Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?

[Cuyo]

Bubba was forced to move right, kicking and screaming regarding welfare reform, balancing the budget, and taxes.. Nice try liberal.

http://govt.eserver.org/contract-with-america.txt

Your post is misguided and does not, even minutely, address mine.

Are you arguing that Republicans forced 'Bubba' into raising taxes? Is that your argument? And even if it were, how does that address what I've said?

I stated very clearly what I meant.. Lastly, Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal


Oops, don't look now...

mmm-hmm... mmm-hmmm... mmm-hmmmm...

So... Yes? You believe the Republicans pressured Clinton into raising taxes?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If Congress had simply adopted Ryan's budget we would not be having this conversation. So the issue is Democratic recalcitrance, not the Tea Party.

Same would be true if we simply returned to Clinton tax rates.

Once again, it's unwillingness, not inability.

No, that is not the case.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Your post is misguided and does not, even minutely, address mine.

Are you arguing that Republicans forced 'Bubba' into raising taxes? Is that your argument? And even if it were, how does that address what I've said?

I stated very clearly what I meant.. Lastly, Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal


Oops, don't look now...

mmm-hmm... mmm-hmmm... mmm-hmmmm...

So... Yes? You believe the Republicans pressured Clinton into raising taxes?

I wasn't old enough then to know but I do know from the texts I've read that Bubba moved to the right in order to get re-elected and that the Contract With America was credited with being his saving grace or do you deny this? I don't see Bubba out pushing raising tax rates.. quite the opposite as related in my link that you pretend to ignore.. ,Mmmmhmmm indeed.

 

[CoolBreeze]

If Congress had simply adopted Ryan's budget we would not be having this conversation. So the issue is Democratic recalcitrance, not the Tea Party.

Same would be true if we simply returned to Clinton tax rates.

Once again, it's unwillingness, not inability.

Bubba was forced to move right, kicking and screaming regarding welfare reform, balancing the budget, and taxes.. Nice try liberal.

http://govt.eserver.org/contract-with-america.txt

Oh, I like you handle, you are my kind of babe. However, what I can't understand is why welfare, and foodstamps are not considered income. My social security check is considered income, even though the taxes on the money that the government supposedly socked away for me, before the money was removed from my check. They should be paying something in taxes as well.

 

[peach174]

Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?

Yes.

The one group that wanted a balanced budget and has held miniscule power for almost two years is at fault.

If we balance the budget the "terrorist" have won! Didn't you get the memo?

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

Partisan politics not real morals and such.

Yes it is the same group and they did complain about Bush's spending.

Opponents objected to the plan's cost and rapidity, pointing to polls that showed little support among the public for "bailing out" Wall Street investment banks, claimed that better alternatives were not considered, and that the Senate forced passage of the unpopular version through the opposing house by "sweetening" the bailout package.

That was the start of the Tea Party. And the tea party ideology has been building up for the last 15 or more years,of government becoming to big and totally unconstitutional.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Same would be true if we simply returned to Clinton tax rates.

Once again, it's unwillingness, not inability.

Bubba was forced to move right, kicking and screaming regarding welfare reform, balancing the budget, and taxes.. Nice try liberal.

http://govt.eserver.org/contract-with-america.txt

Oh, I like you handle, you are my kind of babe. However, what I can't understand is why welfare, and foodstamps are not considered income. My social security check is considered income, even though the taxes on the money that the government supposedly socked away for me, before the money was removed from my check. They should be paying something in taxes as well.

Thank you and I agree.. That's the problem.. The top 2% pay the majority of taxes in this country while an ungodly percentage pay NOTHING at all.

 

[Truthmatters]

"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."
13th paragraph

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/05/national/main20088952.shtml

 

[Big Fitz]

"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."
13th paragraph

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

I wonder how many people here understand that the credit card company raising your credit limit is actually a bad thing, encouraging you to increase your debt and spending? They WANT you indebted to them, making constant MINIMUM payments unable to ever catch up. That is economic stability for THEM... not you.

Is this point lost on you people?

 

[Stephanie]

"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."
13th paragraph

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

 

[peach174]

That has always been the Dems philosophy tax and spend.More and more and more.
I also blame the Repubs also, because they were starting to do the same thing, just a little more slowly, in growing the government.
And it is exactly that ideology, that has grown our government to an unsustainable monster.
Entitlements must be reformed and the whole government must be scaled back into a more manageable entity.
We also need tax reform.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is self evident the New Right, aka, the Tea Party and radical Republicans set in motion the crisis which lead to the downgrade. There is no other rational explanation. If the Congress had taken a balanced approach to our economic problems and both parties worked together to offer and pass a budget based on both higher taxes for those with a net personal income of 250,000 or greater, and less spending we would be on the road to recovery (note, members of Congresss never mentioned cutting their own salary or benefits).

Brinkmanship rarely works, and in this case President Obama blinked. We are all lucky he did for if we were still fighting about the debt ceiling things may have gotten much worse - though the final rock may not have yet fallen.

Taxes must raise and will raise if we are ever to get past the hole both parties have dug. The right wants to keep digging, which is insane. The arguments for cutting taxes to the wealthiest among us is based on false claims, unemployment is not a product of personal income taxes being too high and the argument to raise taxes on the poor is simply one more example of callous disregard for the poor with at least a hint of racisim.

 

[Toro]

If Congress had simply adopted Ryan's budget we would not be having this conversation. So the issue is Democratic recalcitrance, not the Tea Party.

And if the Tea Party had just accepted big tax increases and cut defense spending like the liberal wing wanted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See how easy it is to demand the other side do exactly as you want, then blame them for not doing so?

NO, that's actually wrong.
For starters, we already have big defense cuts coming. The issue is entitlements, not defense.
Secondly, tax increases never produce the amount of revenue they are projected to. People find ways to get around the new taxes, something the CBO has never realized.
Further, even Obama recognized that raising taxes during a recession is a dumb idea. Higher taxes depress the economy. There has not been a case in this country where a tax increase solved a deficit problem, and many many where it made it worse. See, California, New Jersey and Michigan.

It isn't a matter of compromise. It is a matter of economics. What the Left wanted would not solve the problem. What the GOP conservatives wanted would solve the problem. How do you compromise on that? It's like compromising with a kleptomaniac that instead of going into treatment he can steal just a little bit.

Cutting spending during a recession is a bad idea also. But that doesn't seem to be stopping the right from demanding it right now. We have to cut entitlement spending, but doing so when unemployment is 9% is a bad idea.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he was governor of California and he balanced the budget. Clinton and Bush raised taxes and the budget was balanced. It's a weird argument that tax increases never balance the budget. If this were true, there could never be a balanced budget anywhere, ever, because at some time or another, taxes were increased, otherwise there would be no revenues coming into the government coffers. Yet, states by law must balance their operating budgets. But according to this religious dogma that masquerades as economic thought in this country - and only in this country - ipso facto, tax increases cannot balance budgets. Yet, every state has at one point or another increased taxes and most states balance their budgets. So the argument is not grounded in reality.

But that's beside the point. Both sides of the political spectrum are demanding the other do what they want, then blaming the other when they don't. That's why we were downgraded. S&P makes it very clear that this is a political problem, not an economic one. So the ideologues on both sides are the ones who are the cause of this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

largely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise.

with pledges not to increase revenues and walking away from the negotiations several times it's no wonder that republicans - especially tea party supporters - are blamed. you did not see such intractibility on the other side of the aisle.

Ya Obama did not walk away and did not break the deal when it was made just before signing. Sure thing retard.

hey - fucktard - he left once. early on.

how many times did boehner walk away?

The House passed two bills. The Democrats rejected both of them in the Senate and yet you people have the audacity to solely blame the Tea Party? This is the inanity in rabid partisanship. It blinds you to reality. Lying to yourself about what happened just to feel secure in your political views is not going to alter reality, so what is the point?

 

[The Rabbi]

And if the Tea Party had just accepted big tax increases and cut defense spending like the liberal wing wanted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See how easy it is to demand the other side do exactly as you want, then blame them for not doing so?

NO, that's actually wrong.
For starters, we already have big defense cuts coming. The issue is entitlements, not defense.
Secondly, tax increases never produce the amount of revenue they are projected to. People find ways to get around the new taxes, something the CBO has never realized.
Further, even Obama recognized that raising taxes during a recession is a dumb idea. Higher taxes depress the economy. There has not been a case in this country where a tax increase solved a deficit problem, and many many where it made it worse. See, California, New Jersey and Michigan.

It isn't a matter of compromise. It is a matter of economics. What the Left wanted would not solve the problem. What the GOP conservatives wanted would solve the problem. How do you compromise on that? It's like compromising with a kleptomaniac that instead of going into treatment he can steal just a little bit.

Cutting spending during a recession is a bad idea also. But that doesn't seem to be stopping the right from demanding it right now. We have to cut entitlement spending, but doing so when unemployment is 9% is a bad idea.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he was governor of California and he balanced the budget. Clinton and Bush raised taxes and the budget was balanced. It's a weird argument that tax increases never balance the budget. If this were true, there could never be a balanced budget anywhere, ever, because at some time or another, taxes were increased, otherwise there would be no revenues coming into the government coffers. Yet, states by law must balance their operating budgets. But according to this religious dogma that masquerades as economic thought in this country - and only in this country - ipso facto, tax increases cannot balance budgets. Yet, every state has at one point or another increased taxes and most states balance their budgets. So the argument is not grounded in reality.

But that's beside the point. Both sides of the political spectrum are demanding the other do what they want, then blaming the other when they don't. That's why we were downgraded. S&P makes it very clear that this is a political problem, not an economic one. So the ideologues on both sides are the ones who are the cause of this.

No, cutting spending is a good idea any time. Gov't spending creates perverse incentives. So the extension of unemployment benefits has increased unemployment, because there is little incentive to find a job,
When did Bush raise taxes and achieve a balanced budget? The opposite happened with the "Deal of the Century."
Your argument against raising taxes to balance the budget ignores a key element: taxes being raised specifically to balance the budget. That never works. Clinton was the beneficiary of the largest one time increase in the economy since the Industrial Revolution. He also inherited a dead Soviet Union so he could cut the military dramatically. Remember the "Peace Dividend"?
The counter ecamples of NJ, CA, and MI are instructive. In every case taxes were raised to balance the budget. In no case was a balanced budget achieved. Additionally Reagan signed on to a tax increase to balance th ebudget and was promised $3 in cuts for every dollar in increase. There was no cut in spending. The opposite in fact.

 

[Cuyo]

I stated very clearly what I meant.. Lastly, Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal


Oops, don't look now...

mmm-hmm... mmm-hmmm... mmm-hmmmm...

So... Yes? You believe the Republicans pressured Clinton into raising taxes?

I wasn't old enough then to know but I do know from the texts I've read that Bubba moved to the right in order to get re-elected and that the Contract With America was credited with being his saving grace or do you deny this? I don't see Bubba out pushing raising tax rates.. quite the opposite as related in my link that you pretend to ignore.. ,Mmmmhmmm indeed.

Nobody is pushing for tax increases, except those in Congress considered far-left by today's standards (eg Sanders). That's the problem. Everyone's afraid to introduce solutions that might not be popular.

Hence the political inexpediency, hence the perceived unwillingness to meet obligations, hence the downgrade. How any of your jabs at Clinton-era policies apply to the conversation, I have no idea.

 

[Truthmatters]

The vast majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy

 

[Cuyo]

Ya Obama did not walk away and did not break the deal when it was made just before signing. Sure thing retard.

hey - fucktard - he left once. early on.

how many times did boehner walk away?

The House passed two bills. The Democrats rejected both of them in the Senate and yet you people have the audacity to solely blame the Tea Party? This is the inanity in rabid partisanship. It blinds you to reality. Lying to yourself about what happened just to feel secure in your political views is not going to alter reality, so what is the point?

The bills passed in the House were passed with the full knowledge that they'd never clear the Senate, much less the veto pen. How you can view it as anything other than political posturing escapes me.

 

[Truthmatters]

And if the Tea Party had just accepted big tax increases and cut defense spending like the liberal wing wanted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See how easy it is to demand the other side do exactly as you want, then blame them for not doing so?

NO, that's actually wrong.
For starters, we already have big defense cuts coming. The issue is entitlements, not defense.
Secondly, tax increases never produce the amount of revenue they are projected to. People find ways to get around the new taxes, something the CBO has never realized.
Further, even Obama recognized that raising taxes during a recession is a dumb idea. Higher taxes depress the economy. There has not been a case in this country where a tax increase solved a deficit problem, and many many where it made it worse. See, California, New Jersey and Michigan.

It isn't a matter of compromise. It is a matter of economics. What the Left wanted would not solve the problem. What the GOP conservatives wanted would solve the problem. How do you compromise on that? It's like compromising with a kleptomaniac that instead of going into treatment he can steal just a little bit.

Cutting spending during a recession is a bad idea also. But that doesn't seem to be stopping the right from demanding it right now. We have to cut entitlement spending, but doing so when unemployment is 9% is a bad idea.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he was governor of California and he balanced the budget. Clinton and Bush raised taxes and the budget was balanced. It's a weird argument that tax increases never balance the budget. If this were true, there could never be a balanced budget anywhere, ever, because at some time or another, taxes were increased, otherwise there would be no revenues coming into the government coffers. Yet, states by law must balance their operating budgets. But according to this religious dogma that masquerades as economic thought in this country - and only in this country - ipso facto, tax increases cannot balance budgets. Yet, every state has at one point or another increased taxes and most states balance their budgets. So the argument is not grounded in reality.

But that's beside the point. Both sides of the political spectrum are demanding the other do what they want, then blaming the other when they don't. That's why we were downgraded. S&P makes it very clear that this is a political problem, not an economic one. So the ideologues on both sides are the ones who are the cause of this.

S&P directly blames the republicans in the statement.
"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."


Lets remember that the republicans said they got 98% of what they wanted in the bill.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

If Congress had simply adopted Ryan's budget we would not be having this conversation. So the issue is Democratic recalcitrance, not the Tea Party.

Do you mean the Lyin' Ryan budget that called for raising the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion over the next 10 years? That Lyin' Ryan budget????

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

hey - fucktard - he left once. early on.

how many times did boehner walk away?

The House passed two bills. The Democrats rejected both of them in the Senate and yet you people have the audacity to solely blame the Tea Party? This is the inanity in rabid partisanship. It blinds you to reality. Lying to yourself about what happened just to feel secure in your political views is not going to alter reality, so what is the point?

The bills passed in the House were passed with the full knowledge that they'd never clear the Senate, much less the veto pen. How you can view it as anything other than political posturing escapes me.

What escapes me is your inconsistent logic. The Republicans passed two bills. The Democrats rejected them. You blame the Republicans for not wanting to compromise, but when it comes to the Democrats all we get are crickets chirping. So your logic, or lack thereof, rather, is that compromise means only Republicans are supposed to give in their positions while Democrats can keep their feet planted firmly in the ground. It's hypocrisy and the worst kind of partisanship.

Deflect all you want, but at the end of the day it's the man sitting in the Oval Office who gets the credit for the good things and the blame for the bad things and the 9% unemployment, lack of jobs for people unemployed for three years now, and the first credit downgrade in American history will fall solely on his shoulders when the blame game begins among the American voters.