S&P Cuts US Credit Rating to AA+

[klein]

Democrats helped by debt debate, Republicans hurt according to poll

The debt ceiling debate hurt Americans’ view of Republicans, bolstered their opinion of Democrats, and drove the tea party’s favorable ratings to a new low, a poll on Tuesday found.
Just 33 percent of Americans approve of the Republican Party, while 59 percent disapprove in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday. That’s a net negative 10-percentage-point shift from less than a month ago, when 41 percent of those surveyed by CNN said they had a favorable view of the GOP while 55 percent had an unfavorable.

The tea party movement fares slightly worse than the GOP and has its most dismal ratings since CNN began asking about the movement in polls in January 2010. Thirty-one percent said they see it favorably while 51 percent see it unfavorably. In July, those numbers were 37 percent and 47 percent, respectively

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60952.html#ixzz1UYxvWHKx





​

 

[moreluck]

Democrats helped by debt debate, Republicans hurt according to poll

The debt ceiling debate hurt Americans’ view of Republicans, bolstered their opinion of Democrats, and drove the tea party’s favorable ratings to a new low, a poll on Tuesday found.
Just 33 percent of Americans approve of the Republican Party, while 59 percent disapprove in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday. That’s a net negative 10-percentage-point shift from less than a month ago, when 41 percent of those surveyed by CNN said they had a favorable view of the GOP while 55 percent had an unfavorable.

The tea party movement fares slightly worse than the GOP and has its most dismal ratings since CNN began asking about the movement in polls in January 2010. Thirty-one percent said they see it favorably while 51 percent see it unfavorably. In July, those numbers were 37 percent and 47 percent, respectively

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60952.html#ixzz1UYxvWHKx





​

It's still A POLL. Polls can be made with questions asked a certain way to practically reach any result you want..........Take many polls, like I did and it's pretty much anti congress than anti Republican. See, you want it to be anti-Republican, so you'll find the one poll that says it....and of course, it's CNN. CNN is a lefty organization and slants far left of center......not balanced at all.

 

[cachsux]

That's by capita ! That doesn't count, just like per capita charity money doesn't count, as per trinkle ! It's the total murders of a country, not per 100.000 !

Here are the numbers for 2010:

approximately 17,000 murders in the United States, approximately 15,000 murders in Mexico,

and just for the hell of it, more total murder numbers :

approximately 580 murders per year in Canada, approximately 560 murders in Trinidad and Tobago and approximately 200 murders in Chile.

Keep it up and there will be 17,001.

 

[trplnkl]

Fact is, more people get killed (murderd) in the US then in Mexico.

Yes, Mexico has a smaller population, but it doesn't matter, since trinkle can't have it both ways, saying the US gives more money to foreign countries then any other nation, even though by capita they (the US) is near the bottom of the list compared to other western countries.

So, there ya go - USA has the most murders period on earth !

You might have a point if it was not like comparing Apple to oranges, which of course it is. So, you're wrong one more time.

Think of it like this: If you were going to receive free money from one of two organizations where every member of that org gave 100 dollars. Group one has 20 members, group has 100 members. Which one would you choose?

Now..if you had to go to another town that had 100 people there and 5 of those people were murderous fiends. The other town has 5000 people and 20 of those people are murderers, which place would you choose?

 

[The Other Side]

Facts are facts, with gun violence, the USA is still the most deadliest place for citizens to live. Mexicos killings are getting the attention because thats the deflection the right wing wants you to see. How about they post stories everyday about the killings in the USA in every state?

Oh thats right, "dont look behind the curtain"!

Peace.

 

[cachsux]

You might have a point if it was not like comparing Apple to oranges, which of course it is. So, you're wrong one more time.

Think of it like this: If you were going to receive free money from one of two organizations where every member of that org gave 100 dollars. Group one has 20 members, group has 100 members. Which one would you choose?

Now..if you had to go to another town that had 100 people there and 5 of those people were murderous fiends. The other town has 5000 people and 20 of those people are murderers, which place would you choose?

Depends. Which one has better long term unemployment benefits?

 

[trplnkl]

Facts are facts, with gun violence, the USA is still the most deadliest place for citizens to live. Mexicos killings are getting the attention because thats the deflection the right wing wants you to see. How about they post stories everyday about the killings in the USA in every state?

Oh thats right, "dont look behind the curtain"!

Peace.

That's a load of crap. There is no doubt that there are killings in the US everyday, some areas much more than others. Relatively speaking Mexico is more deadly per capita than the US. Neither one has much to brag about.

The right wing does not control what is reported in lame stream media, and you know that.

don't look behind the curtain? Can't you at least be original? You need to pay wkmac for stealing his phrase.

 

[klein]

Fact remains, 2000 more people are murdered, per year, in the US then in Mexico, period !
For a total of 17.000 !

And the whining starts when 1 or 2 of those get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably safer for them to be there, then back home !

 

[trplnkl]

Fact remains, 2000 more people are murdered, per year, in the US then in Mexico, period !
For a total of 17.000 !

And the whining starts when 1 or 2 of those get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably safer for them to be there, then back home !

I asked you two questions, would you please answer them? Think of it as a poll.

 

[klein]

I asked you two questions, would you please answer them? Think of it as a poll.

I can't care less, pick the stats you wish to make you feel better.
You pick one by country, and the other by capita, so the numbers look better.
So be it, - be happy - I'm satisfied, - you won !

 

[moreluck]

Facts are facts, with gun violence, the USA is still the most deadliest place for citizens to live. Mexicos killings are getting the attention because thats the deflection the right wing wants you to see. How about they post stories everyday about the killings in the USA in every state?

Oh thats right, "dont look behind the curtain"!

Peace.

Hear ye hear ye........all the publicized Mexican violence is the fault of the Republicans !!

 

[moreluck]

Fact remains, 2000 more people are murdered, per year, in the US then in Mexico, period !
For a total of 17.000 !

And the whining starts when 1 or 2 of those get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Probably safer for them to be there, then back home !

That is the dumbest statement ever........better for the soldiers to be in war torn areas than home. That sucks!!!

 

[Babagounj]

[h=2]Al Sharpton Announces on MSNBC That Dow Jones Dropped 630%[/h] Some may have doubted MSNBC’s wisdom in giving a news program to Al Sharpton, an evil idiot who has both destroyed lives and ended them with his over-the-top race-baiting.
But Al proved the doubters wrong by breaking a story of historic proportions.
Yesterday’s stock market plunge was actually worse than we knew, with the Dow Jones dropping 630%!

 

[moreluck]

And you are probably dead right - getting rid of ALL Bush tax cuts probably would save 10 Trillion over a 10 year period, and not just $1 Trillion from the rich.

As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy -- along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does anyone remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

http://townhall.com/columnists/byro...ans_ignore_facts_when_bashing_bush/page/full/

 

[The Other Side]

As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy -- along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does anyone remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

http://townhall.com/columnists/byro...ans_ignore_facts_when_bashing_bush/page/full/

Youre not serious with this post? Your own article stated this "Finally, there's the national debt. When Bush took office in January 2001, the debt was about $5.7 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures. When Bush was sworn in for his second term in January 2005, the debt stood at about $7.6 trillion. When Bush left office in January 2009, the debt was $10.6 trillion. He had increased the national debt almost $2 trillion in his first term and $3 trillion in his second, for a total increase of nearly $5 trillion over both terms. (Of that $3 trillion increase in Bush's second term, $2 trillion came under a Democratic Congress.) The debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Barack Obama took office in January 2009. Now, it's about $14.4 trillion. The president has increased the national debt nearly $4 trillion in his first two and a half years in office. By the time Obama finishes his first term, he will have increased the national debt by somewhere in the $5 trillion-to-$6 trillion range -- more than Bush did in two terms.""

Here's a fact for you Moreluck: In a February 28, 2001, message to the Congress, Bush estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years.[SUP][94][/SUP] Facing opposition in Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[SUP][54][/SUP] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying "the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money."[SUP][54][/SUP] With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.[SUP][95][/SUP] Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.[SUP][96][/SUP] O'Neill disputes the claim made in Bush's book "Decision Points" that he never openly disagreed with him on planned tax cuts

Dont even attempt at posting that BUSH increased anything other than DEBT.

Nice try, but Im afraid I cannot provide you with a cracker this time.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

Youre not serious with this post? Your own article stated this "Finally, there's the national debt. When Bush took office in January 2001, the debt was about $5.7 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures. When Bush was sworn in for his second term in January 2005, the debt stood at about $7.6 trillion. When Bush left office in January 2009, the debt was $10.6 trillion. He had increased the national debt almost $2 trillion in his first term and $3 trillion in his second, for a total increase of nearly $5 trillion over both terms. (Of that $3 trillion increase in Bush's second term, $2 trillion came under a Democratic Congress.) The debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Barack Obama took office in January 2009. Now, it's about $14.4 trillion. The president has increased the national debt nearly $4 trillion in his first two and a half years in office. By the time Obama finishes his first term, he will have increased the national debt by somewhere in the $5 trillion-to-$6 trillion range -- more than Bush did in two terms.""

Here's a fact for you Moreluck: In a February 28, 2001, message to the Congress, Bush estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years.[SUP][94][/SUP] Facing opposition in Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[SUP][54][/SUP] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying "the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money."[SUP][54][/SUP] With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.[SUP][95][/SUP] Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.[SUP][96][/SUP] O'Neill disputes the claim made in Bush's book "Decision Points" that he never openly disagreed with him on planned tax cuts

Dont even attempt at posting that BUSH increased anything other than DEBT.

Nice try, but Im afraid I cannot provide you with a cracker this time.

Peace.

Here's a fact for you. A little less than 7 months after Bush's message to Congress terrorists flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and was headed for the WH with yet another plane. That very day the stock market went into a tail spin, business stopped hiring new employees, people feared what would happen next. The unfunded war on terror that followed (as well as other circumstances) was the catalyst to what we are seeing today, until all that started to unfold we were doing quite well.
I'm not saying Bush was the greatest president we have ever had, but he isn't the monster you and the loony left try to make him out to be.

While we are talking facts, why not consider that when 0 took office he had both houses in his corner and instead of addressing the huge deficit that he inherited, he pushed an unwanted healthcare bill down the nations collective throat and proceeded to quadruple the huge deficit?

That cracker? We all know why you can't provide one, you've already eaten them all and washed down your gullet with that kool-aide you like so much.

 

[wkmac]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item..._the_deal_he_wanted_20110804/#full transcript

Robert Scheer: But Dennis, I mean, how bad is this? And when I interviewed you yesterday, when I was writing my column, you said “This is Clinton triangulation, but unfortunately in a time of Hoover.” What did you mean by that?
Dennis Kucinich: Well, I think that this idea that somehow the White House was forced into a bad deal is politically naive. When we saw the White House signal early on that it was ready for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by actually setting aside bedrock principles that the Democratic Party has stood on for generations, that signal indicated that they were ready for a deal that would involve massive cutting of social spending, and increasing or locking in increases for war, and helping further the ambitions of the Defense Department, not touching the Bush tax cuts. And that’s exactly what happened.

 

[trplnkl]

I can't care less, pick the stats you wish to make you feel better.
You pick one by country, and the other by capita, so the numbers look better.
So be it, - be happy - I'm satisfied, - you won !

I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you can't see the difference.

 

[klein]

I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you can't see the difference.

I'll put it in clear language for you :

The country of the USA gives the most on foreign aid
The country of the USA has more murders then the country of Mexico

or

America (per capita) pays less on foreign aid then any G7 country and 10 others.
America (per capita) has less murders then Mexico

But it's ironic, you want to pick one statement from each group to suit your needs.

 

[wkmac]

Not that this has much to do with the S&P downgrade and the subject matter of the thread but if you want to do a statistical comparison on nation to nation, the huge database at NationMaster is pretty good for that. What this site is and how it came about is probably best said from the "About Us" section.

The idea for NationMaster arose as I was surfing around the CIA World Factbook. It's a great read but I felt the individual figures (like number of TV's, or kilometres of coastline) didn't mean much on their own. They'd be more illuminating if they were placed alongside other countries and shown relative to population.


So I decided to put together a website that allowed users to generate graphs based on numerical data extracted from the Factbook. The next (rather obvious) realisation was that there's no reason I couldn't take in data from other sources. Why shouldn't the net have a central location that allows you to compare countries on any statistic you like?


But why did I do it? To promote education and understanding about the world. To make it easy to engage with the indicators that shape global commerce, health, politics and ecology. To make the facts easily accessible and meaningful. To bring the works of academics, public agencies and private researchers to a wider audience.


One intended use for this site is, during debates in discussion groups, people link to comparisons of specific countries. I hope students, educators and librarians will find the site a useful teaching aide. More generally, I hope the figures will spark people's interest and they'll want to read more.


-- Luke Metcalfe, Manager / Developer

Sometimes claims are made about various nationstates here and in some cases they are right and in some cases they are wrong. Now you can factcheck each other or factcheck yourself before you even post it!