The Hill: S&P credit rating analysis values spending cuts more than tax revenue

[Neotrotsky]

LOL Stimulus OMUMBLE CARE.

HAVE ANOTHER GLASS. GRAPE OR CHERRY?

The stimulus passed because 3 GOP senators voted for it.

I would also bet you think that was overwhelmingly bipartisan too.

probably not

but in the liberals mind it proves they are not racist

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

ooo a blog....Sigh smart people dont need a silly little blog to tell people what to think. We have S&P's answer as to why they downgraded our rating.

Way to be a partisan hack.

no surprises....

fact: we need both spending cuts AND an increase in revenues.

and only loony rightwingnut ideologues think otherwise.

That is done by getting the economy cranked up, not increasing the tax burden.

But the dem solution was more regulation.

Please don't quote Jillian.. she's one of the biggest idiots here... most of us have it on ignore so as to not pollute the board with her own special brand of hateful and bigoted stupidity.

 

[Neotrotsky]

you too

I thought I was the only one

 

[Full-Auto]

The stimulus passed because 3 GOP senators voted for it.

I would also bet you think that was overwhelmingly bipartisan too.

No, I was just proving you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh so you practice mental masturbation.

I am not shocked.

 

[Full-Auto]

no surprises....

fact: we need both spending cuts AND an increase in revenues.

and only loony rightwingnut ideologues think otherwise.

That is done by getting the economy cranked up, not increasing the tax burden.

But the dem solution was more regulation.

Please don't quote Jillian.. she's one of the biggest idiots here... most of us have it on ignore so as to not pollute the board with her own special brand of hateful and bigoted stupidity.

She is an uptight bich. Your probably right. MY BAD

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama had two freakin years where the Republicans couldn't do anything to stop him.

Oh wait, we will just conveniently ignore that because it hurts Obama.

I'll ignore it because it's an outright lie.

Wait, Obama didn't have a Democrat Congress for two years? Are you high?

It's an outright lie that Obama had 2 years where the Republicans couldn't do anything to stop him.

 

[editec]

Solvent
because the baby boom, the largest segment of our population, was paying in and not collecting
well that has changed now

There is no real money there
just yellowing IOU's from a gov't that is broke

The Left really is bad with finance

Who ELSE besides social security admin owns Government debt, Neo?

Do you know?

Are they broke, too?

Because if SSA is broke because they have government bonds, then aren't the 401 K, insurance companies, banks, corporations whose books have government debt in the ASSET columns ALSO in trouble?

And if they're ALL in trouble, then isn't the entire economic system dubious?

I only ask because I'm trying to gauge just exactly how much you really understand about that debt and who will be in trouble if the FED stops paying it back.

WHO else, what other institutions, own that $12.6 trillion or so worth of government bonds?

Here: $14 Trillion in Debt, But Who Owns All That Money? - Yahoo! Finance

Now imagine what happened to the world economy if SSA doesn't get paid, and neither does any other creditor of the US government.

Do you think only social security recipients are going to get hurt?

All in trouble- yes
If the gov't continues as is and
the economy does not grow


Good question
At the rate we are going, where is all that money
the US gov't does not really have it

I guess it depends how much money the
Chinese are willing to give us

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY BACK, but rather that represents NEW ADDITONAL SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Social security is a CREDITOR to the USA, not a cost, but a REPAYMENT

The DoD is an EXPENSE.

So if we want to cut spending, we are not cutting spending when we change the social security system we are RERWRITING the terms of a prepaid INSURANCE plan. Essentially we are reneging on an agreement we made with workers.

When we cut REAL spending (like the Dod) THEN we are REALLY cutting spending.

Odd that so many Right wingers overlooks this obvious fact, isn't it?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'll ignore it because it's an outright lie.

Wait, Obama didn't have a Democrat Congress for two years? Are you high?

It's an outright lie that Obama had 2 years where the Republicans couldn't do anything to stop him.

Wow, you're either woefully stupid or just full-of-shit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who ELSE besides social security admin owns Government debt, Neo?

Do you know?

Are they broke, too?

Because if SSA is broke because they have government bonds, then aren't the 401 K, insurance companies, banks, corporations whose books have government debt in the ASSET columns ALSO in trouble?

And if they're ALL in trouble, then isn't the entire economic system dubious?

I only ask because I'm trying to gauge just exactly how much you really understand about that debt and who will be in trouble if the FED stops paying it back.

WHO else, what other institutions, own that $12.6 trillion or so worth of government bonds?

Here: $14 Trillion in Debt, But Who Owns All That Money? - Yahoo! Finance

Now imagine what happened to the world economy if SSA doesn't get paid, and neither does any other creditor of the US government.

Do you think only social security recipients are going to get hurt?

All in trouble- yes
If the gov't continues as is and
the economy does not grow


Good question
At the rate we are going, where is all that money
the US gov't does not really have it

I guess it depends how much money the
Chinese are willing to give us

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY CACK, but rather NEW SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Calm the fuck down... it's over. The grand Progressive Experiment is doing a crash and burn. EPIC FAIL.

 

[tinydancer]

I'm reading liberal posts and just going wow, just freaking wow.

Libs have you completely lost your minds? I've put up direct quotes by David Beers from S&P stating it is the DEBT. And what do the Dems do? They call S&P amateurs.

YIKES!!!

Even China is saying America's borrowing days are over.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who ELSE besides social security admin owns Government debt, Neo?

Do you know?

Are they broke, too?

Because if SSA is broke because they have government bonds, then aren't the 401 K, insurance companies, banks, corporations whose books have government debt in the ASSET columns ALSO in trouble?

And if they're ALL in trouble, then isn't the entire economic system dubious?

I only ask because I'm trying to gauge just exactly how much you really understand about that debt and who will be in trouble if the FED stops paying it back.

WHO else, what other institutions, own that $12.6 trillion or so worth of government bonds?

Here: $14 Trillion in Debt, But Who Owns All That Money? - Yahoo! Finance

Now imagine what happened to the world economy if SSA doesn't get paid, and neither does any other creditor of the US government.

Do you think only social security recipients are going to get hurt?

All in trouble- yes
If the gov't continues as is and
the economy does not grow


Good question
At the rate we are going, where is all that money
the US gov't does not really have it

I guess it depends how much money the
Chinese are willing to give us

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY BACK, but rather that represents NEW ADDITONAL SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Social security is a CREDITOR to the USA, not a cost, but a REPAYMENT

The DoD is an EXPENSE.

So if we want to cut spending, we are not cutting spending when we change the social security system we are RERWRITING the terms of a prepaid INSURANCE plan. Essentially we are reneging on an agreement we made with workers.

When we cut REAL spending (like the Dod) THEN we are REALLY cutting spending.

Odd that so many Right wingers overlooks this obvious fact, isn't it?

The DOD only takes up 16 % of manditory spending.

Btw, what other purpose was the federal govt for?

It wasn't to make sure kids have a constant supply of needles, cellphones, and rubbers.

Something to do with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is the primary reason we have a federal govt.

 

[tinydancer]

When China and Russia and S&P agree with the Tea Partiers that makes the Dems totally delusional.

China tells U.S. ‘good old days’ of borrowing are over

NEW YORK/SHANGHAI – China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower’s credit rating was downgraded, saying the “good old days” of borrowing were over.

Standard & Poor’s cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation’s budget deficits and climbing debt burden.

China — the United States’ biggest creditor — said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

“The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,” China’s official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

China tells U.S. ‘good old days’ of borrowing are over | Economy | Financial Post

 

[Neotrotsky]

Who ELSE besides social security admin owns Government debt, Neo?

Do you know?

Are they broke, too?

Because if SSA is broke because they have government bonds, then aren't the 401 K, insurance companies, banks, corporations whose books have government debt in the ASSET columns ALSO in trouble?

And if they're ALL in trouble, then isn't the entire economic system dubious?

I only ask because I'm trying to gauge just exactly how much you really understand about that debt and who will be in trouble if the FED stops paying it back.

WHO else, what other institutions, own that $12.6 trillion or so worth of government bonds?

Here: $14 Trillion in Debt, But Who Owns All That Money? - Yahoo! Finance

Now imagine what happened to the world economy if SSA doesn't get paid, and neither does any other creditor of the US government.

Do you think only social security recipients are going to get hurt?

All in trouble- yes
If the gov't continues as is and
the economy does not grow


Good question
At the rate we are going, where is all that money
the US gov't does not really have it

I guess it depends how much money the
Chinese are willing to give us

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY BACK, but rather that represents NEW ADDITONAL SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Social security is a CREDITOR to the USA, not a cost, but a REPAYMENT

The DoD is an EXPENSE.

So if we want to cut spending, we are not cutting spending when we change the social security system we are RERWRITING the terms of a prepaid INSURANCE plan. Essentially we are reneging on an agreement we made with workers.

When we cut REAL spending (like the Dod) THEN we are REALLY cutting spending.

Odd that so many Right wingers overlooks this obvious fact, isn't it?

You sound just like Barney Frank
Must have got your "marching orders" today


Frank Blames Military

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee says the biggest reason the United States is seeing its credit downgraded is that it spends too much money being "the military policemen of the world."

Rep. Barney Frank tells CBS's "The Early Show" that reining in defense spending is "going to be my mantra" for the next few months.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

All in trouble- yes
If the gov't continues as is and
the economy does not grow


Good question
At the rate we are going, where is all that money
the US gov't does not really have it

I guess it depends how much money the
Chinese are willing to give us

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY BACK, but rather that represents NEW ADDITONAL SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Social security is a CREDITOR to the USA, not a cost, but a REPAYMENT

The DoD is an EXPENSE.

So if we want to cut spending, we are not cutting spending when we change the social security system we are RERWRITING the terms of a prepaid INSURANCE plan. Essentially we are reneging on an agreement we made with workers.

When we cut REAL spending (like the Dod) THEN we are REALLY cutting spending.

Odd that so many Right wingers overlooks this obvious fact, isn't it?

The DOD only takes up 16 % of manditory spending.

Btw, what other purpose was the federal govt for?

It wasn't to make sure kids have a constant supply of needles, cellphones, and rubbers.

Something to do with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is the primary reason we have a federal govt.

See, this is the classic Republican stance. We'll cut the budget as long as you don't touch our sacred cows, the big cow being defense.

Defense needs to cut in half over time, and its past debts paid for with higher taxes. Let people feel the cost of unnecessary wars and the cost of the power of the defense lobby.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wait, Obama didn't have a Democrat Congress for two years? Are you high?

It's an outright lie that Obama had 2 years where the Republicans couldn't do anything to stop him.

Wow, you're either woefully stupid or just full-of-shit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

To prove you're ignorant with just one example:

If Obama had 2 years where the Republicans couldn't do anything to stop him,

how is it that dozens and dozens of his appointments have been blocked in the Senate?

(wait for the song and dance folks...)

 

[rightwinger]

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY BACK, but rather that represents NEW ADDITONAL SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Social security is a CREDITOR to the USA, not a cost, but a REPAYMENT

The DoD is an EXPENSE.

So if we want to cut spending, we are not cutting spending when we change the social security system we are RERWRITING the terms of a prepaid INSURANCE plan. Essentially we are reneging on an agreement we made with workers.

When we cut REAL spending (like the Dod) THEN we are REALLY cutting spending.

Odd that so many Right wingers overlooks this obvious fact, isn't it?

The DOD only takes up 16 % of manditory spending.

Btw, what other purpose was the federal govt for?

It wasn't to make sure kids have a constant supply of needles, cellphones, and rubbers.

Something to do with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is the primary reason we have a federal govt.

See, this is the classic Republican stance. We'll cut the budget as long as you don't touch our sacred cows, the big cow being defense.

Defense needs to cut in half over time, and its past debts paid for with higher taxes. Let people feel the cost of unnecessary wars and the cost of the power of the defense lobby.

At a time we are still engaged in two wars it is time to acknowledge that we need to terminate thes almost ten year engagements before we start telling Americans that they will have to do without

Long term, we need to reassess our global role and start requiring that Europe, Japan and Korea take a larger role

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But you DO see my point here, right?

the Right often speak about social security as though the people who paid into it, are at fault for expecting TO BE PAID BACK for their lifetimes worth of contributions. Some of these ninciompoops suggest that social security recipients are taking WELFARE instead of acknowldging that those people are CREDITORS to the USA.

Yet I never EVER hear anyone complaining that their 401Ks and Whole LIFE insurance policies and corporations in which they own stock are ALSO expecting to be paid.

Its this catagorical CREDITOR BLINDNESS that I find disturbing about these right wing cranks.


How much money has the DoD LENT to this nation?

Not one red cent.

But the boys in unidform are not accused of being on WELFARE, are they?

And every cent of the DOD that is in the budget represents NOT PAYING ANYBODY BACK, but rather that represents NEW ADDITONAL SPENDING.

Odd how often that fact is overlooked, don't you think?

Social security is a CREDITOR to the USA, not a cost, but a REPAYMENT

The DoD is an EXPENSE.

So if we want to cut spending, we are not cutting spending when we change the social security system we are RERWRITING the terms of a prepaid INSURANCE plan. Essentially we are reneging on an agreement we made with workers.

When we cut REAL spending (like the Dod) THEN we are REALLY cutting spending.

Odd that so many Right wingers overlooks this obvious fact, isn't it?

The DOD only takes up 16 % of manditory spending.

Btw, what other purpose was the federal govt for?

It wasn't to make sure kids have a constant supply of needles, cellphones, and rubbers.

Something to do with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is the primary reason we have a federal govt.

See, this is the classic Republican stance. We'll cut the budget as long as you don't touch our sacred cows, the big cow being defense.

Defense needs to cut in half over time, and its past debts paid for with higher taxes. Let people feel the cost of unnecessary wars and the cost of the power of the defense lobby.

See, this is the classic Tax 'n Spend liberal stance... "Tax the Rich"

Newsflash: If you taxed everybody making $250,000+ a year at 100% you'd net roughly $900,000,000,000.

You need new schtick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you called him a liar
on the statement

no proof

why does that not surprise anyone

Well, well, well, look what Eric Cantor said TODAY:

Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S&P’s analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong,” Cantor wrote. “In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases. We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.”

So, when I said Cantor was probably lying when he claimed that they were willing to compromise on taxes vs. Obamacare...

...well looks like I was right. Either Cantor was lying or you were lying about what he said.

Neither case would surprise me.

In wake of S&P decision and as markets tumble, party leaders double down - 2chambers - The Washington Post

 

[NYcarbineer]

The DOD only takes up 16 % of manditory spending.

Btw, what other purpose was the federal govt for?

It wasn't to make sure kids have a constant supply of needles, cellphones, and rubbers.

Something to do with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is the primary reason we have a federal govt.

See, this is the classic Republican stance. We'll cut the budget as long as you don't touch our sacred cows, the big cow being defense.

Defense needs to cut in half over time, and its past debts paid for with higher taxes. Let people feel the cost of unnecessary wars and the cost of the power of the defense lobby.

See, this is the classic Tax 'n Spend liberal stance... "Tax the Rich"

Newsflash: If you taxed everybody making $250,000+ a year at 100% you'd net roughly $900,000,000,000.

You need new schtick.

How about we tax 1/10th of that and get 90 billion a year, that might at least pay for one of the wars.

 

[Neotrotsky]

How about we just take the next step

S&P downgrade marks extinction for 19th-20th century progressivism