US Credit rating Downgraded

Bush was doing 65 in a 55mph zone.

The Obama admin just blew past the Bushmobile doing about 90 -

 

There is no Doubt in My Mind....

....that George W. had a lot to do with this recent downgrade. After all he's been out of office for over two years, and had he still been in office, I doubt we'd be in this kind of financial fiasco! :laugh:

raying: Bring back Bush! Bring back Bush! Bring back Bush! Bring back Bush! Bring back Bush! Bring back Bush!:wavey:

 

lol...well sure, maybe Pres Obama could appoint him as Treasury Secretary. He couldn't do any worse than the current. Even with two wars, Katrina, and 9/11, deficits under Bush never reached the present levels.

 

This reminds me of a patient lying on the operation table surrounded by doctors. Several doctors have been working on the patient and each has added to a complication that has come about as they all stand there arguing over who caused the most damage while the patient bleeds to death. How is the American public any different then the Congress and any president?
We are experiencing a downgrade in our credit rating because we deserve it because of irresponsible and corrupt politicians, OH yea and because of the irresponsible American people who have believed their lies and loved it because they too do not want to share in the responsibility of where we are at.

 

There were some who thought that the election of Obama meant that someone else would pay for their gasoline and their mortgage.

Others actually believed the campaign rhetoric where he talked about responsibly paying down the debt and living within our means. Personally, I didn't buy any of it.

 

That is called "the ballot box." We have the power to make change if only we would exercise it.

Oh, and the elected officials are not really the big problem. It is rather the entrenched government officials who work no matter who is elected, and who do the research, write the bills, and support their elected officials who ACTUALLY dictate public policy and we never get to cast a vote for them.

They are overwhelmingly liberal in political persuasion, which is why no matter whom is actually elected the nation continues on its downward slide.

 

The problem is the same as always... A Democrat, with a Democrat Congress passes a library full of bills, all with start times scheduled for the NEXT president. The next guy gets saddled with issues that he (or she) has inherited and comes out looking like a dunce because of a liberal media that pushes the issue, and another liberal Democrat is elected even though everyone knows ahead of time what will happen once he takes office.

If anyone has the time, Google all the bills passed in the first 2 years of Obama's term when he had a willing participatory Congress behind him. Then check the dates that all those bills implement.

Then realize that after the 2012 election that America will no longer be America and that it is too late to rescind the bills that have passed and been signed into law.

No wonder God calls us all sheep... :BangHead:

 

glfredrick that argument sounds good on paper, but the problem is that when the republicans control everything they let stand those bad laws you speak of. Both parties are corrupt and need to be booted out.

 

What does it take to overturn something that is written into the law of the land?

 

Repeal the law.

 

Hey, thanks for the laugh.

During Bush's run-up in deficits (we got the first $2 Trillion budget in 2002 and the first $3 Trillion budget in 2008) I would point out to Bush defenders that he's created the prescription drug benefit, got us into two wars, was unnecessarily subsidizing farming, and not opening up new areas for oil, their standard response was "it's not as bad as it could have been."

 

Absolutely! :thumbs: Every president from and including Reagan has failed this country in regards to the debt as Reagan is the one who topped the trillion mark first and the rest have run wild with it. The only exception that someone might find is Clinton with a so called balanced budget, but that was nothing but a shuffling of the numbers as we never paid a single penny towards the debt.

 

By what mechanism can a law be repealed?

The reason I am asking is because there is NO mechanism by which a law can be repealed once it is signed into law.

It can be fought in the Supreme Court, and if the court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then it can be annulled, but that is difficult and can take a decade or more to accomplish.

The other alternative is to pass another law -- a new law -- that supersedes the existing law, and that is by far the easier route to go, but in order to do that, both houses of Congress must agree, formulate a bill, then send that bill to the President who in turn must sign it and pass it into law. At that point it too can be tested by the Supreme Court.

There is no other way...

That is why America is doomed. Obama signed into LAW tens upon tens of thousands of pages of law that no one even has a handle on as yet. And in those tens of thousands of pages of law, America has been largely overhauled, including the socialization of our health care (with its panels who decide if one is able to receive that care or not!). The only way around this is to prove it unconstitutional or to write, pass, and sign a new law that supersedes the old law.

 

Not defending Bush - simply pointing out that given Obama's lack of success in any area of the economy that his supporters like to defend him with a claim that things would be worse if not for his policies.

Of course there is no way of proving that things would have been worse short of some sort of syfy machine that allows travel better alternate time lines. :laugh:

Mushy arguments along the lines of "it would have been worse" is akin to his "number of saved jobs" claims. They are immeasurable and unprovable - but accepted as good enough for the Obama koolaid drinkers.

 

Actually, it could have been better...

There was a decided liberal media press before Obama's election to convince America that the economy was in the tank. That was a decision that was made while the economy was steaming along just fine, but the downturn in American confidence inspired by that media press created the issues (in large part, not withstanding the corporate ethics violations that Congress rubber stamped) that started the recession rolling.

Once the first wave of defaults came, there was no stopping the snowball as it rolled down hill, and all the efforts since the election have been very intentional so as to make that effect worse, not better.

Our government officials KNOW what it takes to build and stimulate the economy and boost consumer confidence to a place where people once again spend money. In this case, they felt that since they were able to talk America into a recession by using the power of liberal media, they should be able to talk them back into confidence the same way -- only once the snowball started rolling there was no stopping it and the very real consequences of the economy hit home to where mere propaganda by the liberal media could restore ACTUAL confidence because people's wallets were empty.

One stimulates the economy very simply... Cut taxes and get out of the way of people making money. They will succeed! But if, at every turn those who attempt to make money are punished, they will simply sit on their hands and refuse to cooperate, for why pay more taxes, why aid a hostile government, and why support a market that only hurts the ones upon whom it depends?

So, what is actually done? Raise taxes. Spend money that the government does not have. Constantly barrage people with a media propaganda machine that says that "jobs are created," and that "the economy has recovered," when in fact, it has not, and America's wallets are empty as are the tax coffers from lack funds due to a seriously shrinking economy. And, when all else fails, print money... That is sure to help. :tonofbricks:

 

Excellent post. It is impossible to blame a 30 month president for decades of foolishness and recklessness. President Obama is unfortunate in that the house of cards is falling down on his watch.

 

Here is how a law is repealed;
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-repeal-or-amend-a-law-or-act-of-congress-a288197

 

While I am no fan of this president I do agree with what you said about him. He gets a lot of static over things he fell into and about the stimulus program I certainly did not like how it was handled, a lot of waste, but if he had not done it we would most certainly already be in a world wide depression right now. Now he has greatly added to our problems also with the health care package and other things but all are to blame.
Both parties hold enough blame for the fix we are in to boot them both out.
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

How does that article say anything materially different than what I posted?

A new law must be passed through congress and signed by the president.

 

We might be able to say this if there was but one stimulus bill, but there was another, wasn't there... :BangHead: