Liar-N-Chief mouths cuts all the while 2012 debt SURPASSES 2011

[Meister]

At what point did the Democrats say "give us what we want or we're going to default on the national debt"? Wait... that never happened.

Let me get this straight.....you're in denial? Come on, Polk, show a little honesty

 

[Polk]

At what point did the Democrats say "give us what we want or we're going to default on the national debt"? Wait... that never happened.

Let me get this straight.....you're in denial? Come on, Polk, show a little honesty

I'm being completely honest. There was no point at which the Democrats said "screw it, let's default if we don't get our way."

 

[Meister]

At what point did the Democrats say "give us what we want or we're going to default on the national debt"? Wait... that never happened.

Let me get this straight.....you're in denial? Come on, Polk, show a little honesty

I'm being completely honest. There was no point at which the Democrats said "screw it, let's default if we don't get our way."

The part you refuse to acknowledge is the spending from the administration that created the environment, you need to embrace that part of the equation, Polk.

 

[zeke]

Let me get this straight.....you're in denial? Come on, Polk, show a little honesty

I'm being completely honest. There was no point at which the Democrats said "screw it, let's default if we don't get our way."

The part you refuse to acknowledge is the spending from the administration that created the environment, you need to embrace that part of the equation, Polk.

Embrace whatever you want. It was Rethugs in Congress that threatened to default on our obligations if they didn't get what they wanted.

They were not defaulting about future spending. They wanted to default on present obligations. Obligations that were not made just by Obama.

Of course the rethugs had a hard time understanding what they were doing. I see you do to.

 

[Polk]

Let me get this straight.....you're in denial? Come on, Polk, show a little honesty

I'm being completely honest. There was no point at which the Democrats said "screw it, let's default if we don't get our way."

The part you refuse to acknowledge is the spending from the administration that created the environment, you need to embrace that part of the equation, Polk.

That only works if you honestly believe a McCain administration would have slashed unemployment benefits and food stamps in the middle of a recession (since those two things were the virtual entirety of the "spending binge").

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'm being completely honest. There was no point at which the Democrats said "screw it, let's default if we don't get our way."

The part you refuse to acknowledge is the spending from the administration that created the environment, you need to embrace that part of the equation, Polk.

That only works if you honestly believe a McCain administration would have slashed unemployment benefits and food stamps in the middle of a recession (since those two things were the virtual entirety of the "spending binge").

Let's see: The world according to liberals:

Polk: WHAT IF's Make believe land-- Pretend and guess and then I will be honest.. a little
Meister: Real numbers, real facts.. Honest on all accounts.

 

[Meister]

The credit rating cut occurred because the Republicans threatened to default on the national debt.

Can you link where Standard & Poor stated what you're claiming?

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

S&P | United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative | Americas

Your first argument is going to be that it doesn't specifically blame the Republicans, which is true, but they were also the only one using the threat of default as a bargaining chip.

From your source, Polk:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending.....
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public
debt burden.....
Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Perhaps you should have read more instead of using the political "gotchya's" for your posts.

 

[Polk]

The part you refuse to acknowledge is the spending from the administration that created the environment, you need to embrace that part of the equation, Polk.

That only works if you honestly believe a McCain administration would have slashed unemployment benefits and food stamps in the middle of a recession (since those two things were the virtual entirety of the "spending binge").

Let's see: The world according to liberals:

Polk: WHAT IF's Make believe land-- Pretend and guess and then I will be honest.. a little
Meister: Real numbers, real facts.. Honest on all accounts.

Actually, it was Meister that constructed an implied counter-factual.

 

[Polk]

Can you link where Standard & Poor stated what you're claiming?

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

S&P | United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative | Americas

Your first argument is going to be that it doesn't specifically blame the Republicans, which is true, but they were also the only one using the threat of default as a bargaining chip.

From your source, Polk:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending.....
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public
debt burden.....
Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Perhaps you should have read more instead of using the political "gotchya's" for your posts.

I read that as well, but it doesn't support your argument. The public debt burden had been rising for years without resulting a decline in our credit rating, so it's hard to point to that as the trigger. The unique event that occurred shortly before the downgrade, and it was something S&P cited, was the willing of Congressional Republicans to threaten default if their policy objectives were not enacted.

 

[Meister]

That only works if you honestly believe a McCain administration would have slashed unemployment benefits and food stamps in the middle of a recession (since those two things were the virtual entirety of the "spending binge").

Let's see: The world according to liberals:

Polk: WHAT IF's Make believe land-- Pretend and guess and then I will be honest.. a little
Meister: Real numbers, real facts.. Honest on all accounts.

Actually, it was Meister that constructed an implied counter-factual.

No, not really, Polk.

 

[Polk]

Let's see: The world according to liberals:

Polk: WHAT IF's Make believe land-- Pretend and guess and then I will be honest.. a little
Meister: Real numbers, real facts.. Honest on all accounts.

Actually, it was Meister that constructed an implied counter-factual.

No, not really, Polk.

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

 

[Meister]

Actually, it was Meister that constructed an implied counter-factual.

No, not really, Polk.

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

I never put McCain into the mix, this is about Obama, democrats, and republicans. They all have a hand in where we are today.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Actually, it was Meister that constructed an implied counter-factual.

No, not really, Polk.

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

You're scary.. What if's don't factor in to truth. What if Hitler was never born?? What if John F Kennedy had never been assassinated?? WOW.. I thought you were better than this..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

No, not really, Polk.

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

I never put McCain into the mix, this is about Obama, democrats, and republicans. They all have a hand in where we are today.

You will NEVER get a liberal to be intellectually honest Meister.. not ever. I've yet to see one single liberal on this forum ever cop up to the truth once it's been proven.. NOT ONE.

 

[Polk]

No, not really, Polk.

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

I never put McCain into the mix, this is about Obama, democrats, and republicans. They all have a hand in where we are today.

But to blame Obama requires comparing his performance to the alternative.

 

[Polk]

No, not really, Polk.

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

You're scary.. What if's don't factor in to truth. What if Hitler was never born?? What if John F Kennedy had never been assassinated?? WOW.. I thought you were better than this..

The assignment of blame isn't a question of truth in the first place, because it's based on an assessment that is inherently subjective. There are objective elements that go in to the assessment, but the relative weight placed on the variables is a subjective exercise.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Yes, because to claim it's Obama's fault requires believing the deficit would be lower today is McCain had been elected.

I never put McCain into the mix, this is about Obama, democrats, and republicans. They all have a hand in where we are today.

But to blame Obama requires comparing his performance to the alternative.

I suppose you did that each time you blamed Boooooooooooooooosh, as with Kerry?? And you do that with every single Politician, right Polk?? What utter BULLCRAP.. it's not even believable.. Why don't you just come out and say you refuse to hold your messiah's feet to the fire.. because that's what it comes down to.. FACTS. Something liberals are allergic to!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Attn: According to Polk, no more blaming Booooosh for anything as we have to hold a pretend court and hold up Booooooooosh's challenger, John Effing Kerry and ask," Would things have been any different under Kerry?" So that negates all responsibility.. GAME OVER.. NO more blaming Boooooooosh. In fact, under Polk's imaginary rule, NO ONE GETS BLAMED! Yipppppeeeeeeeeee

 

[Polk]

I never put McCain into the mix, this is about Obama, democrats, and republicans. They all have a hand in where we are today.

But to blame Obama requires comparing his performance to the alternative.

I suppose you did that each time you blamed Boooooooooooooooosh, as with Kerry?? And you do that with every single Politician, right Polk?? What utter BULLCRAP.. it's not even believable.. Why don't you just come out and say you refuse to hold your messiah's feet to the fire.. because that's what it comes down to.. FACTS. Something liberals are allergic to!

I would absolutely say it would be weird to attack Bush for something that Gore or Kerry would have also done. You can attack the idea, but that would require attacking both parties.

Also, the conservative claim of "Obama as messiah" is downright laughable when one considers the deification of Reagan.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

But to blame Obama requires comparing his performance to the alternative.

I suppose you did that each time you blamed Boooooooooooooooosh, as with Kerry?? And you do that with every single Politician, right Polk?? What utter BULLCRAP.. it's not even believable.. Why don't you just come out and say you refuse to hold your messiah's feet to the fire.. because that's what it comes down to.. FACTS. Something liberals are allergic to!

I would absolutely say it would be weird to attack Bush for something that Gore or Kerry would have also done. You can attack the idea, but that would require attacking both parties.

Also, the conservative claim of "Obama as messiah" is downright laughable when one considers the deification of Reagan.

You're a complete and total hack as shown in this thread. Meister has the good grace and decency to assign blame regardless of political affiliation because it's the truth. As I stated earlier, I've never seen one single liberal on this forum own up to the truth. NOT ONE.. And we call him your messiah because of zombies like yourself.