S&P Cuts U.S. Outlook

[editec]

How much would we have had to cut from this budget NOT to have to raise the debt ceiling?


Is that a realistic expectation?

Not as long as the military budget can't be cut, no it isn't.

 

[8537]

Boed

We will have to start cutting $1.8 triilion in a few weeks. SS, Medicare and defense each cost $800 billion. Interest is $200 billion. Everything else is $1.2 trillion. Total spending is $3.8 trillion. Total revenues are $2.2 trillion. Assuming we don't default and there are no multiplier affects (unlikely), we have to cut nearly half our budget starting in a few weeks. How much do you think we would cut from grandma and the soldiers?

You are assuming we need a balanced budget right away. We don't.

if we refuse to raise the debt limit as many here and other places are suggesting, we'll need to balance the budget right away, or sooner.

 

[Robert]

Boed

We will have to start cutting $1.8 triilion in a few weeks. SS, Medicare and defense each cost $800 billion. Interest is $200 billion. Everything else is $1.2 trillion. Total spending is $3.8 trillion. Total revenues are $2.2 trillion. Assuming we don't default and there are no multiplier affects (unlikely), we have to cut nearly half our budget starting in a few weeks. How much do you think we would cut from grandma and the soldiers?

You are assuming we need a balanced budget right away. We don't.

if we refuse to raise the debt limit as many here and other places are suggesting, we'll need to balance the budget right away, or sooner.

And if we do than the only thing that will take place is that next year instead of 15 trillion in debt we'll have 25 trillion because as we all know IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID and we all know how much our elected Representatives like to spend; the saving part seems to be a problem however.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you claim the impact of failing to address the debt ceiliing is just "obama administration spin", but let's try one more time:



Of course he did. You just didn't like his suggestions.





Why would the Bush tax cuts not be rolled back over time? Except for political expediency, there's no reason to make ineffectual and temporary tax cuts into ineffectual and permanent tax cuts.

The AMT fix claim is simply wrong.

The Republican plan isn't to cut reimbursements for doctors, it's to gut Medicare as a whole. I'll take the admin's plan. Turning Medicare into Obamacare for Seniors makes no sense since the risk pool is much worse.

Here. Read.

Obama's 2012 Budget: Higher Taxes, Slower Growth | The Heritage Foundation


Obama put in a mere three year fix for AMT, and then increases taxes for the above 28% tax rate - which affects a great many middle class people.

Lol...let me guess: Heritage doesn't like his budget?

After the water carrying they did for Ryan using mythical unemployment modeling, would anyone be the least bit surprised if they panned the Obama budget?

Actually, even before that: Would anyone be surprised? Only the idiots. Heritage carries the water for rightwing economic policymakers/

Since they are obviously biased you'll have no problem pointing out the fallacy of their views.
Oh yeah, you can't.
Loser.

 

[boedicca]

You wanna REALLY see a downgrade on both our debt and economic outlooks? Vote against raising the debt ceiling.

It'll be Dow 5000, Mortgage rates of 15% and a freeze in the credit markets by summer - and Republicans will have their wish.

What's the alternative....a worthless dollar....?

Two different, fairly significant and serious alternatives have been offered in the past three weeks: The Ryan plan, which reduces the deficit by 4.5T over 10 years and the administration proposal that achieves a bit less reduction in 12 years.

But if you want Republicans to vote to cause a severe recession, have at it.

A bit less in 12 years? What a specious bit of crap.

The Obama 10 year outlook, with its overly optimistic view of GDP growth, results in $2.8T of (fictitious) deficit reduction in 10 years. Close to $1.2T is stuffed into years 11 and 12.

The President’s “matching deficit reduction” claim is off by a trillion dollars (or more) | Keith Hennessey


Only in the Land of Magic Rainbow MATH CHALLENGED Unicorns is $2.8T close to $4.5T.

 

[8537]

Here. Read.

Obama's 2012 Budget: Higher Taxes, Slower Growth | The Heritage Foundation


Obama put in a mere three year fix for AMT, and then increases taxes for the above 28% tax rate - which affects a great many middle class people.

Lol...let me guess: Heritage doesn't like his budget?

After the water carrying they did for Ryan using mythical unemployment modeling, would anyone be the least bit surprised if they panned the Obama budget?

Actually, even before that: Would anyone be surprised? Only the idiots. Heritage carries the water for rightwing economic policymakers/

Since they are obviously biased you'll have no problem pointing out the fallacy of their views.
Oh yeah, you can't.
Loser.

The fallacy of their view is that they base them on unrealistic models to meet their agenda. That's why they used a 2.5% unemployment rate in their original run on the Ryan plan.

 

[8537]

What's the alternative....a worthless dollar....?

Two different, fairly significant and serious alternatives have been offered in the past three weeks: The Ryan plan, which reduces the deficit by 4.5T over 10 years and the administration proposal that achieves a bit less reduction in 12 years.

But if you want Republicans to vote to cause a severe recession, have at it.

A bit less in 12 years? What a specious bit of crap.

Yes, a bit less in 12 years. Don't be so stupid -it's simple math.

Only in the Land of Magic Rainbow MATH CHALLENGED Unicorns is $2.8T close to $4.5T.

Oh, you really are this stupid. Let's try again: It's 4T compared to 4.5T.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lol...let me guess: Heritage doesn't like his budget?

After the water carrying they did for Ryan using mythical unemployment modeling, would anyone be the least bit surprised if they panned the Obama budget?

Actually, even before that: Would anyone be surprised? Only the idiots. Heritage carries the water for rightwing economic policymakers/

Since they are obviously biased you'll have no problem pointing out the fallacy of their views.
Oh yeah, you can't.
Loser.

The fallacy of their view is that they base them on unrealistic models to meet their agenda. That's why they used a 2.5% unemployment rate in their original run on the Ryan plan.

Link?

 

[boedicca]

Two different, fairly significant and serious alternatives have been offered in the past three weeks: The Ryan plan, which reduces the deficit by 4.5T over 10 years and the administration proposal that achieves a bit less reduction in 12 years.

But if you want Republicans to vote to cause a severe recession, have at it.

A bit less in 12 years? What a specious bit of crap.

Yes, a bit less in 12 years. Don't be so stupid -it's simple math.

Only in the Land of Magic Rainbow MATH CHALLENGED Unicorns is $2.8T close to $4.5T.

Oh, you really are this stupid. Let's try again: It's 4T compared to 4.5T.

No, it isn't you sad little booby. Obama's budget shows $2.8T in reductions over the comparable 10 year period used in Ryan's.

12 years are not 10 years.

 

[boedicca]

A picture is worth more than 14 Trillion Words, or why we need to stop the spending insanity:

The Debt Ceiling...

NationalJournal.com - GRAPHIC: 10 Years, 10 Broken U.S. Debt Ceilings - Wednesday, April 13, 2011

 

[8537]

A bit less in 12 years? What a specious bit of crap.

Yes, a bit less in 12 years. Don't be so stupid -it's simple math.

Only in the Land of Magic Rainbow MATH CHALLENGED Unicorns is $2.8T close to $4.5T.

Oh, you really are this stupid. Let's try again: It's 4T compared to 4.5T.

No, it isn't you sad little booby. Obama's budget shows $2.8T in reductions over the comparable 10 year period used in Ryan's.

12 years are not 10 years.

Excuse me? Let's reread what I wrote instead of your failed attempt to misinterpret for your own silly benefit:

Two different, fairly significant and serious alternatives have been offered in the past three weeks: The Ryan plan, which reduces the deficit by 4.5T over 10 years and the administration proposal that achieves a bit less reduction in 12 years.

It's almost like I said it right there in my post - one was 10 years and one was 12!

Read first, then reply.

 

[Toro]

It should be noted that Treasuries closed up right across the curve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are assuming we need a balanced budget right away. We don't.

if we refuse to raise the debt limit as many here and other places are suggesting, we'll need to balance the budget right away, or sooner.

And if we do than the only thing that will take place is that next year instead of 15 trillion in debt we'll have 25 trillion because as we all know IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID and we all know how much our elected Representatives like to spend; the saving part seems to be a problem however.

Nice.

I wish you had taken this a step forward, and explained to all that a large piece, and the motivation for, of the spending is the need and desire to bet re-elected.

If there were term limits this could be obviated.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, a bit less in 12 years. Don't be so stupid -it's simple math.



Oh, you really are this stupid. Let's try again: It's 4T compared to 4.5T.

No, it isn't you sad little booby. Obama's budget shows $2.8T in reductions over the comparable 10 year period used in Ryan's.

12 years are not 10 years.

Excuse me? Let's reread what I wrote instead of your failed attempt to misinterpret for your own silly benefit:

Two different, fairly significant and serious alternatives have been offered in the past three weeks: The Ryan plan, which reduces the deficit by 4.5T over 10 years and the administration proposal that achieves a bit less reduction in 12 years.

It's almost like I said it right there in my post - one was 10 years and one was 12!

Read first, then reply.

It doesn't achieve A BIT LESS. Ryan's plan achieves $4.5T in 10 years. Obama's achieves $2.8T over the same period. $1.7T is not A BIT LESS.

 

[boedicca]

Perspective:

Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook for the United States from “stable” to “negative,” and said there is a one in three chance it will downgrade the U.S.’s triple-A credit rating in the next couple of years. We’ve enjoyed that credit rating since 1917. Barack Obama can cook up entitlement schemes as much as he likes, but if America loses its ability to borrow money on favorable terms there will be no safety net big enough to catch us all.

And what is the president’s message at this defining crisis moment? The New York Times reports, “Mr. Obama implored the crowd [in a speech today] not to lose heart, declaring that the vision of America he laid out in his fiscal speech — one in which ‘we are connected to one another; that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper’— would animate his campaign and drive the debate in the 2012 election.”

The U.S. may lose its triple-A rating and the best Obama can do is peddle feel-good pop slogans in defense of suicidal entitlements. If only he believed what he was saying. Indeed, we are connected to one another. Which is why entitlements put all of us in debt, why taxing income for some of us will shrink our national tax base, and why every last one of us will go down with the ship unless the administration acquaints itself with reality. While the president preaches togetherness in service of class warfare, America nears an unprecedented downgrading. He may think he’s being his brother’s keeper, but he shouldn’t be surprised if his brothers and sisters don’t see it that way in 2012.

The S&P Outlook and Obama « Commentary Magazine

 

[8537]

No, it isn't you sad little booby. Obama's budget shows $2.8T in reductions over the comparable 10 year period used in Ryan's.

12 years are not 10 years.

Excuse me? Let's reread what I wrote instead of your failed attempt to misinterpret for your own silly benefit:

Two different, fairly significant and serious alternatives have been offered in the past three weeks: The Ryan plan, which reduces the deficit by 4.5T over 10 years and the administration proposal that achieves a bit less reduction in 12 years.

It's almost like I said it right there in my post - one was 10 years and one was 12!

Read first, then reply.

It doesn't achieve A BIT LESS. Ryan's plan achieves $4.5T in 10 years. Obama's achieves $2.8T over the same period. $1.7T is not A BIT LESS.

I said one achieved 4.5T in 10 years while the other achieved 4T in 12 years.

I'm not sure who you think you are having a conversation with, but you seem to be finding posts and comments I don't see, nor did I state. We call that boxing a strawman.