Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?

[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.

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????

Neg repped for stupidity.
That's all the answer you're entitled to, sonny.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Funny how when Clinton was replaced with Bush, that same GOP congress never balanced a single budget ever again!!!! Hummmmmm

 

[Cuyo]

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.

I haven't specifically blamed anyone. The bottom line is an inability to pass anything that remotely resembles a balanced budget. The reason is that lawmakers are afraid to propose anything that might be unpopular - Particularly desperately needed tax increases. And yes, I think the Repubs have been far more stubborn, but it's not what I said. None of it affects the fact that the bills passed by the house were passed with the full, open, and public knowledge that they would not advance.

So why would they bother to pass them then? Seems like a waste of time. Answer: So they could create the illusion that they were doing something, so people like you could pontificate to me that "The repubs passed two bills that got shot down in the Senate." There was no progress, or even an attempt at progress, related to said bills.

Nothing changes by you pointing out my biases or vis a vis. Nothing is getting through that will significantly change trajectory, and the reason is that lawmakers are afraid of proposing anything that's unpopular.

 

[Trajan]

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.

they weren't around then and as a former bush sppter I don't give him an out.


so, what now?

 

[Oldstyle]

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????

Lying Ryan? You know what's really pathetic about the attacks on Paul Ryan? Someone FINALLY had the balls to attempt to tackle entitlement reform...something that liberals avoided like the plague for the two years they had super majorities and control of the Oval Office...and he's instantly attacked by those same liberals.

Let's see the Obama solution to unfunded entitlements...
Let's see the Nancy Pelosi solution.
Let's see the Harry Reid solution.

The fact is...they don't HAVE any. They've purposely ignored the looming problem, kicking that can down the road in hopes that they can use any attempt by conservatives to address the the issue as an "attack" on the poor and senior citizens. THAT is why we're getting downgraded. A total failure of leadership from the Left. They purposely ignored the problem because they thought it was politically advantageous.

 

[edthecynic]

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????

Neg repped for stupidity.
That's all the answer you're entitled to, sonny.

I'll take that as a Yes you support Lyin' Ryan's proposed raising the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion over the next 10 years because YOU were too STUPID know that the Lyin Ryan budget calls for raising the debt ceiling nearly $9 trillion over the next 10 years.
Thank you for your candor.

 

[Ragnar]

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.

The Tea Started Brewing Under Bush

Liberal politicians and their fellow travelers in the media seemed to assume that Americans disapproved of Bush for the same reasons they did. Yet many rejected Bush because he was not their kind of conservative (or, they might say, no conservative at all). William F. Buckley was tactful in 2006 when he said that Bush suffers from “the absence of effective conservative ideology -- with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending.” And George Will wrote in 2004 that “Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances.” The President had recently proposed some cuts, but the $4.9 billion saved “would pay less than six days’ interest on the national debt.” These deficits were apparently “one way ‘compassionate conservatism’ defines itself.”

These are hardly figures on the fringe, and they object to Bush’s government growth and deficit spending. Another example from the same year is Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of conservative strategy, whose Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause, is a clear precursor to the Tea Party movement.

Yet the rejection of big-government conservatism, amongst libertarians, reaches further back. A Cato Institute article from 2003 calls Bush “the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter.” It was not possible to blame this on the wars alone, since non-defense discretionary spending had increased by even more (20.8%) than total spending (15.6%). “Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 and 65 percent respectively.” While some expenditures are matters of political expediency, this only means that Bush “spends like Carter and panders like Clinton.” The chairman of Cato even hoped for a divided government, and Doug Bandow at The American Conservative lamented the Republican majority that was “promoting larger government at almost every turn.”

The Tea Party represents the failure of Bush and the establishment Republican Party to be serious about controlling spending and responsible economics. GW Bush all but killed the party as was witnessed in 2006 and 2008. Libertarian conservatives and fed up Republicans are the only agents of real change among any movement in America.

Through the Tea Party we revived the broken shell of the old Republican Party. If the establishment ignores the Tea Party in 2012, they will seal their own fate. They have a legitimate fear of the rise of a third party. They should be terrified that "Republican" will be that fringe third party if they don't change their ways.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

That's the problem. Everyone's afraid to introduce solutions that might not be popular.

You mean like the third rails of reforming Social Security, Foreign military cuts and Medicare Medicaid reform plus repealing Obamacare? Those kind of unpopular moves?

Raising taxes is not just unpopular, it is fiscally stupid.

If you were overspending on luxuries (like the gubmint is doing), is it smarter to get a second, third or fourth job (if you have the time) or to cut spending and learn to live within your means?

 

[BDBoop]

From Fark. So very true.

Biden's on to something. The GOP isn't a terrorist group, they're a drunken, abusive spouse: You take a little slapping around in return for some semblance of a normal life, and the vague hope that they won't blow the entire paycheck on strippers. Again.

It probably seems like a decent plan in the short term; the hope of making it through a week without getting hit, versus the certainty of having to face family and friends, and justifying why you put up with the lout after the first shiner.

 

[Trajan]

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.

compromise? they did create 2, score them and pass them on. like it or not, and I do see your point, the senate was free to craft their own, as well as Obama, who btw, has owed the country a budget since April and didn't pass one in 2010.

 

[Greenbeard]

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????

A 60%+ increase in the debt ceiling to accommodate Ryan's deficits over the next decade! And all but one member of the Tea Party Caucus voted for it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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????

A 60%+ increase in the debt ceiling to accommodate Ryan's deficits over the next decade! And all but one member of the Tea Party Caucus voted for it.

Correct. The Ryan Plan was not good. It would have taken 26 years to achieve a balanced budget (which means it wouldn't have happened because future Congresses are not bound to the fiscal policies of their predecessors) and still would have massively increased the debt spending in the short term.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

That's the problem. Everyone's afraid to introduce solutions that might not be popular.

You mean like the third rails of reforming Social Security, Foreign military cuts and Medicare Medicaid reform plus repealing Obamacare? Those kind of unpopular moves?

Yes. Like those kinds of unpopular moves.

Raising taxes is not just unpopular, it is fiscally stupid.

That's a debate to be had, but it is an option for balancing a budget. If your talking stagnating economy, higher UE, etc, cuts to spending will do the same thing.

Do we want to balance the thing or not? Likely needed is something from every category, including tax increases and entitlement reform.

Preponderance of evidence suggests Dems are more likely to compromise on cuts than Repubs are to compromise on revenue. That of course is my opinion, and once again has no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is no historical proof that taxes cause deficits.

There is historical proof that taxes cause revenues.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

At every unreasonable 'compromise'. He should have left a few more times and force more concessions from the left.

 

[Truthmatters]

98% of what they wanted

 

[Big Fitz]

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????

A 60%+ increase in the debt ceiling to accommodate Ryan's deficits over the next decade! And all but one member of the Tea Party Caucus voted for it.

Correct. The Ryan Plan was not good. It would have taken 26 years to achieve a balanced budget (which means it wouldn't have happened because future Congresses are not bound to the fiscal policies of their predecessors) and still would have massively increased the debt spending in the short term.

but it would have done it with far less pain that what we are now about to experience.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no historical proof that taxes cause deficits.

There is historical proof that taxes cause revenues.

You're right. there's historical proof that OVERSPENDING causes all deficits.

 

[Chris]

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton became president on January 20th, 1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

 

[edthecynic]

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton became president on January 20th, 1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

That was an increase of $5 trillion, ($6 trillion if you go by fiscal years), which averages out to a $625 billion deficit per year. But pathological liars like the fairy Jeffy Sessions said today on the Sunday talk shows "SESSIONS: Well, Governor, let me just say this. The highest debt President Bush ever had was $450 billion."
You gotta love GOP fuzzy math if you're a CON$ervative!!!

Page 4: 'This Week' Transcript: S&P's John Chambers, Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Jeff Sessions - ABC News