PDA

View Full Version : I blame the republicans for the credit downgrade!



LWW
08-10-2011, 05:48 AM
Yes I do.

After all, the democratic party is the party of NAMBLA, CAIR, the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, howling moonbats, Goremons and old money wealth.

How could we possibly expect them to behave responsibly? Nothing in their post JFK history suggests they are capable of such actions. They have ran on campaigns of continued irresponsibility ... so how can anyone be shocked by it when it happens.

At the same time, how can any sane person blame the Obama regime being that it is rife with Marxists, Maoists, economic fascists, tax cheats, dimwits, halfwits and nitwits?

This crew is on a mission to institute a fascist top down state driven economy ... so they are doing what we should expect them to be doing.

So, who is left to blame?

Republicans.

They held all the cards. They ran on a promise of doing the opposite of what they did. They had a new group of freshman undefiled by the filthy system of Washington. They held all the aces against a chump drawing 3 cards while holding a 2 and a 6.

And, like the cowards the RINO's have always been ... they folded.

I blame the republicans.

Sev
08-10-2011, 06:06 AM
Have you noticed McCain appears to be losing his mind?

llotter
08-10-2011, 06:54 AM
I agree totally. The Stupid Party reliably fell back on what it always does, being stupid. Republicans are not capable of leadership and they know it, so they just go along to get along. Between the Stupid Party and the Evil Party, America doesn't have much of a chance.

Sev
08-10-2011, 07:16 AM
Need another Tea Party sweep.
Get rid of all the establishment country club republicans.

llotter
08-10-2011, 07:19 AM
I was surprised the Allan West went along with the establishment on the deal. There really isn't a dime's worth of difference between borrowing and taxing so the Dims got all they wanted while making it seem like a big compromise.

Sev
08-10-2011, 07:55 AM
I was disappointed he did as well.
However with S&P's downgrade as well as other trending negatives in the economy this may prove to be a stepping stone for the budget negotiations that are coming up.

Mass layoffs are coming all across the nation. Expect to see, "Failed Obama policies", to be part of the talking points.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, who is left to blame?

Republicans.

They held all the cards. They ran on a promise of doing the opposite of what they did. They had a new group of freshman undefiled by the filthy system of Washington. They held all the aces against a chump drawing 3 cards while holding a 2 and a 6.

And, like the cowards the RINO's have always been ... they folded.

I blame the republicans. </div></div>

Even stumbling badly on the truth on the way, perhaps you have unwittingly reached the correct conclusion. I doubt that, however.

This is quite hard to follow, so I think this last text, like all that precedes it, is tongue in cheek backwards irony, and you are not blaming them at all.

Because what they were put there to do was, in my view, block the debt ceiling increase. Period. That's what I saw on their signs-- no more spending, no more taxation. The cut, cap and balance thing, was not what they ran on or were elected on. That's an entirely new proposal in more recent months, not something that preceded the November elections.

So, had they stuck to their guns, what would have happened was default, and that, in my view, would have triggered this downgrade in its own separate way.

Do you think holding firm until default occurred would have prevented the downgrade?

Apparently, S&P wanted a $4 trillion dollar deal as their price for not downgrading the country's credit rating, and so far as I remember, only the president had such a sized plan on the table.

llotter
08-10-2011, 10:28 AM
The Nanny State, especially entitlements, is destructive of our culture, our economy and our liberty and it must be dismantled to save America. Freedom will yield the dividends required to pay off our debt and then we won't have to ever be concerned about such things as credit ratings.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 12:51 PM
It is true that Reagan claimed on nationally broadcast speeches that instituting Medicare would end the freedom of our country.

It is not true that it did.

Offering the aged, the retired, the sick, and the disabled, some measure of governmental support is hardly destructive of our culture, our economy, or our liberty. Unless you want to say that all of that depends critically upon those people living out shortened lives in penury, eking out some bare subsistence on charity for a while, and eventually, dying miserably and unnecessarily early through lack of adequate care and support.

What this country can really ill-afford is to garrison the world, and spend double the amount on the military now compared to what we spent at the height of the Cold War against a real worldwide enemy of continental size, of over 300 million people (counting the SSRs beside Russia), with the world's largest military.

When I see you once admit that plain fact, you will then begin to have some slight credibility on spending issues. The real entitlements we cannot afford are to the military contractors and the owners of those companies, who are on a permanent dole.

llotter
08-10-2011, 01:35 PM
Where is the justice in 'offering' to anybody what is not yours to offer? Yes, the majority can take property and hand it out to whomever they please because they control the police but that system doesn't resemble a free society. The definition of slavery is being forced to work for the benefit of others...is that freedom? Does slavery now equal freedom?

The question is not whether we can afford the Nanny State but whether it is compatible with liberty. The answer is that it is not compatible. And, Reagan was right, Medicare is ultimately unaffordable and along with 'benefits' too numerous to list, are exactly why our credit has been downgraded. Until we face this truth and change it, we will continue falling into ruin.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 02:16 PM
Do you oppose 'offering' the benefits of the police and fire department to all who live in a locale, paid from the taxpayers?

If not, what is the difference?

LWW
08-10-2011, 03:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, had they stuck to their guns, what would have happened was default</div></div>

That is a lie.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think holding firm until default occurred would have prevented the downgrade? </div></div>

And that is pure Alinskyism as your question is based on the insistence that the lie is the truth.

Can you even tell the difference any longer?

LWW
08-10-2011, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is true that Reagan claimed on nationally broadcast speeches that instituting Medicare would end the freedom of our country.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 05:12 PM
This is possibly Reagan's most famous video, except for when he was the president.

Surely you've heard of it? Or perhaps, and more likely, never knew to what he was referring in this speech, since that would seem stupidly impossible?

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, had they stuck to their guns, what would have happened was default</div></div>

That is a lie.</div></div>

Not at all. The cut, cap and balance plan WAS THEIR COMPROMISE POSITION, so they'd allow any rise in the debt ceiling. And that REQUIRED THE BBA BE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES, WITH A 2/3rds MAJORITY IN EACH HOUSE. That wouldn't have happened, by anyone's counting of votes, not even close to that. Would they have budged off of that, once it failed? Not in time to avoid default, imo, or at least, the stated deadline for default. And remember, that stated deadline was several months AFTER the technical default, and the Treasury had already been using, and using up, the bag of tricks of shuffling the accounts around to avoid the default already.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think holding firm until default occurred would have prevented the downgrade? </div></div>

And that is pure Alinskyism as your question is based on the insistence that the lie is the truth.

Can you even tell the difference any longer? </div></div>

See above.

LWW
08-10-2011, 05:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, had they stuck to their guns, what would have happened was default</div></div>

That is a lie.</div></div>

Not at all. The cut, cap and balance plan WAS THEIR COMPROMISE POSITION, so they'd allow any rise in the debt ceiling. And that REQUIRED THE BBA BE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES, WITH A 2/3rds MAJORITY IN EACH HOUSE. That wouldn't have happened, by anyone's counting of votes, not even close to that. Would they have budged off of that, once it failed? Not in time to avoid default, imo, or at least, the stated deadline for default. And remember, that stated deadline was several months AFTER the technical default, and the Treasury had already been using, and using up, the bag of tricks of shuffling the accounts around to avoid the default already.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think holding firm until default occurred would have prevented the downgrade? </div></div>

And that is pure Alinskyism as your question is based on the insistence that the lie is the truth.

Can you even tell the difference any longer? </div></div>

See above. </div></div>

There was zero chance of a default.

The possibility of a default was a lie which the regime spoon fed to the naive.

cushioncrawler
08-10-2011, 05:28 PM
Perhaps theusofa haz nothing to fear but fear itself. But i reckon that the usofa needs a new deal. Anyhow, u shood think what u kan do for your country.
mac.

llotter
08-10-2011, 06:32 PM
My primary concern is the federal government and keeping it within the Constitution. But fundamentally, one is fee for service and the other is fee for no service. Local services are contracted locally and if you disagree, you have to option of moving, as many do seeking lower taxes or better schools etc.

In the case of entitlements where it appears the individuals pay for their service, you and I know that is not true. What they actually pay for in the past are for the service of others, hence, a Ponzi Scheme moniker. It would be an improvement if in fact they were forced to pay into their own accounts like traditional insurance and not dependent of future payers to fund their need for service. Then the U.S. government would be acting as an insurance company with no need for a sales force because it has a police force. Of course, we all know what great businessmen politicians are so nothing could go wrong there.

cushioncrawler
08-10-2011, 07:50 PM
All investment iz in its own way ponzi.
Investment etc duz zero to inkreec the size of theusofa cake. Investment self-funding interest etc etc, all of this ponzi stuff affekts the slicing of theusofa cake, not the size.
mac.

llotter
08-10-2011, 08:31 PM
While it is possible to make a cake without investment, modern cake baking requires investment...hardly a Ponzi scheme.

cushioncrawler
08-11-2011, 07:11 AM
Its similar to a ponzi in that a ponzi say duznt add to the cake. Investment and profit and interest dont add to the cake.
There are lots of things that dont add to the cake.
In a way its a matter of definition. The army detrakts from the size of the cake, yet for sure we need an army.

A guy sitting at home watching hiz investment grow iz adding zero to the cake. But good luck to him.

U might say that investment etc iz necessary -- that the usofa wouldnt be the usofa without it -- true.
But look at a ponzi. Money is slowly lost. Where duz the lost money go. It goze to someone. Someone's loss iz someone's gain. Nett loss iz allways zero, depending on other faktors.
Likewize any investment. An investment karnt make money unless someone else loozes. In some cases the gain iz covered by by latecomers. Smells a lot like a ponzi to me.
mac.

LWW
08-11-2011, 07:46 AM
A Ponzi scheme is one in which money is used to pay early investors, leaving later investors with a sack full of worthless promissory notes.

That is exactly what the US SS and MEDICARE systems, as well as the euro welfare states, are.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 10:25 AM
You left out the most important part of what makes up a Ponzi scheme.

That the people are induced to become part of it by a promise that the scheme itself is throwing off profit internally, and the fact that it is only able to pay anything because of new entrants into the scam is hidden as a secret trick.

Since the inter-generational aspect of these plans has been well understood from the beginning (or how else could that first person get the first benefit without a lengthy runup of really, a lifetime of payments?), and really, the taxes on the current group of payers is sufficient for paying the benefits to the recipients well apart from new payees into the system, your claim fails on both these key aspects of a true Ponzi scheme.

It's a famous fact that the numbers of those paying into the SS system relative to the recipients number has fallen as a ratio, from something like 8-1 to 3-1 and dropping.

So it isn't that more and more people have to be brought into the system, since the opposite has been happening. The difference has been made up by increasing the tax rates and/or the maximum income to which the higher rate or same rate apply.

LWW
08-11-2011, 11:43 AM
So your argument is that just because it's a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean it's a Ponzi scheme?

How original.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 12:08 PM
Plainly, no, and not even close.

I argue instead that it lacks the two key features of any Ponzi scheme, and therefore isn't one at all.

If it required the addition of more and more participants, it would have already failed, as the ratio to payors to payees has consistently dropped. As is well known.

LWW
08-11-2011, 04:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is possibly Reagan's most famous video, except for when he was the president.

Surely you've heard of it? Or perhaps, and more likely, never knew to what he was referring in this speech, since that would seem stupidly impossible? </div></div>

Is this the quote you refer to:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, donít let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments donít tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say ďI have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.Ē

Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you donít, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you donít do this and if I donít do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrenís children, what it once was like in America when men were free.Ē</div></div>

If so, it doesn't say what you claim it says.

Also, what ... if any ... of the dire predictions made do you claim to have been false?