S&P will downgrade USA anyway even if there is a deal?
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
Why? There is no benefit by doing so. The reality is commodities are trending upwards, the USD is falling swiftly against the other fiat currencies and the job growth is not occuring. You must have very low expectations to stay positive. The only thing you are doing by remaining positive is being delusional. The wealth destruction has occcured the rebound is not occuring the housing market is not back on by a long shot. cash for clunkers did not work, the ethanol craze faded quickly etc..... Where is the growth coming going to come from? Hope is a four letter word last time I checked.
Akuma
Thank you. But I guess I should clarify. I was specifically referring to this statement by Dumb_mother: "our debt problem is 90% obama's and 10% prior presidents all added together."
The post you referred me to only addressed debt increases during the Obama period. It is my understanding the Iraq war by itself added approximately 4 Trillion when interest and veterans benefits are included. Perhaps it is wrong to do so, but I attribute all of this to the Bush II administration, as that is when that estimate was made, even though of course the war goes on under Obama (who voted against going into Iraq), and I think the total will probably therefore exceed the original 4 trillion estimate. And, of course, 4 Trillion is not the whole of the debt addition under Bush II as there were other additions such as those caused by the Bush 2001 (an extension), 2002, and 2003 tax cuts which amount to approximately 0.3 Trillion per year additional debt over the last five years of the Bush administration. And this is not all of the additional debt added in those years. It also seems to be questionable to attribute this additional 0.3 trillion per year since 2009 to Obama, when he is opposed to it but unable to undo, so far, what was done during the Bush administration.
However, even if you attribute to Obama all of the debt accrued so far under Obama due to Bush initiatives, Dumb_mother's statement still seems off base.
The first part of dumb_mother's post (I did not quote that part), however, would be true of any recent administration, with the possible exception of the Clinton administration.
Both those numbers are quite incorrect according to the information I was able to locate on the internet from what seem like creditable sources. But regardless, you surely realize that a large part of additional debt accruing under Obama is actually due to initiatives such as the Iraq War, and tax cuts of 2001,2001, and 2003 undertaken by the G. W. Bush administration. But even if you choose to ignore that reality, the second part of your earlier post is, it would seem, nonsense.
That is undoubtedly true! He did however get at least one thing right, he opposed going into Iraq. And I will also give him credit for recognizing, after the fact, that the Bush Tax Cuts were a mistake. I hope he realizes that you have to cut spending first, and then cut taxes, and not do it the other way around.
Obama opposed the Iraq War, but now as Commander in Chief he has failed to get us out of that war. He has also got us into a completely new war in Libya. In any case, Presidents don't create the budget, Congress does. Anybody who thinks that either of the two major parties is fiscally responsible is a fool.
Is it true that U.S. Actually Debt is $200 Trillion?
http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=10626
http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=10626