The head of S&P explains their decision VIDEO

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He states that the gridlock and lack of cuts propelled their decision process. He also clearly states that the Ryan budget or Simpson Bowls plan could have averted this.
Based on that analysis it is clear that had Obama and the democrats not tabled both those ideas (in effect causing the gridlock) we could have avoided this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNmdLHM9deQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]‪August 6, 2011 11:51 AM‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And where the hell is Obama? Every other "emergency" he's on the tv telling the public not to worry or proclaiming victory over some "important" issue or begging for people to be on his side.

Now we have a situation that impacts nearly every American in some form or another and he's not got a speech to tell the people he has a plan to get us out of this mess?

 

[Greenbeard]

He also clearly states that the Ryan budget or Simpson Bowls plan could have averted this.
Based on that analysis it is clear that had Obama and the democrats not tabled both those ideas (in effect causing the gridlock) we could have avoided this.

Why did Paul Ryan vote against Bowles-Simpson?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He also clearly states that the Ryan budget or Simpson Bowls plan could have averted this.
Based on that analysis it is clear that had Obama and the democrats not tabled both those ideas (in effect causing the gridlock) we could have avoided this.

Why did Paul Ryan vote against Bowles-Simpson?

You would have to ask him that. How the hell would I know? Why didnt congress discuss either ideas?

 

[Full-Auto]

He also clearly states that the Ryan budget or Simpson Bowls plan could have averted this.
Based on that analysis it is clear that had Obama and the democrats not tabled both those ideas (in effect causing the gridlock) we could have avoided this.

Why did Paul Ryan vote against Bowles-Simpson?

Post the vote, a search doesnt reveal it. Since you have the inside track. SHARE!

 

[Greenbeard]

You would have to ask him that. How the hell would I know? Why didnt congress discuss either ideas?

The answer is that Bowles-Simpson wouldn't have ended Medicare and thus it didn't interest him. But what's really interesting is that you claim the failure of Bowles-Simpson is the fault of "Obama and the democrats" when the Republican Budget Chairman opposed it (indeed, all the House Republicans on the commission opposed Bowles-Simpson--I'll give you one guess on whether or not that package would've gotten through a Republican-controlled House). Congress didn't discuss it because Ryan was part of a bipartisan group that voted to prevent Congress from taking up Bowles-Simpson.

And his budget was discussed. It came to a vote in both chambers of Congress, in fact. It failed to pass in the United States Senate because a majority of that body's members weren't keen on ending Medicare.

Post the vote, a search doesnt reveal it. Since you have the inside track. SHARE!

The package needed 14 ayes from the commission in order to move on. Ryan was one of the 7 nos who were able to prevent the recommendations from moving on. My "inside track" is called a newspaper.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You would have to ask him that. How the hell would I know? Why didnt congress discuss either ideas?

The answer is that Bowles-Simpson wouldn't have ended Medicare and thus it didn't interest him. But what's really interesting is that you claim the failure of Bowles-Simpson is the fault of "Obama and the democrats" when the Republican Budget Chairman opposed it (indeed, all the House Republicans on the commission opposed Bowles-Simpson--I'll give you one guess on whether or not that package would've gotten through a Republican-controlled House). Congress didn't discuss it because Ryan was part of a bipartisan group that voted to prevent Congress from taking up Bowles-Simpson.

And his budget was discussed. It came to a vote in both chambers of Congress, in fact. It failed to pass in the United States Senate because a majority of that body's members weren't keen on ending Medicare.

Post the vote, a search doesnt reveal it. Since you have the inside track. SHARE!

The package needed 14 ayes from the commission in order to be sent to Congress for a vote. Ryan was one of the 7 nos who were able to prevent the recommendations from moving on. My "inside track" is called a newspaper.

Ryans budget as well as their debt plan were tabled in the senate. That's hardly a discussion. Reid should have taken up both measures and debated them. Amended them. Tried to negotiate an outcome. You know, do his job.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No response eh? Facts are a bitch aren't they....

 

[Greenbeard]

Ryans budget as well as their debt plan were tabled in the senate. That's hardly a discussion. Reid should have taken up both measures and debated them. Amended them. Tried to negotiate an outcome. You know, do his job.

Ryan's budget was not a serious proposal, it was red meat for the rightwing base. That's obvious enough from it contents, but Dave Camp admitted as much when he explained why Ways and Means wouldn't even bother to mark it up: “I’m not really interested in just laying down more markers. I’d rather have the committee working with the president and with the Senate, focused on savings and reforms that can be signed into law,” the Michigan Republican said.

That might also explain why it was less than a week and a half between the release of his budget and the floor vote. Quite a bit of time and attention devoted to exploring the merits of ending Medicare, eh?

Regardless, let me know when Ryan introduces Bowles-Simpson for consideration. Then we can talk about the relative merits of Ryan and Reid in "trying to negotiate an outcome" and "doing his job."

No response eh? Facts are a bitch aren't they....

It's Saturday afternoon. Errands sometimes take precedence over listening to rightwing whining.

 

[Si modo]

Ryans budget as well as their debt plan were tabled in the senate. That's hardly a discussion. Reid should have taken up both measures and debated them. Amended them. Tried to negotiate an outcome. You know, do his job.

Ryan's budget was not a serious proposal, it was red meat for the rightwing base. That's obvious enough from it contents, but Dave Camp admitted as much when he explained why Ways and Means wouldn't even bother to mark it up: “I’m not really interested in just laying down more markers. I’d rather have the committee working with the president and with the Senate, focused on savings and reforms that can be signed into law,” the Michigan Republican said.

That might also explain why it was less than a week and a half between the release of his budget and the floor vote. Quite a bit of time and attention devoted to exploring the merits of ending Medicare, eh?

Regardless, let me know when Ryan introduces Bowles-Simpson for consideration. Then we can talk about the relative merits of Ryan and Reid in "trying to negotiate an outcome" and "doing his job."

No response eh? Facts are a bitch aren't they....

It's Saturday afternoon. Errands sometimes take precedence over listening to rightwing whining.

It doesn't matter what you think of the Ryan budget when it comes to the rating. It matters what S&P think, and they say it would have averted this rating drop.


You don't matter.

No offense.

 

[Greenbeard]

It doesn't matter what you think of the Ryan budget when it comes to the rating. It matters what S&P think, and they say it would have averted this rating drop.

A pleasant brunch would've averted this rating drop.

S&P doesn't believe the House is capable of working with the President to address the nation's problems. That level of dysfunction is dangerous in ordinary times and doubly so in the present circumstances. The "No Compromise!" Brigade has openly sought political dysfunction and gridlock in a self-destructive bid to make Obama a one-termer.

Any signs on their part of willingness to engage in the give-and-take that characterizes democratic politics would've been more than enough.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Well, they told me that if I asked my representatives to vote against the just passed debt ceiling deal that the Stock Market would tumble and S&P would down grade America's credit rating. Apparently they were right!

Its not rocket science here. One reason for the dip in the Dow was simply because the market knew that the deal did not address the rating agencies complaint that at least a 4 trillion cut in the debt was needed to signal American politicians' seriousness as to the direction the country was going to take. Most of those watching this knew that the question of downgrade by the big rating agencies was, post shitty debt ceiling deal, when not whether it would happen. Since the Dow's decline has also been informed by the EU's problems (recently questioned solvency of Italy- this is a much, much bigger deal than Greece), we won't know for sure the degree to which this credit downgrade will further degrade the Dow on Monday. The word now, as I mentioned above, is that the market has already priced in that downgrade.

What is frustrating to many is that despite the path to the Welfare State taken by Europe, and the presently observed results of that choice, this American administration has decided to follow Europe over a cliff anyway. Italy's immediate future will determine the ultimate success of the EU. Manifest in President Obama's inability to change course is his leftist ideology that refuses to recognize that Keynesian efforts will not save him or the nation. But then, Keynesian economics was always merely a fig leaf to cover the progressive march towards statism. The only thing that will save the U.S. now is a gridlocked Congress. But getting America back on track economically will require a 2012 election and a President that cares about the country. Obama cares only about his re-election after which the country will, undoubtedly, be subjected to more of the same ideological folly. Americans will decide what kind of country they want in November of 2012.

JM

 

[mascale]

Ever since Lincoln killed off the 700,000 White People in America, the Republicans have opposed having shops filled with paying customers, in this nation. The Nazi's followed that up. Bush II went after Afghanistan and Iraq--instead of Al Qaeda and bin laden. Violating all precepts of Western Moralilty, bankers created ARM's for the poor--attempting usury extractions at the wrong end of the income scale.

Old and New Testament alike do not allow that. The rich houses all came tumbling on down. Utah reads the Book of Mormon instead. The Catholics celebrate the Vedic Crucifix, "Jesus Comments Unfavorably On The Laws of Moses!" Not too many pay attention to all the factors that are in play.

S&P factor Three is about the success of the Obama Stimulus, and its failure. Housing was in a downturn, and the unaffected Ivy League provided no public works projects spending: For the builders and trades. The economy didn't recover from the depths in progress. The Republicans could point to the deficits and set up a minority-based blockade of payments of the bills. Still, it was too late for the Republicans to stop all the spending. S&P Factor Three for the USA is "Prosperous," again.

That is all due to Obama-Geithner-Bernanke.

What stimulus there was worked. The blockade is about S&P Factors One and Two. That was the source of the new evaluation. The currency remains international. Monetary Policy is tops on the planet. QE2 has now re-ignited credit card use, two months in row. That use has been lagging hundreds of billions of dollars for three full years.

S&P likely awaits the national elections. For that, however, a negative outlook would have been a better indicator of just how "problematical" all this is. Except that without the publicity of the evaluation, then the showing that it is not 'problematical," could not be made(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations follow trails of White Eyes Paper--Now becoming prosperous at last!)

 

[Si modo]

It doesn't matter what you think of the Ryan budget when it comes to the rating. It matters what S&P think, and they say it would have averted this rating drop.

A pleasant brunch would've averted this rating drop.

S&P doesn't believe the House is capable of working with the President to address the nation's problems. That level of dysfunction is dangerous in ordinary times and doubly so in the present circumstances. The "No Compromise!" Brigade has openly sought political dysfunction and gridlock in a self-destructive bid to make Obama a one-termer.

Any signs on their part of willingness to engage in the give-and-take that characterizes democratic politics would've been more than enough.

You can say that, but the S&P clearly said what they mean.

You don't matter. They do. Their words matter, yours are just wishful thinking.

No offense.

 

[Greenbeard]

You can say that, but the S&P clearly said what they mean.

Indeed, they've repeatedly cited the dysfunctionality of our political process, now that the "No Compromise!" Brigade has come to town:

The political settings we don't think are as strong as some of the strongest sovereigns that we rate. The most recent evidence for that is the debate we had over raising the debt ceiling and the U.S. government coming within a day of having cash management problems.

Or:

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, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

We have real problems, no one denies that. The reason we're in this particular situation now, however, is that the political process has been intentionally paralyzed by some of its more zealous participants and S&P no longer believes our political system is capable of working. It's a sobering assessment but its implications seem to have been lost on some.

 

[mascale]

The Central Point is that the Socialist Measures all worked. The Blockade was stellar, and did not work--except that it did create the intended re-evaluation of what Republicans mean by "Freedom." Roosevelot had the famous four freedoms, the Republicans have the freedom from paying any of the nation's bills.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Discussing S&P By The Number: Takes A Lot of Patience!)

 

[Ernie S.]

Ever since Lincoln killed off the 700,000 White People in America, the Republicans have opposed having shops filled with paying customers, in this nation. The Nazi's followed that up. Bush II went after Afghanistan and Iraq--instead of Al Qaeda and bin laden. Violating all precepts of Western Moralilty, bankers created ARM's for the poor--attempting usury extractions at the wrong end of the income scale.

Old and New Testament alike do not allow that. The rich houses all came tumbling on down. Utah reads the Book of Mormon instead. The Catholics celebrate the Vedic Crucifix, "Jesus Comments Unfavorably On The Laws of Moses!" Not too many pay attention to all the factors that are in play.

S&P factor Three is about the success of the Obama Stimulus, and its failure. Housing was in a downturn, and the unaffected Ivy League provided no public works projects spending: For the builders and trades. The economy didn't recover from the depths in progress. The Republicans could point to the deficits and set up a minority-based blockade of payments of the bills. Still, it was too late for the Republicans to stop all the spending. S&P Factor Three for the USA is "Prosperous," again.

That is all due to Obama-Geithner-Bernanke.

What stimulus there was worked. The blockade is about S&P Factors One and Two. That was the source of the new evaluation. The currency remains international. Monetary Policy is tops on the planet. QE2 has now re-ignited credit card use, two months in row. That use has been lagging hundreds of billions of dollars for three full years.

S&P likely awaits the national elections. For that, however, a negative outlook would have been a better indicator of just how "problematical" all this is. Except that without the publicity of the evaluation, then the showing that it is not 'problematical," could not be made(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations follow trails of White Eyes Paper--Now becoming prosperous at last!)

Is that Mascale or mescal?

 

[Google]

 

[Ernie S.]

You can say that, but the S&P clearly said what they mean.

Indeed, they've repeatedly cited the dysfunctionality of our political process, now that the "No Compromise!" Brigade has come to town:

The political settings we don't think are as strong as some of the strongest sovereigns that we rate. The most recent evidence for that is the debate we had over raising the debt ceiling and the U.S. government coming within a day of having cash management problems.

Or:

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, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

We have real problems, no one denies that. The reason we're in this particular situation now, however, is that the political process has been intentionally paralyzed by some of its more zealous participants and S&P no longer believes our political system is capable of working. It's a sobering assessment but its implications seem to have been lost on some.

Did you not watch the video in the OP. Yes he blamed it on gridlock but not on the GOP. He said the Ryan plan or the Simpson Bowles plan that DEMOCRATS rejected would have averted degrading our rating. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??

 

[Avorysuds]

You can say that, but the S&P clearly said what they mean.

Indeed, they've repeatedly cited the dysfunctionality of our political process, now that the "No Compromise!" Brigade has come to town:



Or:

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, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

We have real problems, no one denies that. The reason we're in this particular situation now, however, is that the political process has been intentionally paralyzed by some of its more zealous participants and S&P no longer believes our political system is capable of working. It's a sobering assessment but its implications seem to have been lost on some.

Did you not watch the video in the OP. Yes he blamed it on gridlock but not on the GOP. He said the Ryan plan or the Simpson Bowles plan that DEMOCRATS rejected would have averted degrading our rating. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??

You're talking to a class A hack, that's why he can't follow... He is still trying to pin all of this on the minority the Tea Party who also didn't vote for the bill that passed... Meaning they could have passed anything they wanted.

It was all a big game, the last thing the Dems or Reps wanted was to shrink Government with cuts, so it didn't happen. They just didn't think they would be downgraded, and Obama was... Obama should have never put his name on that POS budget but he did so he owns it.