US gets negative credit ranking

unsung
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
edited April 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... t-ceiling/


This financial mess is nowhere near over. Applications for unemployment far exceeded expectations last month, fuel is over $4 a gallon, mortgages are still going into foreclosure in record numbers, spending remains high, there is talk of more taxes, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

We cannot sustain this.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Cool Face Ryan
    Cool Face Ryan Posts: 1,254
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vuZ8jSV ... er&list=UL
    MSG II 5/21/10
    Tres Mts. Gramercy Theatre 3/26/11
    *formerly manutd3581
  • bluesuedeitzrad
    bluesuedeitzrad Posts: 434
    noooooooo...nooottttttt


    fooxxx newwws!!!!
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    A good start is finally coming to the conclusion that a military occupation never works. That not matter how long we stay or how much we pay... there will always be people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Whereverstan long after we are gone. We might as well leave now because the eventually outcome is the same... they will still be there... if we leave tomorrow or we leave 200 years from now.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Smellyman
    Smellyman Asia Posts: 4,528
    $4 dollars a gallon!!!

    I wish the government would stop keeping it low. let the free market work......
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    Smellyman wrote:
    $4 dollars a gallon!!!

    I wish the government would stop keeping it low. let the free market work......


    ^Agreed. I bet the true cost of gas for Americans is closer to $8 / gallon, but you'd never know it considering how highly subsidized oil is. If people realized they were paying this, hybrid and electric cars would certainly be more popular.
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Cosmo wrote:
    A good start is finally coming to the conclusion that a military occupation never works. That not matter how long we stay or how much we pay... there will always be people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Whereverstan long after we are gone. We might as well leave now because the eventually outcome is the same... they will still be there... if we leave tomorrow or we leave 200 years from now.



    We spend about $500B more annually than we did in 2000. Granted inflation accounts for a bit of that but it really is out of control.

    I wonder what we would spend if ALL of our troops were home for one year.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    unsung wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    A good start is finally coming to the conclusion that a military occupation never works. That not matter how long we stay or how much we pay... there will always be people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Whereverstan long after we are gone. We might as well leave now because the eventually outcome is the same... they will still be there... if we leave tomorrow or we leave 200 years from now.



    We spend about $500B more annually than we did in 2000. Granted inflation accounts for a bit of that but it really is out of control.

    I wonder what we would spend if ALL of our troops were home for one year.
    What would it do to the US economy if they shut down the war machine? We always talk about how much we'd save...but then acknowledge that war stimulates the economy....what percentage of gdp is somehow tied to military spending?
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    This is the first time since WWII that the US has received the negative rating.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    Drowned Out wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    A good start is finally coming to the conclusion that a military occupation never works. That not matter how long we stay or how much we pay... there will always be people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Whereverstan long after we are gone. We might as well leave now because the eventually outcome is the same... they will still be there... if we leave tomorrow or we leave 200 years from now.



    We spend about $500B more annually than we did in 2000. Granted inflation accounts for a bit of that but it really is out of control.

    I wonder what we would spend if ALL of our troops were home for one year.
    What would it do to the US economy if they shut down the war machine? We always talk about how much we'd save...but then acknowledge that war stimulates the economy....what percentage of gdp is somehow tied to military spending?

    War stimulates the most inefficient part of the economy-- the part where billions are spent to no-bid contractors working at ridiculously inflated prices. This money is forcefully usurped from the taxpayers with no real choices available. It is truly the "anti-market" sector of the economy. While some jobs would be "lost" by downsizing the military industrial complex, other markets where real choice would be available would be created, and other existing industries would thrive. On top of that, every country the US is no longer at war with has the potential to become new trading partners. I see nothing but benefits to shutting down the war machine and foreign occupation.

    What's good my man? Long time, no speak :)
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

    War stimulates the most inefficient part of the economy-- the part where billions are spent to no-bid contractors working at ridiculously inflated prices. This money is forcefully usurped from the taxpayers with no real choices available. It is truly the "anti-market" sector of the economy. While some jobs would be "lost" by downsizing the military industrial complex, other markets where real choice would be available would be created, and other existing industries would thrive. On top of that, every country the US is no longer at war with has the potential to become new trading partners. I see nothing but benefits to shutting down the war machine and foreign occupation.

    What's good my man? Long time, no speak :)
    That’s pretty much the answer I was lookin for, thanks Vinny :) I agree 100%...the lack of competition and transparency in the bidding/procurement of contracts is a HUGE problem.
    I guess part of the problem is the view of the economists when it comes to sustainability…bombs, tanks, planes, combustion engines etc are all items that get used, destroyed, or outdated and need to be replaced….no one is willing to think outside the box regarding the new industries that would pop up in the void left by the military….and no one is willing to support anything that could affect their livelihood directly….I think it was in the doc Why We Fight that it was mentioned that boeing has parts from some models of their military planes manufactured in (close to?) all 50 states, so that changes to contracts and military spending are felt nationwide, not just locally, thereby helping to influence the political process in their favour. This entrenchment, at times, seems impossible to overcome :(

    And life’s been good man thanks!...and you?….any chance I’ll see you at PJ20?
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    Drowned Out wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

    War stimulates the most inefficient part of the economy-- the part where billions are spent to no-bid contractors working at ridiculously inflated prices. This money is forcefully usurped from the taxpayers with no real choices available. It is truly the "anti-market" sector of the economy. While some jobs would be "lost" by downsizing the military industrial complex, other markets where real choice would be available would be created, and other existing industries would thrive. On top of that, every country the US is no longer at war with has the potential to become new trading partners. I see nothing but benefits to shutting down the war machine and foreign occupation.

    What's good my man? Long time, no speak :)
    That’s pretty much the answer I was lookin for, thanks Vinny :) I agree 100%...the lack of competition and transparency in the bidding/procurement of contracts is a HUGE problem.
    I guess part of the problem is the view of the economists when it comes to sustainability…bombs, tanks, planes, combustion engines etc are all items that get used, destroyed, or outdated and need to be replaced….no one is willing to think outside the box regarding the new industries that would pop up in the void left by the military….and no one is willing to support anything that could affect their livelihood directly….I think it was in the doc Why We Fight that it was mentioned that boeing has parts from some models of their military planes manufactured in (close to?) all 50 states, so that changes to contracts and military spending are felt nationwide, not just locally, thereby helping to influence the political process in their favour. This entrenchment, at times, seems impossible to overcome :(

    And life’s been good man thanks!...and you?….any chance I’ll see you at PJ20?

    I guess it all depends on when and where PJ20 is... You try and plan your summer around these things and it just ain't possible! Hasn't been announced yet, right?
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

    I guess it all depends on when and where PJ20 is... You try and plan your summer around these things and it just ain't possible! Hasn't been announced yet, right?

    :lol: Nope not yet...Your sentiment is echoed aaaaalllll over the porch. Everyone is waiting (not so) patiently to plan their summers...

Categories