Do you people not realize that both political parties are at fault?

[auditor0007]

This back and forth blame game over the credit rating downgrade is just ridiculous. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all to blame. All Washington did was play the same "kick the can" bullshit that got us into this mess and now they point fingers at each other. Entitlements have to be reformed, revenue has to increase, tax loopholes need to be closed and everyone in DC knows this. But no one has the guts to take on their own side and fix it.

This board reflects the stupidity that takes place in Washington. The dozens of tit for tat threads are pointless. If we would have defaulted our credit rating would have been downgraded by everyone and the economy would sink even further. If we don't reform SS and Medicare we will sink even further. None of our political leaders are willing to do the hard work, they all just want to get reelected. I'm disgusted by the weakness of our "leaders" to fail to put America before Republican Party, Democratic Party or reelection.

**** them all!

What needs to be done is simple, vote all of them out and bring in new blood. And you would think this would be quite simple with Congress having an approval rating of a whopping 20% or so. But as usual, when discussing Congress, voters always blame Congress as a whole but excuse their own representatives. This is why Congress could have a 10% approval rating and still see a 90% re-election rate.

 

[McDowell's]

Actually Obama IS a scapegoat, even though he is a coward who should have called what the Teapublicans did extortion, which it was.

Obama and the Democrats DID put the debt on a manageable course. BUT, the Teapublicans want to undermine it to protect the rich from even mild tax increases. The CBO report makes it clear...CRYSTAL

First, let's HEAR what S&P said to explain the downgrade:

Some excerpts from the release:

[...]The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

[...]It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

[...]The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

[...]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.

Standard & Poors indicates that they could improve their rating for the U.S. if “the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.”ref
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT S&P is saying is that the CBO's debt projection has now taken the path of the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, which is extending the Bush tax cuts, repeal or undermining of the cost cutting measures in the Affordable Healthcare Act and more Republican corporate ass licking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBO’s Analysis

The Extended-Baseline Scenario. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario. The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates very different assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP.

This scenario also reflects the assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue after 2021. In addition, the alternative scenario includes an assumption that spending on activities other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on the debt will not fall quite as low as under the extended-baseline scenario.

With significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt held by the public would grow much more rapidly than under the extended-baseline scenario, reaching levels far above any ever experienced in U.S. history.

The same press release you cherry picked from also says:

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.

S&P could give two ***** less about whether the deficit is reduced through spending cuts or increased tax revenues. The bottom line is that the deficit was not reduced by an amount that S&P deemed necessary.

A partisan hack on the other side could just as easily cherry pick all the portions of the release that mention the inability of our government to make hard decisions on controlling entitlement spending.

Wrong:

"On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with
other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'."

Take the games somewhere else.

Your section in no way invalidates that S&P themselves explicitly said they do not have a preferential position on taxes or spending cuts. The bottom line for them is the amount of the deficit and the associated debt. Reread what I quoted, you cannot spin that. THEY TAKE NO POSITION on the underlying policy. Even in your quote, they use the expiration of the tax cuts as ONE possible example. They do not say that is the ONLY way.

 

[auditor0007]

You are right both sides have done things that were not helpful.

The side whos platform reflects the ideas that were the major cause is the republican party though.

Here is the bottom line. Since 2000, spending has increased by 25%, and revenues have dropped by 30%. It is almost equal and must be addressed as so. On the spending side, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. On the revenue side, while the Republicans take the initial blame, Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts and even added some more.

That being said, it is only the Democrats who have promoted both spending cuts and tax increases. The biggest problem with the Dems is actually getting them to agree to cut anything. With the Republicans, it's getting them to compromise on what should be cut. The bottom line is that nobody can convince me that there is more than a handful of politicians in Washington that give a rats ass about the average American. They are all too worried about whether or not they will be re-elected next time around. I guess the job really must be that good.

 

[Salt Jones]

Both parties are responsible for creating the debt.

ONE PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOCKING THE ONLY PLAN THAT COULD HAVE CORRECTED IT.

What is the only plan that would have corrected it?

 

[auditor0007]

Both parties are responsible for creating the debt.

ONE PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOCKING THE ONLY PLAN THAT COULD HAVE CORRECTED IT.

You must be talking about Obama's plan that included approximately $3 trillion in spending cuts and approximately $1 trillion worth of increases in revenue.

 

[Zander]

This back and forth blame game over the credit rating downgrade is just ridiculous. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all to blame. All Washington did was play the same "kick the can" bullshit that got us into this mess and now they point fingers at each other. Entitlements have to be reformed, revenue has to increase, tax loopholes need to be closed and everyone in DC knows this. But no one has the guts to take on their own side and fix it.

This board reflects the stupidity that takes place in Washington. The dozens of tit for tat threads are pointless. If we would have defaulted our credit rating would have been downgraded by everyone and the economy would sink even further. If we don't reform SS and Medicare we will sink even further. None of our political leaders are willing to do the hard work, they all just want to get reelected. I'm disgusted by the weakness of our "leaders" to fail to put America before Republican Party, Democratic Party or reelection.

**** them all!

Thank you, OldSalt.
This will be the only thread on this topic that I'll subscribe to.
I was just browsing through and thinking the same thing that you've pointed out.

Neither party can take the high road in this clusterfuck.

There aren't enough cuts and there isn't enough revenue.

At the risk of sounding like a TPer or Beck-head, the majority of our legislative branch *still* don't comprehend that they're there to serve US.

Both parties have only served their own best interests in attempting to cover their own asses for the next election.
Obama stood in front of America and flat-out stated that his main objective was to "get us through the next election".

Nevermind that we're risking losing our status as a world leader in every category except consumption and what we can do to turn that around. Just as long as we get past November 2012? WTF is that about?
Then it's not his problem?




Great thread, OS

If Obama loses in 2012, do you think Republicans will right the economic ship with their cuts only approach?

We don't need spending cuts or tax increases. Freeze spending and tax rates at 2011 levels for 5 years and you have a surplus by 2016.

When these douchebags in DC talk about spending "cuts" they are talking about cuts in the rate of growth of spending- not actual cuts. Only in DC is a spending increase a "cut" in spending. It's has become it's very own bizzaro world......

 

[Salt Jones]

The tea party house republicans did hold the country hostage, McConnell admitted it. They claimed that default wouldn't be bad and now claim that Obama is at fault for destroying the credit worthiness of America. What do they thing default or partial shutdown with no debt bill would have done?

For no less than the last decade, McConnell has been (correctly) derided as one of the biggest GOP party man douchebagge tools in the Senate...Now he suddenly has credibility with the left?

As failure to realize marches on.....

His credibility is that he spoke the truth about the house members he, as republican leadership, was dealing with. Are his criticisms of Obama also not factual?

 

[Annie]

You are right both sides have done things that were not helpful.

The side whos platform reflects the ideas that were the major cause is the republican party though.

Here is the bottom line. Since 2000, spending has increased by 25%, and revenues have dropped by 30%. It is almost equal and must be addressed as so. On the spending side, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. On the revenue side, while the Republicans take the initial blame, Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts and even added some more.

That being said, it is only the Democrats who have promoted both spending cuts and tax increases. The biggest problem with the Dems is actually getting them to agree to cut anything. With the Republicans, it's getting them to compromise on what should be cut. The bottom line is that nobody can convince me that there is more than a handful of politicians in Washington that give a rats ass about the average American. They are all too worried about whether or not they will be re-elected next time around. I guess the job really must be that good.

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

 

[Salt Jones]

You are right both sides have done things that were not helpful.

The side whos platform reflects the ideas that were the major cause is the republican party though.

Here is the bottom line. Since 2000, spending has increased by 25%, and revenues have dropped by 30%. It is almost equal and must be addressed as so. On the spending side, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. On the revenue side, while the Republicans take the initial blame, Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts and even added some more.

That being said, it is only the Democrats who have promoted both spending cuts and tax increases. The biggest problem with the Dems is actually getting them to agree to cut anything. With the Republicans, it's getting them to compromise on what should be cut. The bottom line is that nobody can convince me that there is more than a handful of politicians in Washington that give a rats ass about the average American. They are all too worried about whether or not they will be re-elected next time around. I guess the job really must be that good.

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

 

[Oddball]

The tea party house republicans did hold the country hostage, McConnell admitted it. They claimed that default wouldn't be bad and now claim that Obama is at fault for destroying the credit worthiness of America. What do they thing default or partial shutdown with no debt bill would have done?

For no less than the last decade, McConnell has been (correctly) derided as one of the biggest GOP party man douchebagge tools in the Senate...Now he suddenly has credibility with the left?

As failure to realize marches on.....

His credibility is that he spoke the truth about the house members he, as republican leadership, was dealing with. Are his criticisms of Obama also not factual?

So, he throws a bone to the media Gomers committed to maintaining the façade and you fall for it?...Are you really that gullible?

McConnell a ruling class insider tool and has been for quite some time...Little wonder he'd throw those making difficult his cushy life as a facilitator and enabler of the socialistic welfare state overboard.

 

[McDowell's]

Here is the bottom line. Since 2000, spending has increased by 25%, and revenues have dropped by 30%. It is almost equal and must be addressed as so. On the spending side, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. On the revenue side, while the Republicans take the initial blame, Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts and even added some more.

That being said, it is only the Democrats who have promoted both spending cuts and tax increases. The biggest problem with the Dems is actually getting them to agree to cut anything. With the Republicans, it's getting them to compromise on what should be cut. The bottom line is that nobody can convince me that there is more than a handful of politicians in Washington that give a rats ass about the average American. They are all too worried about whether or not they will be re-elected next time around. I guess the job really must be that good.

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

A "clean" debt ceiling increase would have meant no reduction in spending and no tax increases whatsoever - the worst of all worlds in regards to the credit rating.

 

[hortysir]

Thank you, OldSalt.
This will be the only thread on this topic that I'll subscribe to.
I was just browsing through and thinking the same thing that you've pointed out.

Neither party can take the high road in this clusterfuck.

There aren't enough cuts and there isn't enough revenue.

At the risk of sounding like a TPer or Beck-head, the majority of our legislative branch *still* don't comprehend that they're there to serve US.

Both parties have only served their own best interests in attempting to cover their own asses for the next election.
Obama stood in front of America and flat-out stated that his main objective was to "get us through the next election".

Nevermind that we're risking losing our status as a world leader in every category except consumption and what we can do to turn that around. Just as long as we get past November 2012? WTF is that about?
Then it's not his problem?




Great thread, OS

If Obama loses in 2012, do you think Republicans will right the economic ship with their cuts only approach?

We don't need spending cuts or tax increases. Freeze spending and tax rates at 2011 levels for 5 years and you have a surplus by 2016.

When these douchebags in DC talk about spending "cuts" they are talking about cuts in the rate of growth of spending- not actual cuts. Only in DC is a spending increase a "cut" in spending. It's has become it's very own bizzaro world......

Bolded portion will never happen, though.
Ya can't get these crackheads to put down the pipe

And I totally agree with the definition of "cuts".

 

[Salt Jones]

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

A "clean" debt ceiling increase would have meant no reduction in spending and no tax increases whatsoever - the worst of all worlds in regards to the credit rating.

Not if they would have passed it, then vowed to work together to cut the debt. Since the downgrade was over the contentious political nature of the debt debate. I don't think this downgrade will make any politician in Washington "see the light", it's already the typical blame game.

 

[Annie]

Here is the bottom line. Since 2000, spending has increased by 25%, and revenues have dropped by 30%. It is almost equal and must be addressed as so. On the spending side, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. On the revenue side, while the Republicans take the initial blame, Obama and the Dems extended the Bush tax cuts and even added some more.

That being said, it is only the Democrats who have promoted both spending cuts and tax increases. The biggest problem with the Dems is actually getting them to agree to cut anything. With the Republicans, it's getting them to compromise on what should be cut. The bottom line is that nobody can convince me that there is more than a handful of politicians in Washington that give a rats ass about the average American. They are all too worried about whether or not they will be re-elected next time around. I guess the job really must be that good.

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

I'll try again, regarding the debt, why didn't he take the Simpson Plan, which he had ordered to come up with proposals. Indeed, it was well reviewed by the rating companies, had some support on left and right-you know, the beginning of actual compromise possibilities? $4T in 10 year of reductions. A deal that could have been finished in winter. But he never did, he tossed the problem to Biden and legislators, bringing us to the past 2 weeks.

He does own this problem.

 

[Salt Jones]

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

I'll try again, regarding the debt, why didn't he take the Simpson Plan, which he had ordered to come up with proposals. Indeed, it was well reviewed by the rating companies, had some support on left and right-you know, the beginning of actual compromise possibilities? $4T in 10 year of reductions. A deal that could have been finished in winter. But he never did, he tossed the problem to Biden and legislators, bringing us to the past 2 weeks.

He does own this problem.

Because the left wouldn't have voted for it nor the right and we would be in the same boat we are today. He thought the right wouldn't stick to their no tax plan at the expense of the country. He was foolish to believe in them. Bowles-Simpson didn't even get the 14 votes needed to send it to congress. Why didn't the bipartisan commission get the required votes?

Answer: No one wants to fix the problem, they just want to score points.

 

[Annie]

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

I'll try again, regarding the debt, why didn't he take the Simpson Plan, which he had ordered to come up with proposals. Indeed, it was well reviewed by the rating companies, had some support on left and right-you know, the beginning of actual compromise possibilities? $4T in 10 year of reductions. A deal that could have been finished in winter. But he never did, he tossed the problem to Biden and legislators, bringing us to the past 2 weeks.

He does own this problem.

Because the left wouldn't have voted for it nor the right and we would be in the same boat we are today. He thought the right wouldn't stick to their no tax plan at the expense of the country. He was foolish to believe in them. Bowles-Simpson didn't even get the 14 votes needed to send it to congress. Why didn't the bipartisan commission get the required votes?

Answer: No one wants to fix the problem, they just want to score points.

So, the President and the legislators of his party believed that if they waited long enough, they'd get their way. Got it.

They didn't want to be serious, they didn't want to compromise, they just assumed that the other side would cave. When they didn't? Oh yeah, called 'uncompromising terrorists.'

People aren't buying it. Indeed, Paul Ryan's plan also cut 4T over decade. One or both could have been the base of compromises, but that never was in the cards.

 

[WillowTree]

This back and forth blame game over the credit rating downgrade is just ridiculous. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama are all to blame. All Washington did was play the same "kick the can" bullshit that got us into this mess and now they point fingers at each other. Entitlements have to be reformed, revenue has to increase, tax loopholes need to be closed and everyone in DC knows this. But no one has the guts to take on their own side and fix it.

This board reflects the stupidity that takes place in Washington. The dozens of tit for tat threads are pointless. If we would have defaulted our credit rating would have been downgraded by everyone and the economy would sink even further. If we don't reform SS and Medicare we will sink even further. None of our political leaders are willing to do the hard work, they all just want to get reelected. I'm disgusted by the weakness of our "leaders" to fail to put America before Republican Party, Democratic Party or reelection.

**** them all!

.then why did you call the Tea Party terrorists? hostage takers, extremists? you lying forked tongued snake in the grass? suck it up, it's too late, the economy is in the shitter, we have been downgraded and all your bullshit attempts to blame it on President Bush and the Tea Party backfired.. so suck it up asshole.

 

[McDowell's]

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

A "clean" debt ceiling increase would have meant no reduction in spending and no tax increases whatsoever - the worst of all worlds in regards to the credit rating.

Not if they would have passed it, then vowed to work together to cut the debt. Since the downgrade was over the contentious political nature of the debt debate. I don't think this downgrade will make any politician in Washington "see the light", it's already the typical blame game.

Wtf are you talking about? By passing a clean debt ceiling increase NOTHING would have happened to reduce the deficit. S&P is not your typical, ignoramous voter. They can not be bought off by promises in the long run, there has to be ACTUAL policy put in place. A clean debt ceiling increase would have been 100% assured to cause a downgrade. The rating agencies have already been postponing a downgrade at the request of the administration because they've been promising to tackle the deficit/debt issue. More promises would not have sufficed - no matter how pleasant the discourse.

 

[Si modo]

Normally, I would believe that. But, when one party clearly tried to stop a runaway train from being the wreck that it is rather than just a derailment, NO. I do not agree.

Absolutely not.

 

[Bfgrn]

So why didn't Obama take the Simpson plan and make it the basis for his own plan? Because he wanted only tax increases and to continue the spending spree. He seemed to have thought by holding out until the ceiling had to be raised, he'd get his way. That didn't work out so well.

He wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase as had been done for decades. How are republicans going to reverse this with a cuts only approach?

I'll try again, regarding the debt, why didn't he take the Simpson Plan, which he had ordered to come up with proposals. Indeed, it was well reviewed by the rating companies, had some support on left and right-you know, the beginning of actual compromise possibilities? $4T in 10 year of reductions. A deal that could have been finished in winter. But he never did, he tossed the problem to Biden and legislators, bringing us to the past 2 weeks.

He does own this problem.

Hey Annie...I guess you just 'forgot'

S&P explains the downgrade:

[...]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.

______________________________________________________________________

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More