So the same Conservatives who wanted us to default...

[Si modo]

Boehner himself said he got 98% of what he wanted and he was happy. Yet somehow this is all Obama's fault.

Yes, it is. S&P said the Ryan budget would have averted the drop in rating.

Obama and the Dems refused what would have averted the rating drop.

 

[Modbert]

Yes, it is. S&P said the Ryan budget would have averted the drop in rating.

Obama and the Dems refused what would have averted the rating drop.

S&P also said the $4 trillion plan the President was proposing would have averted the drop in rating.

Republicans refused what would have averted the rating drop.

See how easy that was? Besides, the Ryan plan would increase the public debt from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021. Not accounting for any sudden new spending increases.

 

[Trajan]

Yes, it is. S&P said the Ryan budget would have averted the drop in rating.

Obama and the Dems refused what would have averted the rating drop.

S&P also said the $4 trillion plan the President was proposing would have averted the drop in rating.

Republicans refused what would have averted the rating drop.

if they added revenue increases, as in the extra 400 billion etc.?

See how easy that was? Besides, the Ryan plan would increase the public debt from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021. Not accounting for any sudden new spending increases.

why is that an issue?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes, it is. S&P said the Ryan budget would have averted the drop in rating.

Obama and the Dems refused what would have averted the rating drop.

S&P also said the $4 trillion plan the President was proposing would have averted the drop in rating.

Republicans refused what would have averted the rating drop.

See how easy that was? Besides, the Ryan plan would increase the public debt from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021. Not accounting for any sudden new spending increases.

Didn't Papa Obama first want the ceiling raised only?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes, it is. S&P said the Ryan budget would have averted the drop in rating.

Obama and the Dems refused what would have averted the rating drop.

S&P also said the $4 trillion plan the President was proposing would have averted the drop in rating.

Republicans refused what would have averted the rating drop.

See how easy that was? Besides, the Ryan plan would increase the public debt from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021. Not accounting for any sudden new spending increases.

Well some thought the Ryan budget was better than Papa Obama's
Bowles, a Democrat who co-chaired the Presidential Deficit Commission and was appointed by Barack Obama, says the President’s budget proposal falls short on several key goals. In fact, he says it’s inferior to Paul Ryan’s plan.
Since we are all "pro-board" now, this must be a good thing


Erskine Bowles Claimed the President's Deficit Plan Falls Short of Key Goals
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba4qevF6xmU]‪Erskine Bowles Claimed the President's Deficit Plan Falls Short of Key Goals‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Bowles: It is $4 trillion, however, over 12 years. It is heavily back-end loaded, so when you compare it to the Ryan plan and to the Commission’s plan, which also has $4 trillion in savings, it is probably more like $2.5 trillion. And in fairness, the way it is setup, according to our analysis, it really doesn’t stabilize the debt, and the debt as a percentage of GDP gets up to around 77 percent and it never gets to primary balance, which is about a deficit-to-GDP ratio of around 3 percent.​

 

[geauxtohell]

This downgrade isn't about the debt ceiling

This downgrade is about Standards & Poor believing that the current leaders of the United States of America do not have enough political courage to take the necessary steps to lower the deficit.

It's time to cut the bullshit, folks. We know the Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient entity that is wasting money like no other organization in the history of mankind. Instead of playing the "blame game" and trying to make political hay by accusing others of hating old people or the poor simply because they make straight forward suggestions on how to reform S.S. or Medicare it's time we really addressed the core problem. We need to drastically shrink the size of government in this country. We either do so...or the behemoth we have created will literally eat us out of house and home.

It's about both, and S&P stated in their report that we can't do it without cuts an new sources of revenue.

The S&P also wants an overhaul of Medicare. If that's the case, it's a deal breaker for sure. As Medicare is the most popular program in this country and cutting it would be tremendously unpopular across the board for all voters. The S&P is an investment group, they shouldn't be given the latitude to influence policy (despite the glib statements to the contrary).

So, at some point, we are going to have to acknowledge that the S&P's rating system shouldn't trump the policy making process in this country.

 

[skookerasbil]

are now acting as if the credit downgrade is a disaster,

and it's Obama's fault?

Seriously? Did they really think default would not also lead to a credit downgrade??

Didn't they think that default would be no big deal? That we'd just pay the interest and everything would be fine??

s0n..........when everything sucks, the guy in charge always gets the big one in the pooper. Its always been that way. Blaming the GOP or the Tea Party might get a bit of traction in the nether-regions of the internet, but noplace else. Thats why the presidents approval rate is a tick above 40% right now.

And Im laughing. After being decimated just about 30 months ago, watching the whole Hope and Change BS implode has been nothing less than a fcukking hoot for conservatives. WHo knew this place would become our playground in UNDER 3 YEARS. Not even I thought Obama could fcukk it up this bad in that short space of time.

 

[Neotrotsky]

This downgrade isn't about the debt ceiling

This downgrade is about Standards & Poor believing that the current leaders of the United States of America do not have enough political courage to take the necessary steps to lower the deficit.

It's time to cut the bullshit, folks. We know the Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient entity that is wasting money like no other organization in the history of mankind. Instead of playing the "blame game" and trying to make political hay by accusing others of hating old people or the poor simply because they make straight forward suggestions on how to reform S.S. or Medicare it's time we really addressed the core problem. We need to drastically shrink the size of government in this country. We either do so...or the behemoth we have created will literally eat us out of house and home.

It's about both, and S&P stated in their report that we can't do it without cuts and new sources of revenue.

Did it really say that exactly in the press realease?
Granted both by themselves or a combination of both can be
a option. But a read of the press release does not show them "demanding" we have
to do both

Have you read the actual official press release. You can find it at my link below


S&P also said

When one reads it, they do find this...

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that
Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."

"In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

 

[geauxtohell]

This downgrade isn't about the debt ceiling

This downgrade is about Standards & Poor believing that the current leaders of the United States of America do not have enough political courage to take the necessary steps to lower the deficit.

It's time to cut the bullshit, folks. We know the Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient entity that is wasting money like no other organization in the history of mankind. Instead of playing the "blame game" and trying to make political hay by accusing others of hating old people or the poor simply because they make straight forward suggestions on how to reform S.S. or Medicare it's time we really addressed the core problem. We need to drastically shrink the size of government in this country. We either do so...or the behemoth we have created will literally eat us out of house and home.

It's about both, and S&P stated in their report that we can't do it without cuts an new sources of revenue.

Did it really say that exactly in the press realease?
Have you read the actual official press release. You can find it at my link below


S&P also said

When one reads it, they do find this...

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that
Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."

"In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

Yes. Page 3. BTW, you don't find it ironic that they say (on the one hand, that they take "no position" and on the other want us to slash Medicare?).

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.

Read the whole release. Don't just cherry pick the parts that support your position. As I said, S&P wanted to see more cuts and a raise in revenues.

As noted, they also wanted to see Medicare slashed:

In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

A non-starter. It's important to keep S&P in context. They are a private equity firm. They are not elected leaders of this country.

 

[Neotrotsky]

My point still stands
I cherry picked nothing and it appears you are reading your position into the release that is not there

You have not proved your statement which would
require you to show where they said we HAD to do both

This should not be hard to do if it is in there like you claim.
I found

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that
Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."

Their words are clear

In your offered "proof", it falls short because
"or" is not "and"
no matter how hard you want it to be

Again,

they did not demand we have to do both


Perhaps an "enthusiasm" for taxes, makes one see things differently
and read things into something that is not there...


The truth is that these positions they would like to see
can be gotten with spending cuts, tax increases or a combination of both
which is why they take no stand on it

It does seem odd you question their "authority" on one hand
but then want to use their press release to support your beliefs on taxes, on the other

 

[geauxtohell]

My point still stands
I cherry picked nothing

You have not proved your statement which would
require you to show where they said we HAD to do both

Their words are clear

"or" is not and

Again,

they did not demand we have to do both


Perhaps an "enthusiasm" for taxes, makes one see things differently

If you want to be intentionally obtuse, that is your prerogative.

The actual S&P report refutes the zealots on both sides that claimed the problem was this or that.

Their words are as plain as day. If they didn't think that we needed additional sources of revenue, they wouldn't have noted that the compromise didn't have a source of additional revenue.

Furthermore, any serious economist has stated that we need deeper cuts and more revenue if we are going to turn this thing around. You are simply wrong if you state they claimed we don't need cuts and more revenues. That is, unless you don't know what the word "mix" means.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes obtuse is the word I would use



You can spin all you want
We are not talking about other economists or the man on the moon
for that matter

Again why does one have to "interpret" their words on intended meaning
when they clearly state

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that
Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."​

To be fair, a call by you to raise taxes is a choice
but trying, poorly, to use the press release as proof is weak

Using your kind if logic, one could as easily say they
don't want use to raise taxes because they did not tell us to specifically

yeah, that doesn't work either

 

[kaz]

Furthermore, any serious economist has stated that we need deeper cuts and more revenue if we are going to turn this thing around

You get more revenue by cutting taxes, not raising them. When you raise taxes you get a larger piece of a smaller economy and you also incent people to evade them. It's a losing proposition from go. The reverse also happens, when you cut them the economy grows so you're getting a piece of a bigger pie and people don't avoid them. Do you know the government taxes repatriation of overseas money and gets virtually no revenue from it because companies don't repatriate money because of the tax? The government gets more dollars from capital gains taxes now then when they were taxed at higher income rates because people were far slower to sell stocks or offset gains. Do you know Reagan who left with far lower tax rates then he came with actually doubled tax revenues?

Our problem is spending.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes obtuse is the word I would use



You can spin all you want
We are not talking about other economists or the man on the moon
for that matter

Again why does one have to "interpret" their words on intended meaning
when they clearly state

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that
Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."​

To be fair, a call by you to raise taxes is a choice
but trying, poorly, to use the press release as proof is weak

Using your kind if logic, one could as easily say they
don't want use to raise taxes because they did not tell us to specifically

yeah, that doesn't work either

Please. It couldn't be anymore clear that they want to see a mix of cut and new revenue.

If you can't buy that then you can go with this:

"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."

The difference between us is this: you want more cuts. I am honest enough to acknowledge that the S&P wants to see that even though I don't. However, you aren't honest enough to agree that the S&P clearly also wants to see more revenue.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I would say on this particular subject
honesty is not the best word
to use on your statements

Honestly, your position in this is weak and to continue
to defend it does not add to your credibility. Combined with the "who does S&P think they are"
and "look they support my position" does not help you much either.
It just makes you silly.

Look back I have made no position on the issues of raising taxes
Perhaps, this is another thing you are reading in the "tea leaves"


For those of us who are being honest, we will go by what they actually said
as opposed to what you think they said

"Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that
Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing."

Imagine, people believing what they actually said as opposed
to what you think they said

 

[Mr.Nick]

are now acting as if the credit downgrade is a disaster,

and it's Obama's fault?

Seriously? Did they really think default would not also lead to a credit downgrade??

Didn't they think that default would be no big deal? That we'd just pay the interest and everything would be fine??

No one wanted a default... However if democrats keep spending we will have to.

Yes this is a disaster - wait until inflation hits..

No one wants to invest in the US dollar..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Furthermore, any serious economist has stated that we need deeper cuts and more revenue if we are going to turn this thing around

You get more revenue by cutting taxes, not raising them. When you raise taxes you get a larger piece of a smaller economy and you also incent people to evade them. It's a losing proposition from go. The reverse also happens, when you cut them the economy grows so you're getting a piece of a bigger pie and people don't avoid them. Do you know the government taxes repatriation of overseas money and gets virtually no revenue from it because companies don't repatriate money because of the tax? The government gets more dollars from capital gains taxes now then when they were taxed at higher income rates because people were far slower to sell stocks or offset gains. Do you know Reagan who left with far lower tax rates then he came with actually doubled tax revenues?

Our problem is spending.

The more money people have the more they spend - the less money they have the less they spend.

That concept is too difficult for progressives to understand.

 

[Liability]

Opposition to the increasing of the debt "ceiling" is not at all synonymous with wanting a default.

The truth, of course, is that had the "deal" fallen through, there would have been no authorized increase in the debt ceiling and our horrible level of spending would be stuck in place. But there is zero correlation between that and a "default." Our debts could have and should have (and likely would have) been paid all the same.

Has it dawned on any of the imbeciles like Carby that NOT going deeper into debt might have helped us AVOID getting that S&P downgrade?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Opposition to the increasing of the debt "ceiling" is not at all synonymous with wanting a default.

The truth, of course, is that had the "deal" fallen through, there would have been no authorized increase in the debt ceiling and our horrible level of spending would be stuck in place. But there is zero correlation between that and a "default." Our debts could have and should have (and likely would have) been paid all the same.

Has it dawned on any of the imbeciles like Carby that NOT going deeper into debt might have helped us AVOID getting that S&P downgrade?

No, progressives believe the laws of economics cease to exist at the government level.

The truth is progressives just don't care as long as they're getting whatever the **** they want at that moment...

They don't care about tomorrow they care about right now and when tomorrow comes they will worry about that then.... Well tomorrow is here..

The funny part is we told these asshats what the end result of their greed was going to be - now thats coming to fruition and they blame republicans???

Those progressive ***** used to tell me to go get my tin foil hat when I told them their spending was out of line and could lead to an economic collapse..

Now these stupid motherfuckers have the audacity to attempt to blame republicans?

I've been following this shit for years and these lame ass progressive dumbfucks wake up and open their Daily Koz then go running to the boards blaming republicans with op ed pieces...

These peoples stupidity are a danger to the American public as a whole. They should be thrown in a padded room and forgotten.

 

[Trajan]

the arguments have become circular. the s&p and moodys looks at this in one way, do a+b and we don't see a downgrade coming, which of course doesn't ( not should it at their level) account for our sclerotic political system except as they explain, based on the RESULT after the deal was done.

I don't think you can take a hard line against anyone wishing to see cuts first, we have been down this road before. we have raised the debt ceiling time and again, please don't tell me that if there had been a clean bill that there would not have been a downgrade, that is fantasy. The spending cuts never really seem to materialize.

There fore it all revolves around politics. there was a 7 week fight tru march and april to put in place a budget for the remainder of 2011, from which we squeezed out of a 3.3 trillion budget 38.5 Billion dollars....I think that would make any reasonable person blanch and provides a pretty clear picture as to what lines have been drawn.

I have no problem with revenue, even the expiration of the bush/obama tax cuts/extension, BUT, I have no faith that this will result in that money being used to help defray debt., minus a rigid plan set forth on paper with all of the bigger players, the 'Barons" of congress who always remain while presidents come and go, ala reid, pelosi, durbin schumer, boehner mconnell, kyl, coburn etc. on board and investing their word and reputation as to keeping their word as congress goes forward, remembering that when congress changes they are not held by the previous occupants dictum. there in lies the rub, I and I don't think I am alone here, in saying, I don't trust them to tax more and follow up on the cuts .......