the text of S&Ps statement, they blame republicans

The Bush tax cuts will expire at some point,I bet that the Libs will not be satisfied with that alone and will demand more tax hikes.
 
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

See, this is how you make yourself look stupid. Taking one sentence and basing your whole argument on it.... so. not. smart.
 
Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.
 
Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the fuck does this country think they are??
 
Despite plenty of personal invective, nobody seems to have refuted the simple assertion that *one of* the reasons cited by the S&P for their downgrade was the refusal off congressional Republicans to raise revenue (yes, that means taxes here).

And it is true that tax cuts have a somewhat stimulative effect-- giving private citizens money will stimulate the economy. Just not very well. Plenty of studies have shown that cutting taxes for the rich is one of the worst possible ways to stimulate the economy-- government projects give a much greater bang for the buck.

Ultimately, our unsustainable deficits require austerity. Let's make sure as much of that burden as possible falls on those most able to bear it: the wealthy.
 
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating

If I were as hysterically partisan as TM, I would take this quote and assume that the blame rests with Obama and the largest debt in American history which he had a large part in creating.
 
Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the fuck does this country think they are??

But they got 98% of what tehy wanted remember?


No one is stupid enough to think the right compromised on this one.

Only the people who accept lies as part of their poltical tools will agree with your redicules crap here.

The S&P said it CLEAR AS DAY and here you are pretending black is white.
 
Despite plenty of personal invective, nobody seems to have refuted the simple assertion that *one of* the reasons cited by the S&P for their downgrade was the refusal off congressional Republicans to raise revenue (yes, that means taxes here).

And it is true that tax cuts have a somewhat stimulative effect-- giving private citizens money will stimulate the economy. Just not very well. Plenty of studies have shown that cutting taxes for the rich is one of the worst possible ways to stimulate the economy-- government projects give a much greater bang for the buck.

Ultimately, our unsustainable deficits require austerity. Let's make sure as much of that burden as possible falls on those most able to bear it: the wealthy.

"One of" wasn't what TM was asserting.

So, nice try to change the narrative. Only the dumbest of the dumb blame this shit solely on the Democrats or Republicans.

TM is one of the dumbest of the dumb.
 
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
 
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.



The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.



We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.

We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario-which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook-we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.







context of the plucked quote regarding revised base case scenario... >>>



Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

>>>


Our revised upside scenario-which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable-retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.




Our revised downside scenario-which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating-features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News
 
Last edited:
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

You want to "raise revenues" but not cut spending..

If you want "more revenue" then cut spending - you don't "just raise taxes."

Not to mention democrats have ZERO intent on paying debt off - that excess revenue would go right into the pockets of the democratic voting base (unions, public sector employees, those on welfare etc)..

There is not a goddamn thing democrats have done which leads me to believe they would payoff the debt with more "revenue."

Also, quit calling raising taxes "more revenue." Thats like saying: "its not global warming its climate change."

Who the fuck do you think you're fooling here?
 
This just in...I have obtained a photo of TM's glasses:
 

Attachments

  • $rose_colored_glasses1.jpg
    $rose_colored_glasses1.jpg
    6.2 KB · Views: 69
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

You can pretend they did not directly blame the republicans all you want.

no rational beings are going to buy your rationalization to protect your historically failed ideas
 
Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the fuck does this country think they are??

But they got 98% of what tehy wanted remember?


No one is stupid enough to think the right compromised on this one.

Only the people who accept lies as part of their poltical tools will agree with your redicules crap here.

The S&P said it CLEAR AS DAY and here you are pretending black is white.

Divided by 4 As that was the fourth attempt. Thanks for playing.
 
You can pretend they did not directly blame the republicans all you want.

no rational beings are going to buy your rationalization to protect your historically failed ideas

Yeah well...
You can pretend they only blame the republicans all you want.

no rational beings are going to buy your rationalization to protect your historically-filtered failed ideas
 
That is a quote, fire up some of those brain cells in between your ears.

Read the rest of what you posted. It seems to me that they spread the guilt across the board, even mentioning a failure to adequately cut back entitlements. You are so lacking in intellectual honesty that you can only repeat what your ventriloquist, Arianna Huffington pukes out, dummy!
 

Forum List

Back
Top