Moody's... Obama and the Dems are lying about the Debt Celiing Crisis.

[The Rabbi]

why would i care what moody's says? they are part of the problem with how our economy got into this mess.

Moody's a major ratings agency with a lot of knowledge of budgets and so forth. They represent an expert opinion.
Since their expert opinion differs from what Rachel Maddow told you last night you must dismiss it in any manner possible.

So, plasmaglob is saying it doesn't care if the U.S. gets downgraded because they are part of the problem.

Some honesty? Naww.......

No, the late Plasmathang is dismissing any information or fact that contradicts the official Obama narrative that "The U.S. will always be a triple A country."

 

[Darkwind]

Moody's a major ratings agency with a lot of knowledge of budgets and so forth. They represent an expert opinion.
Since their expert opinion differs from what Rachel Maddow told you last night you must dismiss it in any manner possible.

So, plasmaglob is saying it doesn't care if the U.S. gets downgraded because they are part of the problem.

Some honesty? Naww.......

No, the late Plasmathang is dismissing any information or fact that contradicts the official Obama narrative that "The U.S. will always be a triple A country."

Of course, but in an attempt to marginalize Moody's, it basically justified the reason for allowing a default based upon Democrat intransigence...

Oops....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

I only have problems with the last two suggestions.

I have long advocated the closure of all military bases except one in each of the major regions of the world and that one would be a Super-Base with both Ocean and air access for the Navy and Air Force.

Just as we should shut down all these Consulates and such and only have one or two Major Embassies in each region of the world. That would hopefully stop the political awarding of embassies to political donars.

Well at least we can agree on that huh?

Instantly stop ALL corporate welfare & subsidies. Outlaw pork attachments to bills. Enact STRICT welfare reform and REQUIRE public service for cash assistance. Immediately cease ALL foreign aid and start minding our own ******* business. Publicly fund ALL elections for national offices. End lifetime appointments to any position including SCOTUS. Enact term limits for congress. Pass BBA

 

[Sallow]

I wonder if the Press is going to hit Obama and the Democrats with this?

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

I doubt it... But if it were an honest press they would.

They "believe"?



Really?

 

[kwc57]

I wonder if the Press is going to hit Obama and the Democrats with this?

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

I doubt it... But if it were an honest press they would.

Well damn!

 

[kwc57]

I wonder if the Press is going to hit Obama and the Democrats with this?

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

I doubt it... But if it were an honest press they would.

They "believe"?



Really?

Yes, a considered and educated opinion. You post lots of things you believe every day. The difference is they are experts in the field and you......not so much.

 

[kwc57]

I wonder if the Press is going to hit Obama and the Democrats with this?

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

I doubt it... But if it were an honest press they would.

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

 

[Contumacious]

I wonder if the Press is going to hit Obama and the Democrats with this?




I doubt it... But if it were an honest press they would.

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

They don't care about economic issues.

They want to merely believe that the government owes them a living and there is such a thing as a free lunch.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

I wonder if the Press is going to hit Obama and the Democrats with this?




I doubt it... But if it were an honest press they would.

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

Pseudo-conservatives racked up the debt and played a major part in the Bush Recession. But feel free to blame the liberals for lack of understanding fiscal issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

 

[TooTall]

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

I only have problems with the last two suggestions.

I have long advocated the closure of all military bases except one in each of the major regions of the world and that one would be a Super-Base with both Ocean and air access for the Navy and Air Force.

Just as we should shut down all these Consulates and such and only have one or two Major Embassies in each region of the world. That would hopefully stop the political awarding of embassies to political donars.

Great idea. One nuke at each super base could take out the entire US military response team. Who mentioned that to you? Hamas perhaps.

I don't have a problem with the Embassy idea.

 

[The Rabbi]

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

Pseudo-conservatives racked up the debt and played a major part in the Bush Recession. But feel free to blame the liberals for lack of understanding fiscal issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

Those talking points are so old I'd be embarrassed to repost them.
Large factors in Slick's alleged surplus were:
Tech boom, raising revenue
Collapse of the Soviet Union, allowing for drastic cuts to the military (remember the "Peace Dividend"?)
Ascendence of the GOP in Congress, which did actually control spending.
When Obama took office no one was talking about the danger of debt or a downgrade. While it is true the GOP over spent up to the last two years of Bush's term, once the Dems took over in '06 they doubled down on it. When Obama got elected and has a filibuster-proof Congress, they tripled down on it.

 

[kwc57]

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

Pseudo-conservatives racked up the debt and played a major part in the Bush Recession. But feel free to blame the liberals for lack of understanding fiscal issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

Thank God Obama doubled down on Bush's legacy!

 

[Contumacious]

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

Pseudo-conservatives racked up the debt and played a major part in the Bush Recession. But feel free to blame the liberals for lack of understanding fiscal issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

Both political parties are responsible for the economic mess which began in 1935.

But it is also true that the Bush Administration , along with Bernanke, were responsible for the 2008 depression.

.

 

[TooTall]

Paying interest on the Treasury Notes is only one of many debts the Government must pay. Most media outlet have explained all that. If the fed can't borrow any money to pay it's debts somebody is not going to get paid.

Expenditures would have to be cut. I say the President should close up half the military bases we have scattered about the world. End the War on recreational drug users. Blanket amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens.

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

Pseudo-conservatives racked up the debt and played a major part in the Bush Recession. But feel free to blame the liberals for lack of understanding fiscal issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

Bush wasn't President in 2010, Obama was! That little incident on 911 changed the country forever. War is not cheap and the defense against future attacks was met by Bush at an incredible cost.

In case you missed it, those budgets during the Clinton years were agreed to after the fiscal conservatives in the House dragged him kicking and screaming to the table. It even took a (gasp) government shutdown to do it. Clinton is a bottom feeding scumbag, but he did what he had to do to stay in office.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wow! Just wow. I wonder if First State Bank will loan me the money to pay my loan from First National Bank that pays my loan to First International Bank? Do you see the problem here? Borrowing money to pay your debts? Why don't liberals understand fiscal issues? Taking the Paul Krugman, MSM and Democrat route of saying that government finances are different than business or personal finances is like saying that gravity doesn't apply to rocks, but it does to trees and water.

Pseudo-conservatives racked up the debt and played a major part in the Bush Recession. But feel free to blame the liberals for lack of understanding fiscal issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

Thank God Obama doubled down on Bush's legacy!

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

One last point: Phil Klein argues that it's important to note spending skyrocketed in 2008, and so Obama was starting from an abnormally high baseline, and so the comparison between change in government spending under Obama and change in government spending under other presidents is flawed. That's absolutely true. But it's applicable to much more than just government spending. The jump in spending in 2008 was the direct and sole consequence of the financial recession. But that's also largely true for our deficits, which would be much more normally sized if not for the recession. As I write in the piece, "these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited."

 

[thereisnospoon]

I only have problems with the last two suggestions.

I have long advocated the closure of all military bases except one in each of the major regions of the world and that one would be a Super-Base with both Ocean and air access for the Navy and Air Force.

Just as we should shut down all these Consulates and such and only have one or two Major Embassies in each region of the world. That would hopefully stop the political awarding of embassies to political donars.

Well at least we can agree on that huh?

Instantly stop ALL corporate welfare & subsidies. Outlaw pork attachments to bills. Enact STRICT welfare reform and REQUIRE public service for cash assistance. Immediately cease ALL foreign aid and start minding our own ******* business. Publicly fund ALL elections for national offices. End lifetime appointments to any position including SCOTUS. Enact term limits for congress. Pass BBA

The only point to which I disagree is SCOTUS.
SCOTUS must remain as is to at least have some semblance of a wall between the other two branches and to protect the process from being 100% politically motivated.
The system by which Justices are nominated and confirmed is far from perfect. However I cannot fathom a better one. If anyone has a better idea, I'd be willing to listen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Moody's sang a different tune in 2011. What's the difference now?


New York, June 02, 2011 -- Moody's Investors Service said today that if there is no progress on increasing the statutory debt limit in coming weeks, it expects to place the US government's rating under review for possible downgrade, due to the very small but rising risk of a short-lived default. If the debt limit is raised and default avoided, the Aaa rating will be maintained....

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moo...-Limit-Long?lang=en&cy=global&docid=PR_220066

 

[thereisnospoon]

The first thing we need to do is address the deficit. Hence the balanced budget. Then we can tackle the debt.

I just don't support throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The worry about infants and bath water has given rise to this kicking of the can down the road.
No one in DC has the balls to say "enough is enough. And we are going to all go down together one way or another, but we are not leaving this chamber until there is a solution.
And everyone will feel it. Everyone. Now do you want to play it safe and not risk your political career or do you want to do something great."
This nonsense of " yes a balanced budget is a great idea, but it has to wait until I retire from Congress" is what's killing our economy and exponentially growing the debt and deficit.

The deficit is shrinking. The sequester is having an effect. A balanced budget amendment is necessary so that future Congresses don't burden the country with this bull shit again in the future.

WHAT? By who's estimates?
Newsflash. The Sequester takes out a paltry( relatively speaking of course) $85B out of the federal budget.
Meanwhile, the government is pumping $85 B PER MONTH into the financial markets through the now open ended QE III.
I agree with you point regarding a balanced budget. I think there is not nearly enough bravery on the part of politicians to do a Constitutional Amendment. However, I believe legislation could make headway. That is if a significant number of Congressional members would toss aside their fear of being voted out of office actually pass the thing..

 

[thereisnospoon]

The worry about infants and bath water has given rise to this kicking of the can down the road.
No one in DC has the balls to say "enough is enough. And we are going to all go down together one way or another, but we are not leaving this chamber until there is a solution.
And everyone will feel it. Everyone. Now do you want to play it safe and not risk your political career or do you want to do something great."
This nonsense of " yes a balanced budget is a great idea, but it has to wait until I retire from Congress" is what's killing our economy and exponentially growing the debt and deficit.

The deficit is shrinking. The sequester is having an effect. A balanced budget amendment is necessary so that future Congresses don't burden the country with this bull shit again in the future.

I actually oppose a balanced budget amendment.
But anyway, what programs would you like to see cut to achieve reductions in spending? What will make GDP growth occur?

Boo boo won't go there. She'll respond with "increase taxes on the rich"...

 

[The Rabbi]

The deficit is shrinking. The sequester is having an effect. A balanced budget amendment is necessary so that future Congresses don't burden the country with this bull shit again in the future.

I actually oppose a balanced budget amendment.
But anyway, what programs would you like to see cut to achieve reductions in spending? What will make GDP growth occur?

Boo boo won't go there. She'll respond with "increase taxes on the rich"...

Because penalizing hard work builds the economy, right?