• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

US Credit Rating Downgraded again

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
He did not keep his promises to the people.

He took the job without blinders on and either deceived himself or the people that he could do the job.

A multitude of promises built on transparency and hope/change have failed. And he feel he DESERVES another chance to get nothing accomplished.

He has failed on leadership
You guys sure get hung on on "promises", whatever they were. When he becomes dictator he can pass everything he wants, until then he cannot fulfill campaign promises, such is the nature of the office.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
He did not keep his promises to the people.

He took the job without blinders on and either deceived himself or the people that he could do the job.

A multitude of promises built on transparency and hope/change have failed. And he feel he DESERVES another chance to get nothing accomplished.

He has failed on leadership
If I had a dollar for every campaign promise that was never fulfilled, I'd be a Republican.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Now both sides do this all the time so I am not picking on anyones favorite club but isn't it amusing how most people blame the sitting president for just about everything, including legislation. That is until your side controls the executive and then they blame Congress (assuming it is controlled by the other party, assuming it is controlled by the other party otherwise they just don't bring it up).

If a Democrat Congress had passed the repeal of Glass-Stegall and Bush signed it then it would obviously be Bush's fault that it was repealed. Since a Democrat signed it into law it is obviously the fault of the Republican.

Even better is the makeup of the Congress that passed it. The Senate had a 54(R)-46(D) split or 54%-46%. The House had an even smaller majority at 222(R)-210(D) with one independent for a 51.2%-48.5% split. The bill passed the senate with a 90-8 vote and the House with a 362-57 vote. Most of the nay votes in both houses were from Democrats but the vast majority of Dems in both houses voted to pass the bill. This is about as bipartisan of a vote as you can get.

Not trying to pick on the Dems here, both sides do this every single chance they get, I am simply using the example already posted.
Very well said. Especially when control of Congress and the White House is split, Congress spends money, not the President - with rare exceptions like Clinton when he "discovered" he could spend retirement accounts to avoid a partial shut-down or Reagan who was able to go over Congress' and the media's heads directly to the American people and thus drive spending. Thus Clinton deserves some credit for the Republican Congress' responsible spending (he could easily have vetoed even more spending bills to demand less cuts) and Bush deserves a huge amount of blame for not vetoing spending or even attempting to provide fiscally responsible leadership to his own party leadership in Congress.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Obama was part of the Congress that sent the bills to Bush to sign. If you blame Congress for the spending, then Obama gets the blame. If you blame the President for the spending, well, Obama is now President so he gets the blame.

Obama is at fault either way you slice it. Part of the problem with being a Congressman prior to being a President.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Both the house and senate were controlled by Republicans, who brought up the legislation. This gives them the blame. Clinton also shares the blame, but like most legislation, repealing G-S was only a small part of the overall bill, leading Clinton to hold his nose and sign it due to needing everything else in the bill.

A Bush budget shouldn't be blamed on Obama. It just wouldn't make any sense.

It wasn't because of random bickering.. it was because the Republicans wanted to keep the most bloated military in the world untouched, keep tax cuts for the rich, and gut social spending programs. If you think that that is A-ok, then of course you could try to claim "both parties did it." That would be false equivalence and would ignore reality though. Creating your own fantasy reality would be easier for you over at freeperville.
It was Bush's budget only in the sense that he was President while most of it was being crafted. When a President's party does not control Congress, his budget gets submitted, voted down, and thereafter ignored unless there is something which he can pitch directly to the American people and shame the opposition into funding or cutting. Obama's last budget for instance was voted down unanimously in both chambers in spite of the fact that his party controls the Senate and that body hasn't a budget (or a clue) to call its own. (Of course, there's method behind Reid's madness; not passing a budget allows him to spend the bailouts and stimulus every year without technically increasing the budget $750,000,000,000.) If a President doesn't have sufficient leadership to pitch his priorities - almost impossible in today's climate - the very best for which he can hope is to have some of his priorities considered as Congress crafts its budgets (or in lieu of budgets, spending bills.)

What happens in D.C. ain't what your high school civics book told you happens in D.C.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
Now both sides do this all the time so I am not picking on anyones favorite club but isn't it amusing how most people blame the sitting president for just about everything, including legislation. That is until your side controls the executive and then they blame Congress (assuming it is controlled by the other party, assuming it is controlled by the other party otherwise they just don't bring it up).

If a Democrat Congress had passed the repeal of Glass-Stegall and Bush signed it then it would obviously be Bush's fault that it was repealed. Since a Democrat signed it into law it is obviously the fault of the Republican.

Even better is the makeup of the Congress that passed it. The Senate had a 54(R)-46(D) split or 54%-46%. The House had an even smaller majority at 222(R)-210(D) with one independent for a 51.2%-48.5% split. The bill passed the senate with a 90-8 vote and the House with a 362-57 vote. Most of the nay votes in both houses were from Democrats but the vast majority of Dems in both houses voted to pass the bill. This is about as bipartisan of a vote as you can get.

Not trying to pick on the Dems here, both sides do this every single chance they get, I am simply using the example already posted.
You also have to consider agendas. I'm sure Clinton and the Ds were only willing to sign off on the repeal of Glass-Steagall in exchange for the Rs conceding something to them. This was once how the government operated - we'll work with you on this if you work with us on another thing. But nowadays one party is mostly obstructionist and works in lockstep to do nothing but steamroll their agenda. The other party has a few factions with different views that prevent them from doing the same.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
Because he has successfully been easing one of the worst recessions in history. Why do you attribute everything negative to him, seems very irrational. Did he overrun the embassies? Did he fire everyone? Did he stop the credit limit from raising to make a political point?
We got sold a bill of goods. He told us he would keep unemployment below 8% AND cut the deficit in half in 4 years. He did neither.

Iraq, Gitmo, Earmarks, Transparency, Lobyists, Deficit, Unemployment, 5 day waiting period for bills, work with other side, the list of lies goes on and on.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I was listening to the radio on saturday and there was some guy on there claiming that the feds and the largest banks are submiting false reports to the CEC to make their stock/bank positions look better than they realy are. I think we need some deeper investitgations into banks and a more thorough audit of the Federal Reserve. What are they really hiding anyway. It was already reveled the the feds paid foreign banks hundred of billions of dollars of tax payer money to bail them out. Since when do we bail out foreign banks that dont even pay FDIC insurance?
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
We got sold a bill of goods. He told us he would keep unemployment below 8% AND cut the deficit in half in 4 years. He did neither.

Iraq, Gitmo, Earmarks, Transparency, Lobyists, Deficit, Unemployment, 5 day waiting period for bills, work with other side, the list of lies goes on and on.
You don't know what a lie is. He knowing said thing he knew wasn't true? Or more likely he wanted to do something that ended up being more difficult in reality? The president doesn't act in a bubble, he has to work with Congress and the reality of a situation changes over time.

Your lack of logic could be applied to every president in history and it would look equally damning.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
You also have to consider agendas. I'm sure Clinton and the Ds were only willing to sign off on the repeal of Glass-Steagall in exchange for the Rs conceding something to them. This was once how the government operated - we'll work with you on this if you work with us on another thing. But nowadays one party is mostly obstructionist and works in lockstep to do nothing but steamroll their agenda. The other party has a few factions with different views that prevent them from doing the same.
Actually it appears that it was the other way around. Clintons Treasury Secretary pushed for the repeal of Glass-Stegall. I am not sure if the Republicans "got" anything for it or if they were happy to pass it but putting the blame on the Republicans alone is not only partisan hackery but its blatantly untrue.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Republicans controlled Congress at the time and in typical fashion, added it into a bill with a ton of other things. Clinton holds some blame, but it was a small part of a bigger bill that he wanted signed. The Republicans are the one that added it into such a bill in the first place.
Still waiting on a reply, or have you tucked your tail and ran from this thread because I have shown that you are the true "hack"?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
You don't know what a lie is. He knowing said thing he knew wasn't true? Or more likely he wanted to do something that ended up being more difficult in reality? The president doesn't act in a bubble, he has to work with Congress and the reality of a situation changes over time.

Your lack of logic could be applied to every president in history and it would look equally damning.
I know, they are only lies when Republicans tell them.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,520
441
126
I love how, when talking specifically about the deficit and debt, idiots will start talking about something completely different to back up their to back up their ignorant views.
Speaking of ignorant views you've just spewed a whole slew of them into this debate.... it's a shame really.

So, with that said, do you concede that the Bush tax cuts do not have nearly the impact that you say they do since you agree with the vast majority of them and do not think those portions should be repealed or allowed to expire? Or would you please show me how your chart is accurate if you consider ONLY the tax cuts for the rich since you agree with the other tax cuts? Or you can just admit that you are full of shit and/or don't understand the simple math we are using.
This is the thing. You seem to be using the argument that since repealing the tax cuts on the people who are making over $250k is too small a start that it's not even worth beginning.

That is such bullshit.

We have to start somewhere and starting with the people who would be "hurt" much less, by returning their tax rates to the responsible 39.5% enacted during the 90s, is worth doing because reducing the rate at which the National Debt is increasing is of paramount importance to the U.S.A.
Especially if you can do it while increasing the tax rates on the people who would be harmed the least by such increases.

BTW, I actually agree with most of your post but its completely irrelevant in the scope of our current debate.
BTW. DILLIGAFF....


PS: I would really love to see the chart yall love to use with ONLY the small portion of the Bush tax cuts for the rich included since the left agrees with the rest. I bet I won't though because it doesn't exactly convey the point you are trying to make.

PS I would really love to have seen the Bush Tax cuts not happen at all when we've started to engage in 2 conflicts/wars overseas but there goes that.

Yes only repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top 4% is a small start. However, we must start somewhere. A start is better than "crying oh but it's such a small start why even start at all."

When you argue that it's "too small a start" it's so fucking idiotic that it's beyond words...
Yet you have found a way to convince yourself that it's a valid argument.

As I recall starting with only incomes above only $250k is only looking at the people who are in the top 4 or 5% so it really brings up another question of how valid this target income is in terms of the level at which we should repeal the Bush Tax cuts.

We should definitely end them for the people earning $250k.
As the economy is recovering (albeit very slowly) we should eventually (after the recovery is strong enough) look at incomes between $100k and $250k for a partial or full repeal of the Bush tax rates next.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,520
441
126
Edit: Been a while since I looked up the numbers but what you are calling for would get us an additional $366 Billion over the next 10 years or $36.6B a year which is less than 4% of this years deficit alone. Hardly the reason that we are running such a huge deficit/racked up such a huge amount of debt as you originally claimed.

Ok let's just take your numbers at face value. I'll give you that since I've insulted your posts enough (and justifiably so).

If you're just talking about using the tax cuts to pay reduce the deficit then yes it's not a good looking picture. The Bush Tax Cuts and starting two wars at the same time has made just turning back the tax rates to the pre-Bush years inadequate for cutting the deficit.

*If* it could be done without threatening the stability in the Middle East, in addition to repealing the Bush Tax rates, I'd advocate ending the spending incurred by the wars with a total withdrawal of troops and any and all contractors from Iraq and Afghannistan within 6 months.

Having said that. Having the extra $36 billion dollars a year for use in well thought out investments that benefit the public is much better than using it to line the pockets of "job creators" who instead of creating jobs have chosen to sit on the money.

Investing some of that $36 billion in infrastructure and highway improvement or education may seem like a zero sum game in terms of deficit spending, but it's much more productive for the economy than giving it to people who have chosen on their wealth instead of doing something like, Oh I don't know...... Creating some FUCKING JOBS!

We've had these tax cuts for almost 10 years why didn't they create jobs or help reduce the amount of jobs initially lost in the last several months of 2008 or the first months of 2009?

Maybe it's because tax cuts don't always (if ever) create jobs....

Getting back to investing the billions that would be realized by repealing the Bush tax cuts... we could invest them in this country...


For Example
From the Treasury's report on Infrasstructure Investment

Investing in Infrastructure Uses Underutilized Resources
· Among those who gain employment as a result of additional infrastructure investment, the average unemployment rate has averaged approximately 13 percent over the past twelve months. This is more than one and one-half times the current national unemployment rate. Within the construction sector, which accounts for the majority of direct employment resulting from infrastructure investment, the unemployment rate has averaged 15.6 percent over the past twelve months.
Supporting the Middle Class
· Investing in transportation infrastructure creates middle-class jobs. Our analysis suggests that 61 percent of the jobs directly created by investing in infrastructure would be in the construction sector, 12 percent would be in the manufacturing sector, and 7 percent would be in the retail and wholesale trade sectors, for a total of 80 percent in these three sectors.
Woudn't you want to use some of that $36.6 billion a year to improve our infrastructure and help create jobs instead of giving more money to invest in questionable ventures (that might turn into the next housing bubble) to people who still would earn greater than $10k a month even after the entirety of their income was taxed at 39.5% (Clinton's top marginal tax rate iirc)?

Just a note the tax system doesn't work that way. Person who earns $250k+ a year pays the same tax rate on their first $50K a year as the person who only makes $50k a year (before you take into account tax credits given for lower incomes) then pays the higher rates on the incomes over a certain amount.

I don't know about some people on these boards but I would. Because as someone said tax cuts paid for with borrowed money is probably not wise.

We could also help invest in education. Remember that old addage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

Well education helps keep people out of prison. The incarceration rate for dropouts is higher than the incarceration rate for High School graduates. Additionally we're paying to keep people in prison versus having a person with a high school education being more likely to be going to college or otherwise being a productive member of society.

Remember the G.I. Bill it helped send several million returning soldiers to college when it was first implemented after WWII. Much more than the several hundred thousand that was thought would actually take advantage of the G.I. Bill.

That program produced the
238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 450,000 engineers
who helped this country maintain a technological edge for much of the 20th century.

It also provided
240,000 accountants, 17,000 journalists, 22,000 dentists - along with a million lawyers, nurses, businessmen, artists, actors, writers, pilots and others.
who helped improve the quality of life in this country in tangible as well as intangible ways.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/-45737--.html
In terms of hard numbers the G.I. Bill returned about seven dollars into the economy for every dollar spent to invest in the program.
This proved a fruitful investment: For every tax dollar spent, a 1988 congressional study indicated, there was a $7 return in the form of increased productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.
Does this mean that all investments made with the savings from repealing the Bush Tax cuts would return as much.

Most likely not but after watching the havoc caused by these tax cuts enacted with borrowed money as the person quoted below pointed out.....

I would rather see the U.S. start tightening its belt and being more fiscally responsible with a repeal on the Bush Tax rates for people who would be "hurt" the least by the return to Clinton tax rates.


for example using simplified figures

Clinton top rate of 39.5%......(250,000 - (250,000 * 0.395)) / 12 = $12,604.17

Bush top rate of 35%............(250,000 - (250,000 * 0.350)) / 12 = $13,541.67


After all does making a couple of thousand dollars less a month really hurt you when you would still be grossing over $10k a month after federal taxes?

Especially when it's compared to the majority of people who make somewhere closer to the median income of about $27k-29k



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," he said. "And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here."
No I am not arguing that repealing the tax rates passed under Bush would work by itself.
After all those tax rates have had several years along with an unnecessary war and a recession to do the damage they have done.
Undoing damage always takes more effort than causing it, unfortunately.

However, when President Obama's administration proposed the repeal of those tax rates for those who are still doing very well it was not done so without offering spending cuts as well.
Which unfortunately seems to be conveniently overlooked by the Bush apologists.

My argument (and where I differ from Greenspan who I agree with on the issue of tax cuts in recent years) is that we could use those "mere" billions from a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the upper incomes for smart and needed investments in the future of this country... especially if as you say they are too small to make a dent in the deficit (and by extension the actual Debt).

As the example of the GI bill shows it's possible for well made investments to return much more to this economy than the initial outlay in funds.

It took time however which is why the Republican insistence on extending these tax rate for people who make an exceptional amount of income compared to some 80% to 90% who make less than $100k a year is a source of consternation.
Especially when a person fiscal conservatives have often quoted before says that the tax cuts in recent years do not help increase productivity and revenue.
 
Last edited:

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
Actually it appears that it was the other way around. Clintons Treasury Secretary pushed for the repeal of Glass-Stegall. I am not sure if the Republicans "got" anything for it or if they were happy to pass it but putting the blame on the Republicans alone is not only partisan hackery but its blatantly untrue.
I'm not blaming anyone other than both parties. Clinton clearly didn't get it passed without bipartisan support. Nowadays, we don't even get that.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,143
892
126
---a whole lot snipped---

My argument (and where I differ from Greenspan who I agree with on the issue of tax cuts in recent years) is that we could use those "mere" billions from a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the upper incomes for smart and needed investments in the future of this country... especially if as you say they are too small to make a dent in the deficit (and by extension the actual Debt).
I understand, and dont have much of a problem with some of your argument. But you've nailed the biggest difference between the left and the right in your post. The left believes that money is better spent in the public sector, the right believes (as I do) that money is better spent in the private sector. Do I personally have an issue with rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top 4%? Not really. Its a few percentage points, and wont make much of a difference to those it affects. My problem with it is, I would rather see that money in the private sector. Difference of opinion I suppose. I also think the left thinks the rollback of those cuts will make a much bigger dent in things than it actually would. $1 trillion (the estimate that the expiring cuts would bring in) over 10 years isnt shit. And I get your point: you gotta start somewhere. But again it comes down to where we think that money is better spent. The fed gov't could certainly come up with more than double that amount in savings if they tried.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
I also think the left thinks the rollback of those cuts will make a much bigger dent in things than it actually would. $1 trillion (the estimate that the expiring cuts would bring in) over 10 years isnt shit.
The last CBO estimate was $38 billion. So, only $380 billion over ten years.

To get to the trillion dollar amount some serious GDP growth has to be assumed.

Fern
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,143
892
126
The last CBO estimate was $38 billion. So, only $380 billion over ten years.

To get to the trillion dollar amount some serious GDP growth has to be assumed.

Fern
Oops. I read the CBO report incorrectly. Thanks for the correction.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Oops. I read the CBO report incorrectly. Thanks for the correction.
Well, you may have read it correctly, but it was the wrong one :)

Their report back when the economy was high flying DID estimate about $100B. However, the last one, after the recession, shows the $38B amount.

Fern
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,520
441
126
The left believes that money is better spent in the public sector, the right believes (as I do) that money is better spent in the private sector.
This is the thing. For the examples I have mentioned I believe the money is better spent in the public sector. Infrastructure that the public as well as corporations will use. Investment in the education of people so that they are better prepared to become productive members of society.

As far as things that the private sector does better? Like building electronics or cars that people want to buy? I don't believe that the government will do a better job.

Even when GM was bailed out by the federal government the board and Executive officers of GM still had control over which cars they made.

Some things the government will naturally be a better source for funds. Those are the things for which there is no direct immediate return on investment (or perhaps immediately apparent obvious benefit.)

As I mentioned, one of those things is infrastructure. When President Eisenhower started the interstate highway system it wasn't known how much commerce would take place over it.
Does anyone seriously think that any one corporation at the time would lay out the investment for even a regional highway system if they couldn't control who benefited from it?

Would any company have spent the money to connect various university computer systems in the 60s and 70s without immediately knowing that it would (in the 90s) result world wide communications network that would open up excellent commercial opportunities for enterprising individuals and companies?

The point is the private sector doesn't always invest the money in a better way in all cases. Particularly when a profit incentive isn't immediately obvious.

You could look at the tax cuts as a tacit way of letting the private sector handle the money... so far in the last 10 or so years the results haven't been too impressive at all.

In some cases the Government is much more likely to invest the money in a better fashion.

For example going back to the transportation infrastructure document which I provided a link to earlier
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf

on pages 31 and 32 of that report there are charts of the public's satisfaction with public transportation and public roads by country.

In neither of those charts are the U.S. public in the top ten in terms of satisfaction. To me that is a sure sign that there is a need for some infrastructure investment. That investment would also create jobs in an underutilized segment of this economy.

Remember it was a bridge collapse that resulted in fatalities that initially brought the issue of infrastructure to the public eye. How could that have happened in this country? The simple answer is that it shouldn't have.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,520
441
126
You mean like the $30 Billion Obama sent overseas?
As opposed to the $806 billion to a trillion or so that Bush wasted overseas?


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/12/15/what-did-the-iraq-war-cost-more-than-you-think
The Congressional Research Service has put the Operation Iraqi Freedom pricetag at $806 billion. President Obama said that the Iraq War would cost over $1 trillion, all told.
If you add in continuing costs then the Iraq war could be multiple trillions...
One key way that the war's costs will outlast its operations is in veterans' health care. A recent paper from the Center for American Progress estimates that the projected total cost of veterans' healthcare and disability will run between $422 billion and $717 billion.
Columbia University Economics Professor Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, have also argued that fighting in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan, prolonging conflict in that country. All told, Stiglitz and Bilmes have put the cost at well over $3 trillion.
Spending money to help veterans of war is a worthwhile endeavor but considering that we haven't found these fairy tale WMDs that the Bush administration has said were in Iraq (after about ten fucking years no less) one must consider two possibilities.

They were incredibly inept in their assessment of Iraq.... or incredibly dishonest.


So... why don't you try another response that isn't so idiotic.

How about posting a link so we can consider the validity of your sources (if you really have any) as well?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY