S&P has downgraded U.S.A credit rating from AAA to AA+

[Gwarr]

Shouldn't the U.S.A's credit rating be an F- for the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT

It should honestly be T for Trolling

 

[Agayek]

Hurray! Oh wait, that's a bad thing right? I know you Americans are in a bad debt crisis, but can you give me the laymans version?

Basically it means the US is slightly more likely to default on a loan. That's what the credit rating from S&P means. The higher your rating, the more likely you are to fulfill your debt obligations.

 

[Arcanist]

Shouldn't the U.S.A's credit rating be an F- for the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT

Two things -

One, the lowest rating is actually CCC, which means a default is imminent.

Two, it bears repeating - We owe a total of 12 trillion, yes, but we also produce 14 trillion dollars worth of goods and services EVERY YEAR. We could pay off our debt in 10 months if we really wanted to. Seriously, especially in the short term, our national debt isn't the problem people keep making it out to be.

The deficit, the source of our national debt, on the other hand...

 

[Angryman101]

Once you have a country in the position that you start rolling units onto their turf and have broken most of its military, its pushover. Crush they small resistance and watch the people take the same place they had under the previous government, which is the easiest thing to do and thus the natural reaction.

Hmm.../looks at Vietnam and Afghanistan military history
Nope, that's not how that works. Nice try, though.
It's a joke to think that the remaining population would readily submit to an aggressor's influence after it had been so intent on killing their brothers, fathers, sons, property, and way of life.

 

[karamazovnew]

Everything you see in your country, from your school, to the store down the road, almost everything was built on debt. Everytime something was build in the last couple of years someone somewhere lent money from a bank.

Not that I don't agree, but Romania was a communist country for 50 years, and in spite of all the bad things that he did, Ceaucescu managed to pay off the country's debt, although he got killed for that in the end. In the 1990's, this country managed to exist without debt. I don't know when we began borrowing money but at the moment it's still acceptable, at under 40% of GDP. So trust me when I say that not everything I see in my country is build or even maintained on debt, not even now. And that's why I can't begin to understand why the US has allowed itself to go so far on the debt road. I understand the system, but I don't understand how someone with a brain can support such a system.

As for the US-China thing. Consider this: in their search for profit, most mega corporations have moved camp in China, because of lower costs. At the same time, in our search for smaller prices, we have abandoned local industries. At the moment, the country that buys the most is the US while the country that makes the most is China. If any of these countries fall, the entire world falls. In my opinion, each country should have made sure to protect the welfare of their people, by taxing imports enough to always have local products at the lower price. As such, people would only buy import products for their increased quality, not lower cost, pushing for a quality race, not a cost race. Every country should start taxing china as soon as the chinese population can start to sustain the chinese industry. Only developing countries or countries with economical problems should be allowed a better chance on the global market.

 

[Avatar Roku]

we should just go to war with china, that way we dont owe them any money

Let's see ...

China has 300,000,000 soldiers.

The entire population of the US is about 300,000,000

This means that basically, if every man, woman and child, including criminals, the mentally unfit, infants, you, me and retirees were to arm themselves and go to war, the soldier ratio would be about 1 to 1.

Besides, look around your house at different items. Find the ones that say, "MADE IN CHINA". Now, remove those items. They kind of have us by the balls. We have no industry. We, as a nation, have lost the ability to build things. The things that we DO build usually fall apart just as fast as the Chinese stuff. Remember, those sweat shops in China that make things that we use every day are owned by the same greedy bastards who outsourced the jobs over there so they wouldn't have to pay as much. If they owned factories here, they'd still have the same mentality: "Make it cheap; who cares if it falls apart in a week?"

I just want to point out that quantity doesn't mean quality. Our military is much better equipped then they are. They may have a billion soldiers but they don't have high-tech equipment like our soldiers. They also don't have an air force nor a navy that can match ours as well. Also, ever heard of The Battle of Mt. Thermoplyae?

Economically we would be screwed. But industries could be built and there should come a time when we shouldn't have to import everything from China.

Oooh, not a good parallel. The Spartans were better equipped and trained, but they still LOST at Thermoplyae, you know.

Anyway, I'm a bit pissed at the TEA Partiers who say "Don't raise taxes, the problem is that we spent more than we took in!" Yes...that's why we want to take in more.

And I'm very pissed a congress and the President in general. Petulant brats, all of them. Republicans especially, but the Democrats are far from blameless.

Or the government could, ya know, spend less. -_- Such a /radical/ idea, i know, not spending money you don't have.

What scares me the most is that all the parties in this argument (as in groups, not necessarily political parties) are tossing the blame at each other for the express purpose of blaming them when everything goes up in flames. WHY NOT STOP THE FLAMES FROM GOING UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Or at least pack a fire extinguisher and make it not quite as slaughteriffic...

I should, perhaps, mention that cutting spending is also an integral part of whatever plan they SHOULD go with. I'm just saying that doing both is probably the best thing. If you only cut things, you end up having to cut things you NEED, and if you only tax, you put the burden far too much on the individuals.

But I have to be honest, your comment (in relation to mine, I mean) kinda bothers me. Yes, we absolutely should not spend what we do not have. I agree. But why is cutting spending the only way to do that? When you say "don't spend more than we take in", there are two possible ways to do that, both of which I covered above, and the latter of which a surprising number of people seem to ignore.

I'll be perfectly honest here: It's partly due to spite for congress - Clinton may have started this, Bush may have made it worse, and Obama may have been president when the economy REALLY started to tank (or it might've been near the end of Bush's, im having trouble remembering) but the congress is, was, and will be powerful enough to fix it themselves. That's why we have three branches in the first place - So two branches can keep one branch from doing something too stupid. In addition, they are supposed to be most in tune with the american people but seem to be completely out of touch with those people - and more importantly, reality.

I'm also sore over the stimulus and healthcare bills - not so much because of what they were allegedly supposed to do, or even that they didn't do it... but rather that they were so ridiculously long i have to wonder who could've possibly known what was going through...

It's mostly, however, because Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling and I have trouble seeing how that could possibly mean we will LOWER our debt any time soon.

The reason i directed it at your comment was that it seemed to me like you thought we should keep spending the same and increase taxes which, as you said, puts almost all of the burden on the people, and yeah, you're right, a little of both is probably the way to go.

I argue for cuts in spending largely because the guy who signs the bill into law isn't going to let a bill go through if it doesn't have raises in spending/taxes anyway, so that half doesn't really need an advocate.

Thank you for responding reasonably, by the way. It's very refreshing =)

I get you. The thing is, the debt ceiling has been raised over 100 times in the past with nary a peep. Then, suddenly, it's a giant issue this time because Boehner can use it for political leverage. That the Republicans would want to actually lower the debt while raising the ceiling doesn't bother me; that they would ever consider NOT raising the ceiling DOES bother me. There was not a single person who actually understood what was going on who thought not raising it this time would result in anything other than default, and the Republicans were willing to risk that for political expediency.

And yes, the tax half DOES need an advocate, because the Republicans were outright unwilling to even consider it and, in the end, the bill that was passed didn't have a single tax increase, largely because the Republicans would not compromise. Again, I want to stress that the Democrats are not blameless either, far from it.

And yes, having a reasonable discussion about this is quite refreshing.

 

[Sean Steele]

When one half of this nation's two party system literally threatened a full default to get everything they want and we still let them be in charge yeah thats what happens.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

we should just go to war with china, that way we dont owe them any money

Let's see ...

China has 300,000,000 soldiers.

The entire population of the US is about 300,000,000

This means that basically, if every man, woman and child, including criminals, the mentally unfit, infants, you, me and retirees were to arm themselves and go to war, the soldier ratio would be about 1 to 1.

Besides, look around your house at different items. Find the ones that say, "MADE IN CHINA". Now, remove those items. They kind of have us by the balls. We have no industry. We, as a nation, have lost the ability to build things. The things that we DO build usually fall apart just as fast as the Chinese stuff. Remember, those sweat shops in China that make things that we use every day are owned by the same greedy bastards who outsourced the jobs over there so they wouldn't have to pay as much. If they owned factories here, they'd still have the same mentality: "Make it cheap; who cares if it falls apart in a week?"

I just want to point out that quantity doesn't mean quality. Our military is much better equipped then they are. They may have a billion soldiers but they don't have high-tech equipment like our soldiers. They also don't have an air force nor a navy that can match ours as well. Also, ever heard of The Battle of Mt. Thermoplyae?

Economically we would be screwed. But industries could be built and there should come a time when we shouldn't have to import everything from China.

Oooh, not a good parallel. The Spartans were better equipped and trained, but they still LOST at Thermoplyae, you know.

Anyway, I'm a bit pissed at the TEA Partiers who say "Don't raise taxes, the problem is that we spent more than we took in!" Yes...that's why we want to take in more.

And I'm very pissed a congress and the President in general. Petulant brats, all of them. Republicans especially, but the Democrats are far from blameless.

Unfortunately no. When its fight or die situation, the defenders will always win. The Chinese can always retreat, Americans don't have that luxury. War isn't like it is in the movies. China cant afford to kill every man, woman, and child.

I know. I'm not saying we'd lose, I'm just saying it's an unfortunate parallel. The spartans DID lose, after all.

I know they lost. The point is that, you know, they were able to fight hundreds of thousands of Persians when they were a few hundred. I was comparing that part of it between the size but better equipped American military to the Chinese.

Should try looking at things from all angles.

 

[HalfTangible]

we should just go to war with china, that way we dont owe them any money

Let's see ...

China has 300,000,000 soldiers.

The entire population of the US is about 300,000,000

This means that basically, if every man, woman and child, including criminals, the mentally unfit, infants, you, me and retirees were to arm themselves and go to war, the soldier ratio would be about 1 to 1.

Besides, look around your house at different items. Find the ones that say, "MADE IN CHINA". Now, remove those items. They kind of have us by the balls. We have no industry. We, as a nation, have lost the ability to build things. The things that we DO build usually fall apart just as fast as the Chinese stuff. Remember, those sweat shops in China that make things that we use every day are owned by the same greedy bastards who outsourced the jobs over there so they wouldn't have to pay as much. If they owned factories here, they'd still have the same mentality: "Make it cheap; who cares if it falls apart in a week?"

I just want to point out that quantity doesn't mean quality. Our military is much better equipped then they are. They may have a billion soldiers but they don't have high-tech equipment like our soldiers. They also don't have an air force nor a navy that can match ours as well. Also, ever heard of The Battle of Mt. Thermoplyae?

Economically we would be screwed. But industries could be built and there should come a time when we shouldn't have to import everything from China.

Oooh, not a good parallel. The Spartans were better equipped and trained, but they still LOST at Thermoplyae, you know.

Anyway, I'm a bit pissed at the TEA Partiers who say "Don't raise taxes, the problem is that we spent more than we took in!" Yes...that's why we want to take in more.

And I'm very pissed a congress and the President in general. Petulant brats, all of them. Republicans especially, but the Democrats are far from blameless.

Or the government could, ya know, spend less. -_- Such a /radical/ idea, i know, not spending money you don't have.

What scares me the most is that all the parties in this argument (as in groups, not necessarily political parties) are tossing the blame at each other for the express purpose of blaming them when everything goes up in flames. WHY NOT STOP THE FLAMES FROM GOING UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Or at least pack a fire extinguisher and make it not quite as slaughteriffic...

I should, perhaps, mention that cutting spending is also an integral part of whatever plan they SHOULD go with. I'm just saying that doing both is probably the best thing. If you only cut things, you end up having to cut things you NEED, and if you only tax, you put the burden far too much on the individuals.

But I have to be honest, your comment (in relation to mine, I mean) kinda bothers me. Yes, we absolutely should not spend what we do not have. I agree. But why is cutting spending the only way to do that? When you say "don't spend more than we take in", there are two possible ways to do that, both of which I covered above, and the latter of which a surprising number of people seem to ignore.

I'll be perfectly honest here: It's partly due to spite for congress - Clinton may have started this, Bush may have made it worse, and Obama may have been president when the economy REALLY started to tank (or it might've been near the end of Bush's, im having trouble remembering) but the congress is, was, and will be powerful enough to fix it themselves. That's why we have three branches in the first place - So two branches can keep one branch from doing something too stupid. In addition, they are supposed to be most in tune with the american people but seem to be completely out of touch with those people - and more importantly, reality.

I'm also sore over the stimulus and healthcare bills - not so much because of what they were allegedly supposed to do, or even that they didn't do it... but rather that they were so ridiculously long i have to wonder who could've possibly known what was going through...

It's mostly, however, because Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling and I have trouble seeing how that could possibly mean we will LOWER our debt any time soon.

The reason i directed it at your comment was that it seemed to me like you thought we should keep spending the same and increase taxes which, as you said, puts almost all of the burden on the people, and yeah, you're right, a little of both is probably the way to go.

I argue for cuts in spending largely because the guy who signs the bill into law isn't going to let a bill go through if it doesn't have raises in spending/taxes anyway, so that half doesn't really need an advocate.

Thank you for responding reasonably, by the way. It's very refreshing =)

I get you. The thing is, the debt ceiling has been raised over 100 times in the past with nary a peep. Then, suddenly, it's a giant issue this time because Boehner can use it for political leverage. That the Republicans would want to actually lower the debt while raising the ceiling doesn't bother me; that they would ever consider NOT raising the ceiling DOES bother me. There was not a single person who actually understood what was going on who thought not raising it this time would result in anything other than default, and the Republicans were willing to risk that for political expediency.

And yes, the tax half DOES need an advocate, because the Republicans were outright unwilling to even consider it and, in the end, the bill that was passed didn't have a single tax increase, largely because the Republicans would not compromise. Again, I want to stress that the Democrats are not blameless either, far from it.

And yes, having a reasonable discussion about this is quite refreshing.

Ok, but has raising the debt ceiling ever WORKED to reduce the debt? I can understand that it gave breathing room to come up with a plan, but judging from the 14 trillion in debt we have now, said breathing room hasn't been used in the past.

I'm not saying that this isn't being used as political leverage (show me one thing in washington that doesn't get used as political leverage and i'll show you a publicity stunt) but it does sound reasonable - reducing spending means less debt, so we won't NEED a higher ceiling (except maybe for interest) =/