I can't say as I didn't see the downgrade coming.lloyd9988 wrote:Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._largeHeadline
Question: Will you consider this change to be good or bad??
Opinion: Basically... we shot ourselves in the foot with this one. :/ We had two plans that would have worked and, instead, we went with a last minute plan that shot down the Dow Jone 512 Points. Ouch... Honestly, I found it amusing how I ended up reading an Arizona Republic Newspaper yesterday to find a heading title that says "Crisis Adverted". Sorry, but I could help but chuckle when I found that our credit went from triple AAA to AA+.
Its one of those things that if you read the fine print instead of just believing what everyone else says about what's happening around the world, you would have seen it coming too. With a weak ability for the white house to make such obvious decisions, it was inevitable that our credit score was going to go down. So, if you'd like to leave the white house a comment about how they screwed things up with their indecisiveness, Leave them a comment:
Also, I do believe this to be a good thing because maybe our people will start caring more about what is going on in our country.
drewaconclusion wrote:I can't say as I didn't see the downgrade coming.
Davis 51 wrote:Basically, Speaker Boner (that's how I say it) said he got 98% of what he wanted out of the 'deal'. I blame him.
lloyd9988 wrote:Also, I do believe this to be a good thing because maybe our people will start caring more about what is going on in our country.
lloyd9988 wrote:Question: Will you consider this change to be good or bad??
You can't blame this on a single individual. Our decline is a direct result of the career politician, on all sides
Davis 51 wrote:He was the chief negotiator for a single side of the entire debate that walked away from talks consistently and bragged about getting 98% of what he wanted in the end by holding the full faith and credit of the US Government Hostage.
I'm pretty sure I can blame him. The "pox on both houses" thing to me, is just an excuse for avoiding critical thinking.
Glitzer wrote:Obama threatened to go to the American people in one meeting where compromise was stonewalled. Why didn't he?
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Did you miss the whole "phone congress" speech he gave that resulted in thousands of email and phone calls every hour for a few days straight?
BasharOfTheAges wrote:Granted, most of them were probably the vocal far right and left folks fuming with anger and rhetoric laden soundbites that just called to fan the flames further and encourage more digging in because they knew they were right...
Yes. He can't have it both ways. Either he expects us to take his word seriously, or not. If not, then he has no business being Speaker of the House. Saying that it's "just him doing what all politicians do" is a cop-out. If this isn't what he wanted, he shouldn't have walked out of negotiations.Glitzer wrote:And judging a politicians words while he is sucking up to the camera is thinking critically? It's apparent he said what he did to make it look like some glorious victory for his party, as all politicians do. They always have to upstage each other and make it seem their party prevailed and the American people are the big winners.
He did go to the people. He addressed the nation, which tied up phone lines in congress straight up to the vote. In case you haven't been paying attention to the polls, the GOP is circling the drain, precisely because he took his case to the people.If the democrats are blameless, then why didn't they block it? The fact of the matter is, the bill was rewritten many times with both parties present. Obama was there, Reid was there. Obama threatened to go to the American people in one meeting where compromise was stonewalled. Why didn't he? All I seem to recall was some stupid scare tactic that social security checks might not go out on time.
After everything is done, if one party screws things up, it's only because the other party remained silent.
Davis 51 wrote:You don't seem to understand the consequences of a default. If it was a scare tactic, it's only because the danger was very real, and far worse than just social security checks.
Davis 51 wrote:Full blown Great Depression 2.0.
Davis 51 wrote:In case you haven't been paying attention to the polls
Davis 51 wrote:And we didn't default. We also managed to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the time being.
Davis 51 wrote:The truth is, the S&P downgrade is mostly symbolic, but its symbolism that carries a lot of weight. We needed to cut more. SS, Medicare/Medicaid do need restructuring. We do need to raise taxes.
Davis 51 wrote: their stated reasons for the downgrade was crystal clear. We have become dysfunctional to the point where a single fanatical minority group can block up both houses and steer the country to catastrophe. They specifically mentioned the lack of revenue increases as one of the biggest reasons.
Davis 51 wrote:The reason isn't because the Democrats were "silent". It's because they weren't willing to play Russian roulette with the economy. Unlike the GOP, they can be pigheaded, but they're not a purely ideologically motivated cult. They don't drive to one lockstep, and I'd rather keep it that way than see them turn into a cult of their own.
Davis 51 wrote:The people voted in the Tea Party. The Tea Party put their hands on a button and said "I'LL FUCKING DO IT!" If it's anyone's fault, it's the fault of the American people for being made up entirely of apathetic morons who didn't understand they were electing a bunch of fanatics, many of whom wish we did default.
Davis 51 wrote:Boner represents them. He is their mouthpiece. The buck stops with him, because he thought it would be a good idea to play this sick, twisted game in the first place. It's a game that should never have been played
Davis 51 wrote:Obama and Reid may have been naive to think that they could be negotiated with, but that does not make them malicious.
Glitzer wrote:Davis 51 wrote:You don't seem to understand the consequences of a default. If it was a scare tactic, it's only because the danger was very real, and far worse than just social security checks.
Forgive me for not understanding. Reid said that Social Security is "fully funded" and he was sick of people bringing it up when they talk about the debt. Obama said he couldn't guarantee those checks would go out. Who is lying?
Users browsing this forum: Mkid and 2 guests