S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating

It's been proposed but never tried. The present plan is failing miserably.

 

This is beyond frightening in it's ignorance of history and the threat to liberty it poses.

"Special interests" is just another liberal code phrase for "policies I'm against".

I'm guessing a system where people can't petition the government is more suited to your style. The liberal elitists can just ram through their policies without having to deal with people.

It doesn't matter how many lobbyists are in Washington, the elected representatives still have to agree to meet with them and then they have to vote for for their interests. The last time I checked, the voters of each district still have to go to the polls on election day and personally vote for their representative. One man, one vote.

If your elected representative is bowing to "special interests" that aren't your interests or the interests of your community, you and the voters of your community can rally together and vote for someone else.

If your elected representative continues to vote for "special interests" you don't agree with then maybe your interests are in the minority of your community. Either work harder to change the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens or accept the breaks of living in a democracy and realize you don't always get your way.

But like a good modern liberal, you'd rather legislate other's rights away than accept the realities of a democratic republic.

 

This is why we just need to get rid of stupid ideas like a debt ceiling to begin with. It just kills me that Congress passes legislation that requires all of this spending, then pitches a fit when they refuse to fund it. Why pass it if you're not going to fund it? Even better, how in the hell can you blame the executive branch for the issue?

Oh yeah, because the average American lacks the basic understanding of how our government works that High School freshman with a "C" in Civics possesses. You can see it on this forum in threads like this. They're short on economic policy discussion and chock full of the latest Tea Party talking points.

The problem with your line of thinking is that when you have high unemployment, you don't make spending cuts. It's the opposite of what you're supposed to do. It's like wanting to go swimming, but you bitch about the water being wet.

I honestly believe that most Americans want a smaller government, less wasting of our taxes, etc. However, it's just stupid to insist on it at all costs. It's just not that black and white. There is a time to reduce spending and government and there is a time to increase spending and government. Why did the GOP all of a sudden decided to become Conservatives again and fight to reducing spending right smack dab in the middle of these difficult times when jobs are in such short supply? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of economics knows this.

Where the **** was the Tea Party 8 years ago when GWB was handing out blank checks and Conservatives were telling everyone to not worry about deficit spending?

Yeah, let's gash spending. Let's eliminate Medicare, Social Security, Social Programs, etc. More poor, homeless people is exactly what this country needs. THAT will get us back to the America we all know and love.

 

i dont agree, and even if i did, better to save a pittance than to not.

how can you make any absurd claims about being moderate? you are a wild big government extremist! social security and the like is what is killing us! these programs are ill-conceived boondoggles, massive destructions of the economy costing more than we ever could have imagined they would, and you do not favor reforming them, privatizing them? cant you see that this is what is destroying us, this idea that we need these trillion dollar programs?

if we didnt have SS and i came to you and told you i wanted it, told you what it cost, you would shout me down and accuse me of being a crazed extremeist. and you would be right. but you have so little perspective, now you think of massive government entitlements as normal and are not clamoring for their reform like we all should be. this is yuno, because you dont have any principles.

 

wow, that sounds complicated and nuanced. it would take a pretty long in-depth article to properly explain it.....

 

Not ill-conceived, ill-executed. If Madoff...err...LBJ had not moved the SS trust to the General Fund, it would be a wildly successful "entitlement" (actually earned) program.

 

I agree with your sentiments, but lobbyists need to go.

 

Yeah but it's us dummies that vote. Thank you, though, for taking the time to try and educate the ignorant masses. Of course, an avatar that didn't show a female acting like my dogs might help your credibility.

 

We 100% agree in principle. But the reality is that the ability to accomplish this decreases with distance. And all the ‘watchdogs’ that we expect to be our eyes and ears have become part of the Washington society. I don’t think having governance moved from Washington to Austin or Baton Rouge would solve all our problems, but I do believe it would be easier to observe what was going on.

 

So they didn't say we needed more cuts?

S&P credit rating analysis values spending cuts more than tax revenue - The Hill's Floor Action

They said more cuts needed, and it would help if we increased revenues but that wouldn't put us to another downgrade.