Obama's Downgrade

Bipartisan supported stimulus bill that kept people happy with us and shored up our economic decline? Saving the auto industry, who have paid back their debt with interest and are now turning above-expectations profits again?

You think the US is bad when it comes to having an inefficient government? Look at Greece or Italy. Still, every time Germany or someone goes, "Yeah, we'll bail them out." the Euro jumps. It jumps because regardless of the *** you hear on Fox, investors believe stimulus bills work. The same was true for ours, and that alone was a good enough reason to pass it.

That depends entirely on your point of view, and calling it *** isn't really a strong logical argument.

One side wanted this, the other wanted that. One side didn't have the power to get what they wanted, so they tried to bargain. It wasn't good enough. End of story. Don't pretend as if Democrats are any more compassionate towards Republicans than the reverse.

Because that would be the sensible option and the Republican Tea Party someone said raising taxes is a sin that gets you sent to a special circle in hell.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/07/137866/obama-more-jobs-bush/

Not to say that Bush's administration didn't try to at least make an effort towards building jobs, himself. But the facts are that it's not about who's in the executive office, because initially they don't truly have the power to create these positions. As we've all learned, this is only 1/3 of the power in Washington that can be utilized towards reform, etc. I'm not saying Obama's the greatest president we've ever seen, because clearly he hasn't been. But what I am saying is blaming him is a waste of time.

As for the caricature, yeah it might have been a little offensive, but it was more or less injected in there for humor purposes. Besides, I'm one to talk. I was born in Texas for ***'s sake. I've been around people who share that type of vernacular. Hell, my Dad is from Alabama, and I hear this kind of thing from him all the time. But, I will rescind that comment.

My initial point, the one I'm really trying to get at here is that this economy's in the crapper, and Obama neither helped nor hindered the job process. Short of coming up with a brand new economy altogether, the most he can do is offer the public some relief in these strange times.

So you lied and you do have a loan that interest rates will effect?

and equity? you mean taking out a loan against the value of your house? which of coarse would have an interest rate attached to it? unless you know some bank that gives out Home Equity loans with no interest? Please let me know, I know lots of people who would love this bank of yours....

Not even American, but watching idiots from both sides bicker for a week and this was all I could think about.

No, it doesn't. Calling it obstructionist *** is pretty much a statement of fact, and if you don't believe me you're free to read the S&P report and think for a few minutes about how what they're describing could have been avoided.

How is cutting social programs not compassionate of the democrats? In exchange, their reward was that they... got to save the country from a default only to get blamed for the S&P downgrade by idiots that support the obstructionists?

The Republicans painted themselves into a corner with their "no tax increases" party line. Now that they've been downgraded and stocks have taken a hit though, their financial backers probably lost as much money as they would have if they'd just accepted a tax increase in the first place. The difference is, now we have fewer social programs and everyone lost money instead of just the upper 1~2%.

See if you can read this and come to a different conclusion.

Why can't the gov't make due with what they have. 100% government growth over the past 10 years is NOT sustainable. Raising taxes is not the answer.

Well while it is true there are unsustainable spendings, that sort of dances around and avoids the point that a lot of sustainable spending is being cut as well. Tax rates are lower than the average under Regan while spending is planned on being cut to lower than under Eisenhower. There is a disconnect there.

Kicking and screaming every time someone brings up taxes is not the answer either.

You want the government to do nothing but cut spending? Fine. Let's see how well you're carrying that tune when the general quality of life just goes to ***.

I agree that the richest 1-3% should have to pay more in taxes, the top richest people have seen exponential profits while the rest of the nation is taking the blunt of the loss. The trickle down policy clearly is not working.

America: A third world country with a McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner.

No no, I don't think you're catching what I mean. I am NOT happy that Republicans "won." And I don't think I am totally understanding what you're saying. Because to me, it sounds like "if Republicans would have just done everything we said, there would have been no grandstanding."

And I think that's lame, only because I can say, "if only Democrats would have just done everything Republicans wanted, there would have been no grandstanding."

But all I mean is that almost everyone (it seems) is fighting less for the country and more for their party. That's all.

By quality of life, you mean what? Gov't spends crap tons on war, crap tons on gov't salaries(salaries on average higher than the private sector, not to mention 100% growth in 10 years) gov't double dip pensions, gov't waste billions on cars sitting in a parking lot rusting away all across the nation, gov't "spend money on my project and I will spend money on yours" policies, and what about the excessive road work construction(occurring all over California, Oregon and Washington and probably all over the nation) just to name a few off hand.

Can someone provide a chart or graph to show that US government spending has grown by 100% as a percent of GDP in the last X years?

I cannot find a single graph or chart to back up this talking point, unless you pull a fast one and don't adjust for GDP or inflation.

I guess you don't understand what the parties were asking for.

* The Democrats wanted tax increases, specifically on the upper 1-2%, but overall revenue increases. They got no tax increases.
* The Republicans wanted cuts to medicare/social security and social programs. They got no social security cuts, provisional medicare cuts, and most of the debt reduction legislation came out of social services and the military. In addition, the "super congress" that's supposed to find the rest of the money we're saying is eliminated by the debt act has the potential to include cuts to social security/medicare (along with potential revenue increases).
* The Teaparticans don't have a unified voice, but they basically want to cut every social program and eliminate taxes. Unsurprisingly, they didn't get what they wanted.

The real Republican party line is now the "moderate" option because of the extreme voices of the tea party. The Democrats basically have a shitty bargaining position and congress is split three ways.

73.4% of statistics are made up on the spot, with a 2.5% margin of error.

If you look at the S&P report, they say they expect net government debt to rise from 74% to 77% of GDP over the next 4 years, so "100% GDP growth" is a purely *** statistic.

Oh I don't know, basic stuff like the education system, keeping up maintenance on roads, highways and bridges, keeping snow plows ready in the winter, public transportation, libraries, parks, enforcing regulations for clean water and such. You know, things we take for granted but would cause an uproar if they suddenly vanished in a flurry of budget cuts.

Fairly certain my fixed mortgage has no dependency on changing rates.

And no, I meant owning your home and when you sell it putting that money towards a new one. Home Equity Loans are hell..and are only necessary in about 1% of the cases they are used. ARM mortgages and HELs are two of the biggest 'sins' in our economy. They are a great percentage of the reason we are in our current economic state.

From politifact.com
non-inflation-adjusted
Fiscal year 2001: $1.86 trillion
Fiscal year 2002: $2.01 trillion
Fiscal year 2003: $2.16 trillion
Fiscal year 2004: $2.29 trillion
Fiscal year 2005: $2.47 trillion
Fiscal year 2006: $2.66 trillion
Fiscal year 2007: $2.73 trillion
Fiscal year 2008: $2.98 trillion
Fiscal year 2009: $3.52 trillion
Fiscal year 2010: $3.46 trillion
Fiscal year 2011 (estimate): $3.82 trillion

Iinflation-adjusted
"So, doubling the 2001 outlays over 10 years would have meant a 2011 figure of $3.72 trillion. Since the actual figure is higher than that, Coburn is right that the cost of government has doubled over the past decade.

In our initial analysis, we stopped there and did not adjust these figures for inflation. After readers pointed this out to us, we ran the inflation-adjustment calculations and determined that the fiscal 2011 federal outlay of $3.82 trillion was equivalent to $3 trillion in 2001 dollars. That produced an increase in federal outlays of 60 percent over 10 years. That’s still a significant increase, but short of double. We also calculated that government outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product, rose from 18.2 percent in 2001 to 25.3 percent in 2011 -- an increase of 39 percent, which is also not double."

Granted with inflation the numbers are 39% growth, what was our population growth over the same time period?

You're still talking about various entities of the government that could very well make due on tons less than they currently allocate. The gov't has this cool trait of awarding contracts to the lowest bidder, utilizing the most expensive materials, policing itself with inane regulations to the point of utter inefficiency. A pointed example is a highway overpass they just put in here.

8 mo of labor.
$3.5M
It was to alleviate a 't-bone' intersection that was hazardous. What did they do? They ran the intersecting highways up to the top of a 30' (not exaggerating) t-bone overpass. Now, not only do you still have the stupid, dangerous cross way with only a stop sign governing one direction of the traffic, you also get a 30' sheer drop if there is ever a collision.

SOOOOO very glad my taxes went to this.
For $6,500 they could have put in a light. Or at the least, when they made an overpass, actually completely eradicate the traffic intersecting perpendicularly.

The country was downgraded because of a broken political system. The problem is the deadlocks. Everyone (including obama) is to blame.

Your input isn't needed ghost camper. ; )

but you started off by saying not "living beyond your means" and implied that any loan is living beyond your means, did you not? Am I alone in thinking that's what you said?

Everyone should buy a house with cash.

this is probably the first time I've felt there is an actual chance Obama could be defeated in the upcoming election.

lol. by who?

Go Huntsman!