yesh

buy our bondsss

Well, when you owe other countries over 10 trillion dollars, what do you expect? Mind you, that's basically still under the GDP in the US...

Actually, the S&P still gives the United States a AAA credit rating, and probably will retain this rating for at least the next couple years. It's the long-term outlook that has been downgraded from "stable" to "negative."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/04/18/sp-downgrades-outlook-on-national-debt

Quite right, considering gold is now at $1500/oz. and silver approaching $45/oz. The dollar is imploding.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/markets/gold_1500_record/index.htm

Not to mention the Euro is at roughly $1.40, even if the eurozone is falling apart itself.

And all because of Bush and his spending spree...

"The agency lowered the long-term outlook to "Negative" from "Stable," saying there is a one in three chance the United States could lose its top investment rating on its debt in the next two years."

your projected long-term outlook is a guess at where the investers will be placing thier money and says we will loose our top  rating. thats a long ways away from the country collapsing

> [Stupid] Arachnophobia wrote:

> And all because of Bush and his spending spree...

You do realize that Obama has already spent way more than the collective 8 years of the Bush presidency, right?

> Justinian I wrote:

> LOL. We have a lot worse problems on our hands than ethanol. Our government's agricultural policy is literally eroding the soil.

And you don't think subsidizing the production of a single fuel-generating crop is a major contributor to that erosion?

"You do realize that the reason why there's such a huge deficit is the Bush presidency, because:

A) the tax cuts crippled the income side<<

No. Tax cuts spurred economic growth. See your point C).  Less money looted for taxes means more to invest and spend.  The idea that tax hikes have no effect on economic choices is at last 'professionally' refuted.
More growth means more revenue. Less growth means less revenue.  Regardless of rates.  You can mandate Rates but not Revenue, just as you can mandate Prices but not Sales.  for the same reasons.

>>B) the two wars skyrocketed expenses<<

Combined that's less than $900 billion a year, max.  Federal spending was over $2 trillion in 2009.

>>C) the financial crisis was based on the tax cuts, putting too much money into the market<<

Well if ya wanted to shrink the economy, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

>>D) Obama cant raise taxes again because of the fundamentalistic opposition<<

Obama can't raise taxes again because even he seems to understand that he stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting re-elected if unemployment rises above 10%.  Tax hikes kill jobs.

>.E) Obama cant cut the military budget for the same reason<<

so true, the Libyan "fundamentalist opposition" does rely on the US defense budget staying where it is

>>F) Bush inherited a budget surplus from clinton. Obama inherited a huge deficit plus even more expenses with no way around in his term<<

Clinton had the same "fundamentalist opposition" on his nuts keeping him from his liberal schemes, forcing govt to grow at merely the rate of inflation and ending welfare as an entitlement.  Clinton also enjoyed a bubble economy.   Obama took a $500 billion a year deficit and set up a $300 billion a MONTH deficit.  "Helicopter money", remember?  Like hell he has no way out.  He wouldn't want it if you ran for Congress, won, wrote it down, had the House pass it and sent it to him.  Just ask Paul Ryan.

> The Yell wrote:

> "You do realize that the reason why there's such a huge deficit is the Bush presidency, because:

A) the tax cuts crippled the income side<<

No. Tax cuts spurred economic growth. See your point C).  Less money looted for taxes means more to invest and spend.  The idea that tax hikes have no effect on economic choices is at last 'professionally' refuted.
More growth means more revenue. Less growth means less revenue.  Regardless of rates.  You can mandate Rates but not Revenue, just as you can mandate Prices but not Sales.  for the same reasons.

I want to add to this that, starting in 2005, the US was actually gaining more revenue than pre-tax cut levels.  [Will find support evidence later]

>>B) the two wars skyrocketed expenses<<

Combined that's less than $900 billion a year, max.  Federal spending was over $2 trillion in 2009.

Also note that, as of now, both wars are winding down.  We've pulled out from Iraq, and are in the process of a drawdown from Afghanistan.  So you can't pin those as the sources of current deficits.

>>C) the financial crisis was based on the tax cuts, putting too much money into the market<<

Well if ya wanted to shrink the economy, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Actually, if the financial crisis was largely a result of subprime lending gone bad, wouldn't it be a problem of liquidity (lending money that doesn't exist), not finances on hand?  Plus, if the issue was a "too much money into the market" issue, we would have seen inflationary trends... which we aren't even seeing post-bailout (yet).

>>D) Obama cant raise taxes again because of the fundamentalistic opposition<<

Obama can't raise taxes again because even he seems to understand that he stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting re-elected if unemployment rises above 10%.  Tax hikes kill jobs.

Note, also, that he could have done so when the Dems had majorities in both houses.

>.E) Obama cant cut the military budget for the same reason<<

so true, the Libyan "fundamentalist opposition" does rely on the US defense budget staying where it is

Add my note from D here.

>>F) Bush inherited a budget surplus from clinton. Obama inherited a huge deficit plus even more expenses with no way around in his term<<

Clinton had the same "fundamentalist opposition" on his nuts keeping him from his liberal schemes, forcing govt to grow at merely the rate of inflation and ending welfare as an entitlement.  Clinton also enjoyed a bubble economy.   Obama took a $500 billion a year deficit and set up a $300 billion a MONTH deficit.  "Helicopter money", remember?  Like hell he has no way out.  He wouldn't want it if you ran for Congress, won, wrote it down, had the House pass it and sent it to him.  Just ask Paul Ryan.

At most, that excuses Obama for year 1's deficit (the bailouts).  Everything beyond that was largely new programs (example: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

>>F) Bush inherited a budget surplus from clinton. Obama inherited a huge deficit plus even more expenses with no way around in his term<<

Clinton had the same "fundamentalist opposition" on his nuts keeping him from his liberal schemes, forcing govt to grow at merely the rate of inflation and ending welfare as an entitlement.  Clinton also enjoyed a bubble economy.   Obama took a $500 billion a year deficit and set up a $300 billion a MONTH deficit.  "Helicopter money", remember?  Like hell he has no way out.  He wouldn't want it if you ran for Congress, won, wrote it down, had the House pass it and sent it to him.  Just ask Paul Ryan.

At most, that excuses Obama for year 1's deficit (the bailouts).  Everything beyond that was largely new programs (example: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

true these were designed for long-term results, creating new jobs to stabilize the employement rates and such. but i wouldnt say that this excuses him for 1 year at most. you cant give someone 1 year to fix 8 years of crap.