Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?

[Big Fitz]

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. - S&P Analysis


Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt.

No, its not just the Tea Party, though they are part of it. It is because of the intractability of the entire political process, of which the Tea Party are a part.

S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices.

True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.

We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.

 

[Sentinel]

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. - S&P Analysis


Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt.

No, its not just the Tea Party, though they are part of it. It is because of the intractability of the entire political process, of which the Tea Party are a part.

S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices.

I agree, I got from the article that S&P wanted to see both spending cuts and revenue increases and they believe that the rancor between the two parties is only going to get worse and the problem will not be solved.
The closer to the election we get the less likely any kind of common ground will be met.

 

[Chris]

No, its not just the Tea Party, though they are part of it. It is because of the intractability of the entire political process, of which the Tea Party are a part.

S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices.

True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.

We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.

Same old bullshit different day.

The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem.

Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke.

You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.

Both, actually – the budget can’t be balanced on cuts alone.

You mean the same group that did not complain about Bush spending?

Spending was OK then – spending only became bad 1/20/2009 at Noon EST.

 

[Big Fitz]

True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.

We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.

Same old bullshit different day.

The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem.

Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke.

You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?

and it kept us from going into a depression post 9/11. Of course we won't pay attention to that. How about some of W's poor job growth numbers now? You want any of them?

But you're right. You can't maintain the military with global power projection and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Let's cut the ones not in the constitution: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Oh wait... not the answer you were looking for was it. Hey, I'll even compromise, we'll pull all our foreign bases, and put the troops on our southern boarder and start shooting at the mexican military which we armed as they escort drug cartel shipments into the nation! Sound like a fair solution?

 

[The Rabbi]

True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.

We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.

Same old bullshit different day.

The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem.

Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke.

You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?

Care to compare Bush's record on the economy to Obama's? I'll bet Obama doesn't.

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.

Same old bullshit different day.

The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem.

Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke.

You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?

and it kept us from going into a depression post 9/11. Of course we won't pay attention to that. How about some of W's poor job growth numbers now? You want any of them?

But you're right. You can't maintain the military with global power projection and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Let's cut the ones not in the constitution: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Oh wait... not the answer you were looking for was it. Hey, I'll even compromise, we'll pull all our foreign bases, and put the troops on our southern boarder and start shooting at the mexican military which we armed as they escort drug cartel shipments into the nation! Sound like a fair solution?

I have paid into Social Security for FORTY YEARS, SO FUCK YOU.

No, all we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and cut back our bloated military.

That's what Clinton did and he balanced the budget and had a strong economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Too bad the chart wasn't extended so you saw Bush's administration prior to the recession.
Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed. This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs.

 

[Chris]

Too bad the chart wasn't extended so you saw Bush's administration prior to the recession.
Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed. This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs.

Bush destroyed the economy and doubled the National Debt.

Obama saved us from another Great Depression.

 

[The Rabbi]

Too bad the chart wasn't extended so you saw Bush's administration prior to the recession.
Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed. This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs.

Bush destroyed the economy and doubled the National Debt.

Obama saved us from another Great Depression.

The peak of Obama's economy was the day he was sworn in. It has been downhill from there.

Nine percent+ unemployment, massive Federal deficits, failed economic policies, and now a credit downgrade for the first time since 1941.
Yes, Obama has saved us. Right.

 

[Big Fitz]

Same old bullshit different day.

The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem.

Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke.

You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?

and it kept us from going into a depression post 9/11. Of course we won't pay attention to that. How about some of W's poor job growth numbers now? You want any of them?

But you're right. You can't maintain the military with global power projection and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Let's cut the ones not in the constitution: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Oh wait... not the answer you were looking for was it. Hey, I'll even compromise, we'll pull all our foreign bases, and put the troops on our southern boarder and start shooting at the mexican military which we armed as they escort drug cartel shipments into the nation! Sound like a fair solution?

I have paid into Social Security for FORTY YEARS, SO FUCK YOU.

No, all we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and cut back our bloated military.

That's what Clinton did and he balanced the budget and had a strong economy.

Oh pardon me smart guy. Clinton did not balance the budget, he took credit for it. He gave in to Gingrich and played games with the accounting numbers, taking credit for it all. In that he was smart. He was also riding the Internet bubble that was causing MASSIVE paper profits, and slashed the military, forcing W and Rumsfeld to build it back to functional status after a culture of murder killed over 2000 innocent civilians. You may have heard of it... made some papers.

Currently the military accounts for about 30% of our budget, over 70% is social spending with most of that being in ponzi schemes and corruption filled rackets like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. At least the Military is a constitutionally mandated expense of the federal government. The others aren't. And you can shove the 'good and plenty' clause up your ass sideways. That is a deliberate distortion of the clause for fascist designs on this nation.

I'm fine with cutting most foreign military aid and bases. I'm also for implementing the Ryan Plan, so you can have your precious little check you think you're owed. At least then those of use who are going to be fucked when it's time for us to collect our check, thanks to your greed, will get some way to keep what is ours in this mess.

I'm for the abolition of All Great Society medical programs plus most social programs and returning the whole industry to the private market and direct first person payments. People who earn the money are the ones best qualified and most careful in spending it. Third parties don't give a ratfuck and waste becomes endemic, causing price inflation and other corruption that is now common today in the industry. If you could price shop around for your medicine and procedures, you'd get a much better deal. Simple fact of economics.

Do that and you will not only castrate big government and big spending, you will return freedom and wealth to the people taking a large bite out of poverty by growing the private sector by decreasing the footprint and involvement of government waste.

So, fuck you, the ass you rode in on, and have one for the road, Range Rider.

 

[Big Fitz]

Too bad the chart wasn't extended so you saw Bush's administration prior to the recession.
Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed. This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs.

Bush destroyed the economy and doubled the National Debt.

Obama saved us from another Great Depression.

And Obama doubled W's overspending in one year. And yet you are painfully silent on how bad that is, by blaming Bush.

Tell me, was W's problem all because of Clinton? No? Huh... then what makes you think you can get away saying it's BOoooooOOoooOOOOOsh's fault?

 

[Flopper]

No, its not just the Tea Party, though they are part of it. It is because of the intractability of the entire political process, of which the Tea Party are a part.

S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics. They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices. They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices.

True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.

We don't NEED to increase revenue. We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs? Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.

The fact is we are not going to get the necessary deficit reduction by just reducing spending. It would require cuts that the people aren't going to buy into. About 1/3 of the adult population will be hurt by cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Most of the states have made deep cuts. Federal cuts to welfare, Medicaid, and education will put more pressure on state and local budgets with no federal moneys to ward off cuts in employment.

The US still remains one of the least tax nations on earth. Nearly half the population pays no income tax. The wealthy are taxed at half what they were 50 years ago. Polls show that people want a balanced approach. That will only increase when people start seeing how proposed cuts will effect them.

 

[Big Fitz]

The fact is we are not going to get the necessary deficit reduction by just reducing spending

Incorrect. You can get that simply by freezing the budget at 2008 levels minus TARP and Bailout monies over the next 10 years. You do not need to 'pay for' spending cuts. That's akin to saying that to pay for not going to Starbucks for your twice a day coffee habit, you need a part time job. It's asinine to even try and say it. You just stop going and save that money, turn it around and pay off essential bills. Thereby you live in your means and act responsibly.

You need to listen to Dave Ramsey for some common sense financial advice. It works on the national scale too.

It would require cuts that the people aren't going to buy into.

You mean like eliminating duplication of effort, audit for corruption and abuse? Laying off of non-essential employees and services and then decreasing taxes accordingly so people and business keep their money and invest it or pay off their own debt or get themselves clear of foreclosure? You mean those kinds of cuts?

About 1/3 of the adult population will be hurt by cuts in Medicare and Social Security.

Highly assumptive. Most of the problems with SS can be solved by the Ryan Plan by changing the format in how it's administered and run. Those who would be 'hurt by cuts' would be safe from the changes while everyone else would have decades to get used to a new paradigm. There are billions of dollars of cuts coming to Medicare anyway thanks to Obamacare. Too late to whine about that now. But wait, we can't afford that boondoggle either. Let's pray it's repealed in toto.

Most of the states have made deep cuts.

I live in MN. We shut down the government for 19 days and STILL haven't made deep cuts. We've made deep cuts on INCREASES to spending. It's a joke. I'm still waiting for the "Deep Cuts" I voted for and sent my representative to the capital to do.

Federal cuts to welfare, Medicaid, and education will put more pressure on state and local budgets with no federal moneys to ward off cuts in employment.

Only 40 years overdue. I guess this will end the little fiefdom of socialism found in most metropolitan areas as all the goodies can't be paid for and the local populations will have to pay for what they get instead of relying on state and federal bailouts. About time they were forced into fiscal sanity. Of course they'll demagogue and cut police and fire first like a bunch of assholes. But since that move can backfire so bad, they best consider rational cuts to non-essential services such as welfare and social spending, and address the REAL problems they often face and that is out of control union pension plans that are bankrupting most cities (as illustrated by most of California).

This is a good but painful thing. Responsibility often is.

The US still remains one of the least tax nations on earth.

And thank God for it. If you want to be taxed higher, I suggest you move to where you can be or pay extra on your taxes voluntarily. Live your ethics.

Nearly half the population pays no income tax.

Time for them to pay their 'fair share' then, isn't it?

The wealthy are taxed at half what they were 50 years ago.

Yes, they've been overtaxed since the inception of the income tax. Time to make them pay their fair proportion of the tax burden instead of the top 10% paying 70% of the tab.

Polls show that people want a balanced approach.

I don't trust polls because they are easy to make to get whatever answer your agenda desires. People want national health care till they have to suffer massive tax increases out of their own pocket too. So? Proves there's a bunch of deadbeats out there who want free shit. Who knew?

That will only increase when people start seeing how proposed cuts will effect them.

Of course. Nobody likes seeing their gravy train stopped. Everyone wants a better deal than what they deserve or work for. This is news how? This gives credibility to their whining how?

Butch the fuck up. You aren't entitled to other people's money to pay for you OR your charitable drive you force on others through government sanctioned theft while you sit back thinking your hands are clean.

 

[Charles_Main]

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. - S&P Analysis


Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt.

You guys are idiots. They told us, they dont care if it's spending cuts, or new Revenue. We needed to cut 4 Trillion in Borrowing in the next 10 years out, and address entitlements. They have no reason to give a shit how we do it. They don't care what our tax rates are, or what cuts we make. The only thing that matters to them is how much Money we borrow Period.

The Deal only cuts 2 Trillion and did nothing to address entitlements, so we got downgraded. IMO they are being nice. we probably do not even deserve to be AA+. Anyone with a brain knows that the only way we will ever Pay back our Debt is printing new money. When they Rate a country. And take the rating down a grade they are not saying said country is likely to default. Really we can't default because we can simply print money. So when they rate countries essentially what a lower rating means is that country is very likely to turn to the Printing press to cover Debts. Which we are.

If you actually think that is the fault of the Tea Party I want some of what you have been smoking.

 

[Big Fitz]

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. - S&P Analysis


Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt.

You guys are idiots. They told us, they dont care if it's spending cuts, or new Revenue. We needed to cut 4 Trillion in Borrowing in the next 10 years out, and address entitlements. They have no reason to give a shit how we do it. They don't care what our tax rates are, or what cuts we make. The only thing that matters to them is how much Money we borrow Period.

The Deal only cuts 2 Trillion and did nothing to address entitlements, so we got downgraded. IMO they are being nice. we probably do not even deserve to be AA+. Anyone with a brain knows that the only way we will ever Pay back our Debt is printing new money. When they Rate a country. And take the rating down a grade they are not saying said country is likely to default. Really we can't default because we can simply print money. So when they rate countries essentially what a lower rating means is that country is very likely to turn to the Printing press to cover Debts. Which we are.

If you actually think that is the fault of the Tea Party I want some of what you have been smoking.

By increasing taxes, all you do is enable the same behavior that got us to this place. It's like seeing a crackhead and giving him 50 bucks for groceries and knowing full well he's gonna spend most of it on crack.

It is time for a fiscal intervention and rehab. No more of this Amy Winehouse 'don't wanna go' shit.

 

[rdean]

Anyone can see that a country where billionaires have a 18% tax rate and the middle class has a 35% tax rate is not stable.

Worse, by slashing education, health care programs and infrastructure projects simply to pander to said billionaires puts the future of the country in serious doubt. Is it any wonder they did what they did?

Of course, Republicans don't see the problem. They see the well being of billionaires as the "future of the country".

 

[Big Fitz]

Anyone can see that a country where billionaires have a 18% tax rate and the middle class has a 35% tax rate is not stable.

Worse, by slashing education, health care programs and infrastructure projects simply to pander to said billionaires puts the future of the country in serious doubt. Is it any wonder they did what they did?

Of course, Republicans don't see the problem. They see the well being of billionaires as the "future of the country".

You're right Hairnet. It should be a 10-14% for everyone regardless of income and deductions are drastically reduced.

Then everyone pays their fair share.

 

[Charles_Main]

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. - S&P Analysis


Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{ Above is an actual excerpt.

You guys are idiots. They told us, they dont care if it's spending cuts, or new Revenue. We needed to cut 4 Trillion in Borrowing in the next 10 years out, and address entitlements. They have no reason to give a shit how we do it. They don't care what our tax rates are, or what cuts we make. The only thing that matters to them is how much Money we borrow Period.

The Deal only cuts 2 Trillion and did nothing to address entitlements, so we got downgraded. IMO they are being nice. we probably do not even deserve to be AA+. Anyone with a brain knows that the only way we will ever Pay back our Debt is printing new money. When they Rate a country. And take the rating down a grade they are not saying said country is likely to default. Really we can't default because we can simply print money. So when they rate countries essentially what a lower rating means is that country is very likely to turn to the Printing press to cover Debts. Which we are.

If you actually think that is the fault of the Tea Party I want some of what you have been smoking.

By increasing taxes, all you do is enable the same behavior that got us to this place. It's like seeing a crackhead and giving him 50 bucks for groceries and knowing full well he's gonna spend most of it on crack.

It is time for a fiscal intervention and rehab. No more of this Amy Winehouse 'don't wanna go' shit.

I agree but that is not important to what he is claiming.

He is trying to say S&P blamed the Tea Party. I was simply saying S&P does not care if it's spending cuts, Tax Increases or Both. What they care about is how much money we have to Borrow, Not why.