the text of S&Ps statement, they blame republicans

They said clearly that we need to raise taxes too.

Everyone with a brain and No religious devotoion to Norquist knows just cuts wont do it.

We have to bring in more money and cut.

We have been cutting and cutting.

Now we need to raise taxes to fix this mess.

Pretending we can fix it and not raise taxes is what the S&P said they made their decision on.

Show us where they said "raise taxes."

There are many ways to raise revenues and more taxes *can* be 1 way but realistically it does not always work that way. Capital gains taxes being raised gets the Government less taxes. That’s like concluding that because they said we needed more spending cuts to get our spending under control if I said “See, S&P *clearly* said we need to end the department of education.” While ending the DOE is a good idea reality is they didn’t give a specific and I would have to of lied, just like you did…

So fact, per your OP S&P did not say we needed more taxes, they said we needed more revenues and the Bill Republicans were involved in was destructive to the economy, killing revenues.

TM you can spin it all you like but you have literally put works in their mouth, nothing more.


Do you ever get tired of getting owned so hard TM? Hey, do you like my sig by chance?
 
"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."
 
"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."

Do you think repeating a lie helps your argument.

There was 800 billion offered, then you guys moved the goal posts.
 
"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

WTF are you even talking about... you say "your failed ideas" like we have had our personal ideas turned into policies... Even if you mean to lump everyone in a group with let’s say Bush, you support Obama who has repealed zero Bush policies and expanded on some of the worse Bush policies and your more Obama cock hungry than most...

You're so fun to watch get schooled TM lol.
 
Your ideas have been proven failures by history.

Tax cuts do not provide stimulus.

Deregulation done for dereulations sake causes messes.

The wealthy are not the most important people in a society
 
"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."

Do you think repeating a lie helps your argument.

There was 800 billion offered, then you guys moved the goal posts.

This is a direct quote from S&P
 
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.
Just why should the wealthy pay more than the non wealthy.

Please reread Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 
Because they have more money.


They have benifited the most from our infrastructure.
 
Both sides are to blame. That's what the downgrade said and that's what Americans believe.
 
"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."

Look! You can coppy and paste that quote another 31,000 times if you like. That won't make it the sole reason for the downgrade. Do you understand?
 
You called a direct quote a lie.

are you now trying to spin that?
 
"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."

Look! You can coppy and paste that quote another 31,000 times if you like. That won't make it the sole reason for the downgrade. Do you understand?

"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 called a direct quote a lie.

are you now trying to spin that?

Try to pay attention.


Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
"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."
Do you think repeating a lie helps your argument.

There was 800 billion offered, then you guys moved the goal posts.
 
S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

13th paragraph

"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."

What disingenuous bullshit...and you know it! First, you do realize that if we raised tax RATES, tax REVENUES would likely fall...but that's a side point to your full of shit suggestion. Namely, that we were downgraded because we've not raised tax rates.

Yes, you've quoted a sentence from the 13th paragraph but how about the bullet points from the OVERVIEW section of the report...the first part that tells us why they did what they did. Let's have a look:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics
.

• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics
any
time soon.

• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case
.

In addition, the report makes it clear that S&P takes no position on HOW we reduce the debt...as someone else has already posted.

Bottom line, your OP is full of shit.
 
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."

Do you think repeating a lie helps your argument.

There was 800 billion offered, then you guys moved the goal posts.

Liberal logic says that if you repeat the lie often enough, it becomes the truth
 
Here is the entire paragraph
They down graded us because keeping the Bush tax cuts will cause a deficit in their calculations.






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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top