So the same Conservatives who wanted us to default...

[Oldstyle]

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

Do they?

Here it is 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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

I'm sorry but nowhere do I see S&P saying that they want a mix of cuts and increased taxes. They are very specific in stating that they don't get involved in the make up of debt reduction other than whether or not it occurs. Their problem with us seems to be centered around two things...that we haven't addressed entitlement reform...and that they have doubts we will follow through on even the small cuts we have proposed.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Revenue has never been a problem. They've always had plenty of revenue. Spending $16 Trillion more than you took in is a spending problem. We don't have a Tax Problem. We have a Government Problem.

 

[geauxtohell]

Do they?

Here it is 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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

Let's say for the sake of a wild example, that you are having a debate with another chef.

His proposed mix is one half sugar and one half arsenic.

Your proposal is a combination of sugar, some eggs, a little milk and some flour BUT ZERO point ZERO per cent arsenic.

He says, "o.k. I'll go with the cutting some of the sugar, adding the eggs, the milk and the flour BUT you have to agree to at least 15% arsenic."

You (gee, for SOME reasons) say, "uhm. No."

HE gets IRATE and says, "You are UNREASONABLE! YOU REFUSE TO COMPROMISE! I met you MORE than half way! Why won't you COMPROMISE!?"

Yeah. Good question. Why WON'T you compromise?

It's off topic. The issue that is being debated here is what the S&P said, which is that they want a mix of revenue and cuts. Not simply cuts. People keep trying to dance around that, but it's in the report.

I agree that the fractious nature of politics in D.C. now is a large part of the problem. However, that is hardly limited to one side, party, or ideology.

For instance, the "Tea Party Caucas" (with some notable exceptions) refused to make any compromises and bucked their own party.

By Boehner's own words, the GOP 98% of what they wanted and got cuts without any increased taxes. So, don't tell me the problem here is that the Democrats won't compromise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

are now acting as if the credit downgrade is a disaster,

and it's Obama's fault?

Seriously? Did they really think default would not also lead to a credit downgrade??

Didn't they think that default would be no big deal? That we'd just pay the interest and everything would be fine??

This would be an awesome post... if not for the fact that we never were going to default.

You shouldn't succumb so easily to the progressive lies; you've been had. And guess what.. we were downgraded anyway. I guess borrowing $2,000,000,000,000 more wasn't the asnwer.

 

[geauxtohell]

Do they?

Here it is 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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

I'm sorry but nowhere do I see S&P saying that they want a mix of cuts and increased taxes. They are very specific in stating that they don't get involved in the make up of debt reduction other than whether or not it occurs. Their problem with us seems to be centered around two things...that we haven't addressed entitlement reform...and that they have doubts we will follow through on even the small cuts we have proposed.

Oh, okay. How else are we going to obtain more revenue? Print more money?

 

[geauxtohell]

are now acting as if the credit downgrade is a disaster,

and it's Obama's fault?

Seriously? Did they really think default would not also lead to a credit downgrade??

Didn't they think that default would be no big deal? That we'd just pay the interest and everything would be fine??

This would be an awesome post... if not for the fact that we never were going to default.

You shouldn't succumb so easily to the progressive lies. You've been had. And guess what.. we were downgraded anyway. I guess borrowing $2,000,000,000,000 more wasn't the asnwer.

Have you read the report? It indicates that not raising the debt ceiling would have been a disaster.

Either accept the report or ignore it. But don't cherry pick it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Socialists/Progressives will never get it. The revenue has always been there. Spending $16 Trillion more than they took in is not the Taxpayers' fault. This is all on our broken Politicians & Government. You don't blame the Taxpayers for Government Sins. So no,they don't get more revenue. They get to cut their spending instead. The Taxpayers should not be made the Scapegoats in this awful mess.

 

[geauxtohell]

But the bottom line still remains...we got downgraded because we couldn't agree on how to reduce our deficit.

S&P doesn't believe Washington has the backbone to make hard decisions. They also quite clearly are skeptical about whether even the too small cuts that have been proposed will in fact be made.

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

I agree with your last point. It's in the report. Also in the report, we need to raise revenues. Another reason they felt the "compromise" didn't go far enough to address the problem.

It's hilarious to watch Bachmann try to act like the good guy on this issue. If she got her way and the compromise failed, Monday morning would be a disaster. As it stands, it's going to be bad enough.

Where in the S&P's report do you see them calling for raising taxes? I just watched the head of S&P's rating commission on TV saying that what was really needed to fix the problem was entitlement reform because entitlements were by far the largest driver of the debt. So who was calling for that...Democrats? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared entitlements "off the table".

Do you have a link? Because I heard someone from the S&P on the radio the other day note that ending the Bush era taxcuts would result in a few hundred billions dollars in increased revenue.

Yet, I haven't been able to find a link for the interview.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

are now acting as if the credit downgrade is a disaster,

and it's Obama's fault?

Seriously? Did they really think default would not also lead to a credit downgrade??

Didn't they think that default would be no big deal? That we'd just pay the interest and everything would be fine??

This would be an awesome post... if not for the fact that we never were going to default.

You shouldn't succumb so easily to the progressive lies. You've been had. And guess what.. we were downgraded anyway. I guess borrowing $2,000,000,000,000 more wasn't the asnwer.

Have you read the report? It indicates that not raising the debt ceiling would have been a disaster.

Either accept the report or ignore it. But don't cherry pick it.

I'm addressing the assertion that we'd be downgraded if we didn't commit to more spending and more debt. Only an imbecile continues to believe that spending isn't the issue here.

 

[Trajan]

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

I agree with your last point. It's in the report. Also in the report, we need to raise revenues. Another reason they felt the "compromise" didn't go far enough to address the problem.

It's hilarious to watch Bachmann try to act like the good guy on this issue. If she got her way and the compromise failed, Monday morning would be a disaster. As it stands, it's going to be bad enough.

Where in the S&P's report do you see them calling for raising taxes? I just watched the head of S&P's rating commission on TV saying that what was really needed to fix the problem was entitlement reform because entitlements were by far the largest driver of the debt. So who was calling for that...Democrats? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared entitlements "off the table".

Do you have a link? Because I heard someone from the S&P on the radio the other day note that ending the Bush era taxcuts would result in a few hundred billions dollars in increased revenue.

Yet, I haven't been able to find a link for the interview.

the cbo said approx. 700 billion for 10 years. lets make it a trillion*shrugs*

 

[geauxtohell]

This would be an awesome post... if not for the fact that we never were going to default.

You shouldn't succumb so easily to the progressive lies. You've been had. And guess what.. we were downgraded anyway. I guess borrowing $2,000,000,000,000 more wasn't the asnwer.

Have you read the report? It indicates that not raising the debt ceiling would have been a disaster.

Either accept the report or ignore it. But don't cherry pick it.

I'm addressing the assertion that we'd be downgraded if we didn't commit to more spending and more debt. Only an imbecile continues to believe that spending isn't the issue here.

Either way, if the compromise hadn't gone through, it would have been much, much worse.

As noted by S&P, the largest reason for the downgrade was the fight over raising the debt ceiling. Something that was routinely done before.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

I agree with your last point. It's in the report. Also in the report, we need to raise revenues. Another reason they felt the "compromise" didn't go far enough to address the problem.

It's hilarious to watch Bachmann try to act like the good guy on this issue. If she got her way and the compromise failed, Monday morning would be a disaster. As it stands, it's going to be bad enough.

Where in the S&P's report do you see them calling for raising taxes? I just watched the head of S&P's rating commission on TV saying that what was really needed to fix the problem was entitlement reform because entitlements were by far the largest driver of the debt. So who was calling for that...Democrats? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared entitlements "off the table".

Do you have a link? Because I heard someone from the S&P on the radio the other day note that ending the Bush era taxcuts would result in a few hundred billions dollars in increased revenue.

Yet, I haven't been able to find a link for the interview.

S&P also told us Fannie and Freddie were in good shape.

 

[geauxtohell]

Where in the S&P's report do you see them calling for raising taxes? I just watched the head of S&P's rating commission on TV saying that what was really needed to fix the problem was entitlement reform because entitlements were by far the largest driver of the debt. So who was calling for that...Democrats? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared entitlements "off the table".

Do you have a link? Because I heard someone from the S&P on the radio the other day note that ending the Bush era taxcuts would result in a few hundred billions dollars in increased revenue.

Yet, I haven't been able to find a link for the interview.

S&P also told us Fannie and Freddie were in good shape.

Like I said, accept the report or reject it. Don't cherry pick it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Our failed Government/Politicians don't get more revenue. They get to cut their spending instead. So it's time for them to quit whining and blaming Taxpayers. This awful mess is all on them. Now deal with it.

 

[Liability]

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

Let's say for the sake of a wild example, that you are having a debate with another chef.

His proposed mix is one half sugar and one half arsenic.

Your proposal is a combination of sugar, some eggs, a little milk and some flour BUT ZERO point ZERO per cent arsenic.

He says, "o.k. I'll go with the cutting some of the sugar, adding the eggs, the milk and the flour BUT you have to agree to at least 15% arsenic."

You (gee, for SOME reasons) say, "uhm. No."

HE gets IRATE and says, "You are UNREASONABLE! YOU REFUSE TO COMPROMISE! I met you MORE than half way! Why won't you COMPROMISE!?"

Yeah. Good question. Why WON'T you compromise?

It's off topic. The issue that is being debated here is what the S&P said, which is that they want a mix of revenue and cuts. Not simply cuts. People keep trying to dance around that, but it's in the report.

I agree that the fractious nature of politics in D.C. now is a large part of the problem. However, that is hardly limited to one side, party, or ideology.

For instance, the "Tea Party Caucas" (with some notable exceptions) refused to make any compromises and bucked their own party.

By Boehner's own words, the GOP 98% of what they wanted and got cuts without any increased taxes. So, don't tell me the problem here is that the Democrats won't compromise.

My post was far from off topic. It was directly responsive to your post.

Moreover, I just answered the question which purports to accuse the Tea Party of having been unwilling to compromise. There ARE some things in life which are not susceptible to "compromise."

In refusing to "compromise" with the assholes who INSIST on the "right" to be free to SPEND yet more and more and more and who are more than happy to get us DEEPER into fucking DEBT to do it, the Tea Party was acting on principle. This was not a matter of compromising the details. It was not horse trading.

It was a REFUSAL to "compromise" on "HOW MUCH poison should be administered?" The answer isn't somewhere between 1% and 100% The ONLY correct answer is "NO percent. None. Not a drop. Not a spec. Not a gram. NONE."

 

[Neotrotsky]

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

Do they?

Here it is 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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

Strange, I say the same about you

Here is some more basic math, as well.
Zero is a number in math as well.
It can be added, subtracted, divided etc
just like ingredients


Even in your example, I can choose to mix in one ingredient called for in the recipe or not.
It is still a mx or my mixture does not call for that ingredient.

I did not say that they did NOT want a tax increase or that they did
I have not been political in my statements.
No, we save the partisan "rose-colored" looking glasses for others


No in fact, my position is more honest than yours
I read nothing into for political advantage
if you go back I clearly said:

"Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both"
​

Again, the same template that "blinds" you from seeing beyond your
own political desires is the same one that causes you to read things
into other people's statement like mine.

It is your story and you can tell anyway you want

"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."

"no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures"
means just that- NO position on how congress chooses to
do this

All taxes could satisfy this statement
All cuts could satisfy this statement
A combination of both could satisfy this statement

Their is noting in this statement to imply that S&P demands both or
would reject anything that just did one or the other.

 

[Si modo]

Opposition to the increasing of the debt "ceiling" is not at all synonymous with wanting a default.

....

Clearly, too many are confused about that.

.... The truth, of course, is that had the "deal" fallen through, there would have been no authorized increase in the debt ceiling and our horrible level of spending would be stuck in place. But there is zero correlation between that and a "default." Our debts could have and should have (and likely would have) been paid all the same.

Has it dawned on any of the imbeciles like Carby that NOT going deeper into debt might have helped us AVOID getting that S&P downgrade?

The funny thing is anyone who has ever had to deal with their credit rating in a loan application knows full well what determines their rating - a loan officer told them what they needed to improve it, if it needed improvement.

Common sense is not so common, though.

I don't think anyone "wanted" a default. The problem is that some people were willing to "play chicken" with the issue and let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling.

If you read the report, S&P made it clear that that would have been disasterous. Read the intro were they talk about taking us off "credit watch" due to raising the debt ceiling. They further indicated that a large part of the downgrade was due to all the bickering that almost allowed the deadline for the debt ceiling (something they note hadn't been a problem in the past) pass without a raise.

Anyone that states that not raising the debt ceiling prior to the deadline or that it wouldn't be a big deal because we could have avoided default through other means clearly hasn't read what S&P actually said in there report.

I read the entire report.

I never said anyone wanted a default, either.

I'm wondering whose post you are responding to.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That was already debunked several times.

But thanks for the DNC parroted line.

Need a cracker?

I kinda think that the people at Bloomberg (people who actually study the economy) know more about this than you do. And.......fwiw.........Bloomberg isn't the only place that has said that.

Got any links to prove the debunking, or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

Yes, I know you wish to be spoon fed by the establishment.

But the Statement from S@P carries more weight.

I bet if there is no revenue increases soon, we're gonna go down another rating.

 

[Si modo]

I kinda think that the people at Bloomberg (people who actually study the economy) know more about this than you do. And.......fwiw.........Bloomberg isn't the only place that has said that.

Got any links to prove the debunking, or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

Yes, I know you wish to be spoon fed by the establishment.

But the Statement from S@P carries more weight.

I bet if there is no revenue increases soon, we're gonna go down another rating.

I bet if there are no spending cuts, we're gonna go down another rating.

The ratings are a reflection of ability to pay debts.

 

[BDBoop]

I bet if there is no revenue increases soon, we're gonna go down another rating.

Seconded.