If S&P Downgrades America's Credit Rating, Which Political Party Will Americans Blame

[saveliberty]

S&P stated very clearly that congress had to cut at least 4 trillion from the budget.
But they only did 2 trillion.
So the next day S&P downgraded us to a AA.
Canada did the same thing,would not do the amount of cuts needed and it took them 3 years to get their rating back after they did do the cuts needed.

But S&P also said that tax hikes should be part of a balanced approach and that the main reason they downgrraded the US was over the political fiasco that surrounded the debt ceiling debate. They don't have confidence that congress can get its act together.

No, you made this up, the S & P document is readily available. Try reading it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Left lies all the time


after the downgrade, you can not really trust what the Left says about finances and the economy
For example PapaObama Care was going to instantly create 400,000 jobs



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNiLYEiFUMU]‪Obamacare will create 400,000 jobs ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, says Choppy Hands McBotox‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

To be fair Neo, we had to pass it to know what was in it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Too funny

 

[Neotrotsky]

IRS: Not enough rich to cover the deficit

Soak the rich, eh?

They do not have the money.
A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.

Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.

Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.​

Individual tax collections totaled $1,175,422,000,000 in 2009 — or 15.4% of all income.

Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.​

 

[bripat9643]

The fact remains

S&P in their published report clearly states no bias for or against tax hikes or spending cuts

Again
"Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Leftwingers believe what they want to believe.

 

[Mustang]

IRS: Not enough rich to cover the deficit

Soak the rich, eh?

They do not have the money.
A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.

Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.

Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.
​

Individual tax collections totaled $1,175,422,000,000 in 2009 — or 15.4% of all income.

Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.
​

You wanna take up a collection to help them out a little? We could pass the tamborine around, maybe.

 

[Neotrotsky]

If Papa Obama keeps his current rate of success
up

then we won't have to...

there will be none left

 

[J.E.D]

S&P stated very clearly that congress had to cut at least 4 trillion from the budget.
But they only did 2 trillion.
So the next day S&P downgraded us to a AA.
Canada did the same thing,would not do the amount of cuts needed and it took them 3 years to get their rating back after they did do the cuts needed.

But S&P also said that tax hikes should be part of a balanced approach and that the main reason they downgrraded the US was over the political fiasco that surrounded the debt ceiling debate. They don't have confidence that congress can get its act together.

No, you made this up, the S & P document is readily available. Try reading it.

I made it up? Try pulling your head from your ass and read this:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/05/acd.01.html
COOPER: What could the United States have done to have avoided this?

JOHN CHAMBERS, HEAD OF SOVEREIGN RATINGS, STANDARD & POOR'S: Well, I think it could have done a few things. The first thing it could have done is to have raised the debt ceiling in a timely matter, so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with, as it had done 60 or 70 times since 1960 without much debate.

So that's point number one. And point number two is it could have come up with a fiscal plan similar, for example, to the Bowles- Simpson commission [which included tax hikes], which was bipartisan. Although it did not have a supermajority vote, it did have a majority vote and came up with a number of sensible recommendations.

CHAMBERS: Well, it's going to take a lot to get back to AAA, because once you lose your AAA, it doesn't usually bounce back in that way.

But I think a key debate will be coming up regarding the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, because if you did let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion. I think the question there is, A., would that be on top of we have already achieved with the $2.1 trillion, or would that -- if it was agreeable, which is a big if, you could envision that being counted toward the $1.5 trillion that the congressional committee is looking to achieve.

Wanna try again or are you going stick with your lies?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The American people will blame the president because that's how it's always worked.

 

[Neotrotsky]

For anyone that can read

He is referring to your false statement
of

"But S&P also said that tax hikes should be part of a balanced approach and that the main reason they downgrraded the US was over the political fiasco that surrounded the debt ceiling debate. They don't have confidence that congress can get its act together."

Where does S&P officially say that exactly?


Since
S&P in their published report clearly states no bias for or against tax hikes or spending cuts
"Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."
------------------------

Good luck with that

Furthermore

Nevertheless, some liberal analysts, after pointing the finger at S&P, direct the rest of their blame at Republicans. One said the downgrade was the result of a "manufactured crisis" -- that is, it occurred because Republicans created a political fight around the debt-ceiling extension. S&P gave the United States a top AAA rating, with a stable outlook, as recently as last year, some say, so the downgrade must be the result of Republican malfeasance.​

S&P points not only to recent spending trends and politics, but also to longer-term issues. "Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29," the report says. That revised data, S&P points out, shows that "the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed," and it highlights "the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions." In other words, the news on the economy has been even worse than we've know for the last couple of years.​

​

 

[J.E.D]

For anyone that can read

He is referring to your false statement
of

"But S&P also said that tax hikes should be part of a balanced approach and that the main reason they downgrraded the US was over the political fiasco that surrounded the debt ceiling debate. They don't have confidence that congress can get its act together."

Where does S&P officially say that exactly?

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you really this dense? This may not be an official S&P document, but it is a quote from John Chambers, Head of Sovereign Ratings at S&P. Being who he is, I'd say his words carry some weight. It's only the 5th time I've posted these quotes in this thread, but since you're unable to wrap your head around it, here you go again.

COOPER: What could the United States have done to have avoided this?

JOHN CHAMBERS, HEAD OF SOVEREIGN RATINGS, STANDARD & POOR'S: Well, I think it could have done a few things. The first thing it could have done is to have raised the debt ceiling in a timely matter, so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with, as it had done 60 or 70 times since 1960 without much debate.

So that's point number one. And point number two is it could have come up with a fiscal plan similar, for example, to the Bowles- Simpson commission [which included tax hikes], which was bipartisan. Although it did not have a supermajority vote, it did have a majority vote and came up with a number of sensible recommendations.

CHAMBERS: Well, it's going to take a lot to get back to AAA, because once you lose your AAA, it doesn't usually bounce back in that way.

But I think a key debate will be coming up regarding the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, because if you did let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion. I think the question there is, A., would that be on top of we have already achieved with the $2.1 trillion, or would that -- if it was agreeable, which is a big if, you could envision that being counted toward the $1.5 trillion that the congressional committee is looking to achieve.

 

[kyzr]

Not to butt-in, but S&P said that they wanted at least $4-trillion in deficit cuts and all they got was $2.4-trillion. It could have been any combination of taxes or cuts to suit S&P.

Stop arguing about past politics. How do we get the problem fixed? ASAP

 

[Neotrotsky]

Dense is using big FONT and thinking it will make you more correct



The reality still remains

You poorly tired to overstate the official statement of S&P
Granted, it is a subtle point, but such fine points are sometimes
lost on the dimwitted.


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[J.E.D]

Dense is using big FONT and thinking it will make you more correct



The reality still remains

You poorly tired to overstate the official statement of S&P
Granted, it is a subtle point, but such fine points are sometimes
lost on the dimwitted.


Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Yep, never mind those quotes from S&P. Never mind the fact that S&P thinks tax hikes should be a part of the solution. I give up. It's like trying to talk to a dining room table.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Don't quit now

Maybe a few more big FONTs will convince others that you are correct

Even though no one can find these things you "see"
in the official released statement of S&P

 

[J.E.D]

Not to butt-in, but S&P said that they wanted at least $4-trillion in deficit cuts and all they got was $2.4-trillion. It could have been any combination of taxes or cuts to suit S&P.

Stop arguing about past politics. How do we get the problem fixed? ASAP

We get through it by working together. Since we have a divided gov't, both sides will have to compromise. That means for Dems, entitlements will have to be put on the table. That means for Repubs, taxes will have to be put on the table. And both sides will have to put defense on the table. Until that happens, things will not get better, but worse.

 

[J.E.D]

Don't quit now

Maybe a few more big FONTs will convince others that you are correct

I don't need fonts to prove you incorrect. All I need are the facts, which are on my side. All you need to do is pull your head from your ass. Those aren't things I "see", they are quotes from John Chambers, Head of Sovereign Ratings at S&P. You know who S&P is, right? Well Mr. CHambers works for them. That he said what I quoted is not debatable. Now sit down and shut up.. I'm done with your ignorant ass.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Not to butt-in, but S&P said that they wanted at least $4-trillion in deficit cuts and all they got was $2.4-trillion. It could have been any combination of taxes or cuts to suit S&P.

Stop arguing about past politics. How do we get the problem fixed? ASAP

Sure enough

But something tells me, the faux legacy called ObamaCare will
not be on the table

 

[Neotrotsky]

Don't quit now

Maybe a few more big FONTs will convince others that you are correct

I don't need fonts to prove you incorrect. All I need are the facts, which are on my side. All you need to do is pull your head from your ass. Now sit down and shut up.. I'm done with your ignorant ass.

Just when I thought we could be friends
Sort of like Rainman with you playing the part of Raymond