Global Nightmare: America on the brink of....

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by The Webby, Jul 31, 2011.

  1. #1
    Losing it's "AAA" credit rating....

    Whats this all about?
    Since 1917, The US Congress has stipulated that there has to be a statutory limit on US public debt. This limit has been periodically raised and currently stands at $14.3 trillion USD.
    The US will hit this limit on 2nd Aug 2011, unless Congress approves a fresh hike.

    Whats the Problem, then?
    Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Democrat-controlled Senate can't get their acts together. Republicans want any debt limit hike linked to deep cuts in Govt. spending. They also want the increase to be affective for a year only, with fresh discussion and assessment after that. Democrats favor tax increases (again) and a one-shot raising of the ceiling. They also oppose any cuts that can jeopardize the economic stimulus and welfare payments.

    What happens if debt ceiling is not raised?
    In short, everything is fucked up. The Govt. can't pay it's employees, social security benefits, defence contractors, medical insurance bills and interest to lenders. Credit Rating will plunge from top 'AAA' to bottom 'D'.

    So what? I'm not a US citizen, and I hate America. why should I give a damn?

    The effect will be global. There will be a panic in financial market. Doesn't matter if you love or hate USA, if your business is linked to US in any way, you will face the impact. Even if you have nothing to do with the US, price rise and inflation will affect you. Exporter will be devastated.

    What Obama got to do say about this?
    Who the fuck accumulated so much debt?

    Obama: $2.4 tn
    Bush Jr: $6.1 tn
    Clinton: $1.4 tn
    Bush Sr.: $1.5 tn
    Reagan: $1.9 tn
    Earlier: $1 tn

    What to do now?
    Wait and watch, and sing God save America.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2011
    The Webby, Jul 31, 2011 IP
  2. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #2
    It appears the deal has been done.

    [​IMG]
     
    Bushranger, Jul 31, 2011 IP
  3. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #3
    You might want to revisit your numbers. 
    Obama: 3.72 Trillion in 2.5 years
    Bush: 4.9 Trillion in 8 years(40% of which was tacked on in the last two years with the Democrat controlling congress)

    Of course my source is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway ... and we all know the federal govt. lies.

    What you should be more concerned about is govt spending as a percent of GDP. In 1967, it was 27%. Today its over 40%. Since Obama has taken office, he has increased the federal budget by30%.


    Another little factoid you might find interesting. In these hard times of unemployment and layoffs, a federal worker is more likely to die than lose their job.

     
    Obamanation, Aug 1, 2011 IP
  4. Breeze Wood

    Breeze Wood Peon

    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    It is necessary to manage the Debt in an appropriate manner - Presently by the Administration and Fed. Reserve the debt is being financed at ~ 2.5% - 3% which is extraordinary when incurred for reasons to stimulate a crippled economy inherited by the previous Republican Administration.

    Also the era of trillion dollar allotments is a new phenomenon the US is well suited to manage and will work to its advantage in the World Economy.
     
    Breeze Wood, Aug 1, 2011 IP
  5. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #5

    This is just my impression, I may be wrong. But, after witnessing the debt ceiling negotiations, it appears that the majority of Republicans would have allowed the US (and the world) to suffer a catastrophic fate, in order to protect the wealthiest individuals and corporations. I think Obama folded because he doesn't want our country to go into default - and, it looks like they were willing to "go there."

    You can see in the excerpt from the article above 67% of Americans were in favor of a combination of spending cuts AND taxes. Would it have been so bad if they were to eliminate Bush's tax cuts for the rich? I think he only planned to do that for 10 years. I guess the idea was the wealth would trickle down, but it hasn't. What I'm seeing is the rich get richer, and the poor getting poorer. What about getting rid of some of the tax loopholes that allow corporations making huge profits often get away with paying hardly any taxes? What about that? Do we really need to give tax breaks to oil companies making huge profits? What about millionaires, would it have been the end of the world to raise their taxes by 1% or 2%?

    It sounds like the Republicans wouldn't agree to a deal that included any of that. Instead, it will be spending cuts only. Spending cuts to our military, and cutting programs designed to protect our poor, elderly, and children. I'm one of those Americans that would have preferred a more balanced approach. And, all this drama, sheesh. Raising the debt ceiling is normally a routine matter.

    The video below has absolutely nothing to do with the economy, but isn't this a nice song? :)

    [video=youtube;gEQNAZGoZrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEQNAZGoZrw[/video]
     
    Rebecca, Aug 1, 2011 IP
  6. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #6
    Good to see yet another American waking to reality. Republicans are bad for the whole world, and their evil actions are affecting us all.
     
    Bushranger, Aug 1, 2011 IP
  7. viny30

    viny30 Active Member

    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #7
    the govt. is in too much debt, if this mighty Economy falls then there will be world wide panic and chaos and may lead to war. All debted nations have to deleverage. With Asia growing like anything there can be mistrust and may lead to unnecessary escalation of tensions. Debted nations would try to get their hands on resources which are till now kept safe. I hope our poles our safe... 
     
    viny30, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  8. The Webby

    The Webby Peon

    Messages:
    1,852
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    As I understand, its beyond the simple Rep Vs. Dem argument. Of course both parties have 2012 election in mind.
    The American economic strategy needs a reform. You simply can't just keep borrowing and not have a plausible plan to pay it back. Of course it will need some drastic measures such as changing the spending habits, tax increase, spending and tax cuts and regulating import and export to the point that it will hardly remain a free market. And it's not gonna be pleasant and fluffy at all. It's kind of belling the cat. The question is who is willing to do that and face the ire.

    Plus major American manufacturers and exporters are facing a stiff competition from European and Asian counterparts. The American domestic market is full of cheap Chinese stuffs. I'd been to New York Last year, and all I could find were Chinese products, no matter where I looked!!


    I have to admit, I cant be sure about that. Different sources show different figures.
    But it doesn't matter who accumulated how much debt. The point is, US as the nation owes that much of debt. That trend is not good.

    Take a look at attached image:
    usdebt.jpg

    US went from 5.6tn to 13.5tn in last 10 years.. That's a shitload of money. And exactly what benefits did the US tax payers get from this debt?

    @Bushranger - That picture is hilarious, made my day mate..
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
    The Webby, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #9
    That is certainly the way the story is being sold by the news media elites, including some on Fox even. Its a left talking point that seemed to stick rather well. Unfortunately, when you review the numbers from the poll used by your article, they don't reflect the presentation they were given by such an upstanding and non-biased source like CNN :rolleyes:.

    lb8bqx6b9uiikrizy_qdoq.jpg

    Looking at the numbers, a more accurate way to present the data would have been to say, "67% of Republicans, 51% of Independents, and 33% of Democrats favor a bill that implemented only or mostly spending cuts. Conversely, only 3% of Republicans 11% of Independents, and 20% of Democrats favored a bill that implemented mostly or only tax increases. 24% of Republicans, 30% of Independents, and 42% of Democrats favored a 'Balanced' approach."

    No matter how you slice the numbers, all of America, across party lines, wanted mostly cuts, and few or no new taxes.

    Eliminate taxes loopholes for the rich, sounds great in theory. Even more interesting when the person being quoted in the article that promotes such a theory is Jeffery Immelt, who's multi billion dollar corporation GE has paid no taxes in the last few years despite soaring profits. There are a variety of ways of looking at this but here are a few things to keep in mind.

    1) Its difficult to accomplish anything in Washington, especially spending cuts, so keeping a laser like focus on spending cuts and not letting the waters be muddied by a more complicated deal may have been the right approach. Even this deal is muddy enough at 74 pages.

    2) Eliminating "Tax loopholes for the rich" is Washington speak for raising taxes on everyone making over 200k. Aside from the fact that every pol that talked with Obama about such tax increases had Obama admitting as much behind closed doors, the fact is that if we taxed the truly "rich" at 100% which is entirely impossible, we would raise only a fraction of the money we would raise by bumping the middle class tax rate by 5%(all this assuming any of these people continued to pay their taxes at the new rates).

    3) If you think giving Washington discretionary spending a haircut required willingness to use heavy leverage and brinksmanship, imagine the act of god it would take to get Jeffery Immelt to start paying taxes. You would see round the clock TV advertisements talking about how the Republicans want to crush the US economy, innovators, and job creators.

    I agree that most if not nearly all Americans are on board with simplifying our tax code to eliminate all or most of the places people like the folks at GE shelter their profits, while at the same time lowering the overall tax rate to keep things revenue neutral(not grow the size of government). It would certainly be more fair to all the middle class Ma and Pa businesses that make ~250-300k a year that Mr. Immelt says we need to raise taxes on. You know, the people who employ 70% of the working US population? I believe the Tea Party folk who are being accused of protecting tax breaks for the wealthy are on board with the same program.

    Regarding the Bush "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy", they expire next year anyway, unless they are reinstated. To demonstrate what a ridiculous talking point that phrase is, I was watching some talking head on MSNBC talking about the delicate kabuki dance the Democrats are going to have to do when that vote comes up, since the Bush tax cuts were across the board tax cuts. They wonder how the Dems are going to let only the part of the Bush tax cuts that effected the "Wealthy" expire, while keeping the massive cuts he put in place for the middle class.

    Hah! Haven't listened to Portishead in 9 years. Very depressing.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  10. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #10
    I cracked up when I saw it. Good to hear someone else enjoyed it in the same sense.
     
    Bushranger, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  11. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,095
    Likes Received:
    103
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #11
    Ashes to ashes and dust to dust . Yet the US passed the increase and given the cuts the debt won't increase . Sorry kids but common sense says that the bigger they are the harder they hit you . The falling part is just a dream .
     
    ApocalypseXL, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  12. Breeze Wood

    Breeze Wood Peon

    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12

    I think Obama folded because he doesn't want our country to go into default


    In the end the Administration received as much as it gave with the sequal to be hammer out this Thanksgiving - Obama will be campaigning from a position of strength....for the reasons given in the above quote.
     
    Breeze Wood, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  13. The Webby

    The Webby Peon

    Messages:
    1,852
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    What the heck are you talkin 'bout?

    No one wants US to fall (except for some delusional people), its too big to fall because if it falls, it will shake the world.
    What I want is a stable US economy and stronger dollar.
    Common sense says, it's not a good sign when a state accumulates debt over 95% of it's GDP and keeps increasing the debt ceiling, while GDP is not increasing at the same level.

    Compare these two charts
    usgdp.jpg
    View attachment 54871

    See something?
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
    The Webby, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  14. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #14
    Source? I think you're figures are quite a ways off. Obama is around the 4 trillion mark. I don't think Bush spent much more than 5 in his 8 years in office. Remember we had 9/11, probably over a trillion in losses and damages in NYC alone, a war, etc., etc... Even with all that and a record deficit of 500 billion, when Bush left office that number had shrunk to less than 150 billion. Now its how many TRILLION?

    Yikes...
     
    Mia, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  15. The Webby

    The Webby Peon

    Messages:
    1,852
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    View attachment 54827

    I find it somewhat sad yet funny. I mean whether it's Mia or Obamanation, you are trying to make a point that hey Bush didn't accumulate that much debt, hey Obama's contribution is larger than that. Is that the point of this thread? I said earlier, its not a simple Rep Vs Dem argument. Its about America and it's economy as whole!
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
    The Webby, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  16. eric8476

    eric8476 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #16
    i would not like to be a conservative as of now, as of now i prefer to be moderate to liberal. but here is a rebuttle to the general "clinton surplus to bush turing it to a deficit"

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    i post this because, correct me if i'm wrong, i remember seeing a foxnews report that was not disputed by the other networks, that bush achieve a budget surplus after the doings of 9/11.  

    also i do not recall clinton leaving a budget surplus after his term only that he achieve a surplus during his term.

    ?

    rebecca, i used to think that this was a portishead song when i did not know a portishead song.  this was close to going to college years before going to college, for me near the end of high school:

    [video=youtube;lbq4G1TjKYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbq4G1TjKYg[/video]

    well, i'm looking into portishead now to differenciate this song from it and to appreciate portihead.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
    eric8476, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #17
    Its neither sad or funny. You posted numbers that were factually incorrect. The US Treasury provides the actual numbers, which you can look up in the link I provided you. You don't seem to be a partisan, so I assumed you collected the numbers from a partisan web site in error. No big deal.

    As far as this not being a Rep vs Dem argument, anyone who has watched Cable news for the last week would opine otherwise. There are now three factions in our government. 

    1) Those who wish to continue to spend, and let the consequences of unrestrained govt spending be damned (Obama and most of the Democrats)
    2) Those who wish to continue to spend, but would like to pay lip service to reducing the size of our government (Most of the Republicans and a few Tea Party folk)
    3) Those who wish to make the hard decisions, political consequences be damned, and reduce government spending( Most of the Tea Party, a few Republicans, a few Democrats)

    By posting your erroneous numbers that downplayed the precipitously accelerated rate at which Obama has grown our federal government, most people like Mia would naturally assume you were making a partisan statement.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  18. The Webby

    The Webby Peon

    Messages:
    1,852
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    Obviously I followed the link you provided, that's where I got that debt chart from.
    I admitted that I can't be sure about my numbers and included the chart in my next post. It eliminates the chances of false assumptions, or at least I would guess so.
    But yes, I used a known anti Republican news source for my numbers because that's all I had at the time of posting, I should have known better.

    You are spot on in your observation though. But It is still not simply a Rep Vs Dem argument, its beyond that. Both are guilty. I'm not going into who is more guilty than the other.
    This is the time for a reform, a serious reform.

    (inb4 someone shouts Ron Paul, no he is not the answer either)
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
    The Webby, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  19. Chrissy17

    Chrissy17 Peon

    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    A map showing S&P credit ratings around the world:

    [​IMG]
     
    Chrissy17, Aug 2, 2011 IP
  20. Breeze Wood

    Breeze Wood Peon

    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20


    It was the Administration that sought to have the most comprehensive debt reduction legislation possible, 4 Trillion and at the displeasure of his own party but was stymied by partisan bickering primarily by a Republican / Tea Party coalition who wished not to make the hard decisions, political consequences be damned, and reduce government spending.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
    Breeze Wood, Aug 2, 2011 IP