acknowledge the difference between deficit spending for the heck of it vs. deficit spending to fend off a world economy crashing depression.
i'll just rebut that with an article, which is one of many on the subject, that i've read.
i'm still wondering what's prompted moody's to so drastically alter it's response to a possibly impending debt default, from 2011
S&P won't since they are scared of Obama. They already have been attacked by the DOJ for their part in rating many of the derivatives and banks that lead to the crash.
All they know is that it is Bush's fault.
So your assertion is that we had to spend the extra 7 trillion in the last 5 years to "save the world's economy"?
Then let the "world" pay off the $7 trillion!
and lets call in the billions, plus interest, the US spent rebuilding Europe and Japan while we are discussing collecting debt.
Not sure what point you were attempting to make, but the graph shows the spending skyrocketing AFTER the dummy-rats took over the H/R. IOW: your graph may absolve Barry (to an extent), but it serves as a scorching indictment against the dummy-rats who took over >1 year before that huge spike.
As for Carter/Reagan: the second biggest jump straddles Carter/Reagan--precipitated by triple D (i.e.--WH, H/R, and Sen. all D)--then tappering/dropping off under RR.
What happened under RR? Did the spending drop off? Nope.
THE GDP--THE DENOMINATOR IN THE RATIO BEING MEASURED--SKYROCKETED.
(Largely a result of RR's leadership & economic policies).
Curious, but ...where's our correspondent rise in GDP under Barry?
As for Billy-bob and Bush I: THE DEFICIT/GDP ratio starts decreasing before '95, not because spending dropped--but (again) because GDP increased--we were coming out of a recession in '92-'93, which was precipitated by Bush I's broken 'read my lips' promise--i.e.--he raised taxes--which triggered that recession. (due credit to Billy-bob--his policies were relatively eco-friendly).
So ... if there's no increase in the debt ceiling, can't the US continue to service its debt? I don't think the nation is illiquid .... but rather, it will be unable to incur additional debt to fund some of the overspending in which it's engaged for years. Program spending will have to be cut ... so where do you cut? We'll keep the 17% of the government on hiatus ... on temporary leave and don't pay for it. Then take a look at the other commitments and cut outlays to those who are not stakeholders .... and those who do not pay anything to fund current operations of the federal government. After all ... if they are not paying federal individual income taxes then they should not be receiving any of the taxes currently being "taken" by the federal government.
SS, medicare, and medicaid recipients are just going to absorb a cutback until this budget/debt issue is resolved.
For a group that regularly asserts that absolutely anything the executive does without explicit congressional approval is "clearly unconstitutional", y'all sure are big on the existence of absolutely unchecked executive power to modify or ignore legislative commands all of a sudden...
........... Let the Senate Budget committee decide. Don't fail to service the debt when you have the capacity to do so. Even a mope like Obama knows that, I hope.
That doesn't get there either. Although it is a blatantly transparent attempt to say "lets put our normally quite vocal insistence about the separation of powers and the critical role the House has assigned to it in spending aside if it might force the other side to do something politically unpopular."
You want to prioritize and cut spending rather than raising the debt ceiling? Great, you have three days to pass something making it legal to do so.
Just trying to help Barry out go the unpatriotic mess into which he's gotten the nation because of his leadership failure.