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

[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.

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.

It is very complicated...

 

[kaz]

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

So by not taking sides they were refuting the extreme on both sides. Gotcha. BTW, their job isn't to take political positions, it's to rate how our government is doing in terms of it's ongoing ability to pay it's debts and that is terrible. Raising taxes shrinks the economy, so by wanting to continue to spend and raise taxes, the Democrats are both increasing our debt and decreasing our ability to pay it. You can spin all you want, but you can't spin your way out of the truth.

 

[Si modo]

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

....

Clearly, too many are confused about that.

.... 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?

The funny thing is anyone who has ever had to deal with their credit rating in a loan application knows full well what determines their rating - a loan officer told them what they needed to improve it, if it needed improvement.

Common sense is not so common, though.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Unfortunately, you are about 20 years behind reality. Trickle down economics aka supply side economics aka "Reagonomics" aka Voodoo economics have been shown to be a farce.

One problem with the "Laffer Curve" is that it's completely theoretical. No one knows if the Real Laffer Curve for the U.S. is a perfect bell curve, or skewed to the right or the left. Furthermore, no one knows what the actual numbers are to plot on the curve.

People who evade taxes are breaking the law. Why would you assume that people would follow the law if the tax rate is lowered? I would submit to you, that it will never be low enough for tax evaders to feel they should pay their taxes. Even it it was, we don't make policy based on the actions of those who break the law.

As it stands, correlating economic growth with lower tax rates is highly controversial. No one can say with a high degree of certainty that that is the case.

The problem is overspending and a lack of revenue. Pragmatically, anyone who is in debt needs to try to find a way to cut their spending and raise their income.

It's a no brainer.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

So by not taking sides they were refuting the extreme on both sides. Gotcha. BTW, their job isn't to take political positions, it's to rate how our government is doing in terms of it's ongoing ability to pay it's debts and that is terrible. Raising taxes shrinks the economy, so by wanting to continue to spend and raise taxes, the Democrats are both increasing our debt and decreasing our ability to pay it. You can spin all you want, but you can't spin your way out of the truth.

Have you read the report?

It's pretty clear in the "Analysis" section that they wanted to see bigger cuts and more revenue.

It wasn't one or the other. Both sides (who insist otherwise) have it wrong.

The real problem, though, was that Washington almost failed to raise the debt ceiling because the environment in D.C. is that septic.

Don't take my word for it. Read the report.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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

So by not taking sides they were refuting the extreme on both sides. Gotcha. BTW, their job isn't to take political positions, it's to rate how our government is doing in terms of it's ongoing ability to pay it's debts and that is terrible. Raising taxes shrinks the economy, so by wanting to continue to spend and raise taxes, the Democrats are both increasing our debt and decreasing our ability to pay it. You can spin all you want, but you can't spin your way out of the truth.

No doubt being professional, their report is far from political
Which is why they clearly state in the press release:

"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."

If they were to pick sides then it would only worsen the political debate
Obviously, they can't stop people from trying to twist and use their press release
to some political advantage that does not exist, but this is standard for both sides.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

....

Clearly, too many are confused about that.

.... 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?

The funny thing is anyone who has ever had to deal with their credit rating in a loan application knows full well what determines their rating - a loan officer told them what they needed to improve it, if it needed improvement.

Common sense is not so common, though.

I don't think anyone "wanted" a default. The problem is that some people were willing to "play chicken" with the issue and let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling.

If you read the report, S&P made it clear that that would have been disasterous. Read the intro were they talk about taking us off "credit watch" due to raising the debt ceiling. They further indicated that a large part of the downgrade was due to all the bickering that almost allowed the deadline for the debt ceiling (something they note hadn't been a problem in the past) pass without a raise.

Anyone that states that not raising the debt ceiling prior to the deadline or that it wouldn't be a big deal because we could have avoided default through other means clearly hasn't read what S&P actually said in there report.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

....

Clearly, too many are confused about that.

.... 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?

The funny thing is anyone who has ever had to deal with their credit rating in a loan application knows full well what determines their rating - a loan officer told them what they needed to improve it, if it needed improvement.

Common sense is not so common, though.

I don't think anyone "wanted" a default. The problem is that some people were willing to "play chicken" with the issue and let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling.

If you read the report, S&P made it clear that that would have been disasterous. Read the intro were they talk about taking us off "credit watch" due to raising the debt ceiling. They further indicated that a large part of the downgrade was due to all the bickering that almost allowed the deadline for the debt ceiling (something they note hadn't been a problem in the past) pass without a raise.

Anyone that states that not raising the debt ceiling prior to the deadline or that it wouldn't be a big deal because we could have avoided default through other means clearly hasn't read what S&P actually said in there report.

But the bottom line still remains...we got downgraded because we couldn't agree on how to reduce our deficit.

S&P doesn't believe Washington has the backbone to make hard decisions. They also quite clearly are skeptical about whether even the too small cuts that have been proposed will in fact be made.

 

[Trajan]

does anyone think that a 'clean' debt bill would have avoided a downgrade?

 

[kaz]

You get more revenue by cutting taxes, not raising them

Unfortunately, you are about 20 years behind reality. Trickle down economics aka supply side economics aka "Reagonomics" aka Voodoo economics have been shown to be a farce

You are correct on one thing. "Trickle" down is actually a misnomer. It's flood down economics. The "poor" don't hire anyone. The evil rich and their evil corporations do. When they invest, jobs are created. Someone goes from a government dependency check to paying their own bills. You're right that there's absolutely nothing "trickle" down about that. It's a world of difference.

 

[geauxtohell]

Clearly, too many are confused about that.

The funny thing is anyone who has ever had to deal with their credit rating in a loan application knows full well what determines their rating - a loan officer told them what they needed to improve it, if it needed improvement.

Common sense is not so common, though.

I don't think anyone "wanted" a default. The problem is that some people were willing to "play chicken" with the issue and let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling.

If you read the report, S&P made it clear that that would have been disasterous. Read the intro were they talk about taking us off "credit watch" due to raising the debt ceiling. They further indicated that a large part of the downgrade was due to all the bickering that almost allowed the deadline for the debt ceiling (something they note hadn't been a problem in the past) pass without a raise.

Anyone that states that not raising the debt ceiling prior to the deadline or that it wouldn't be a big deal because we could have avoided default through other means clearly hasn't read what S&P actually said in there report.

But the bottom line still remains...we got downgraded because we couldn't agree on how to reduce our deficit.

S&P doesn't believe Washington has the backbone to make hard decisions. They also quite clearly are skeptical about whether even the too small cuts that have been proposed will in fact be made.

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

I agree with your last point. It's in the report. Also in the report, we need to raise revenues. Another reason they felt the "compromise" didn't go far enough to address the problem.

It's hilarious to watch Bachmann try to act like the good guy on this issue. If she got her way and the compromise failed, Monday morning would be a disaster. As it stands, it's going to be bad enough.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I don't think anyone "wanted" a default. The problem is that some people were willing to "play chicken" with the issue and let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling.

If you read the report, S&P made it clear that that would have been disasterous. Read the intro were they talk about taking us off "credit watch" due to raising the debt ceiling. They further indicated that a large part of the downgrade was due to all the bickering that almost allowed the deadline for the debt ceiling (something they note hadn't been a problem in the past) pass without a raise.

Anyone that states that not raising the debt ceiling prior to the deadline or that it wouldn't be a big deal because we could have avoided default through other means clearly hasn't read what S&P actually said in there report.

But the bottom line still remains...we got downgraded because we couldn't agree on how to reduce our deficit.

S&P doesn't believe Washington has the backbone to make hard decisions. They also quite clearly are skeptical about whether even the too small cuts that have been proposed will in fact be made.

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

Also in the report, we need to raise revenues.

You mean how you read the report, it would best to raise
revenues

S&P must remain professional , which is why they clearly state in the press release:

"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."

If they were to pick sides then it would only worsen the political debate
Obviously, they can't stop people from trying to twist and use their press release
to some political advantage that does not exist, but this is standard for both sides.

 

[geauxtohell]

You get more revenue by cutting taxes, not raising them

Unfortunately, you are about 20 years behind reality. Trickle down economics aka supply side economics aka "Reagonomics" aka Voodoo economics have been shown to be a farce

You are correct on one thing. "Trickle" down is actually a misnomer. It's flood down economics. The "poor" don't hire anyone. The evil rich and their evil corporations do. When they invest, jobs are created. Someone goes from a government dependency check to paying their own bills. You're right that there's absolutely nothing "trickle" down about that. It's a world of difference.

Either way, it's been tried. It wasn't terribly successful. It is not, and never has been, the Holy Grail conservatives claim it is.

As I noted, we don't even know what the Laffer Curve looks like. After that, hypothetically say it's a perfect bell curve:

The other issue is that we not only don't know what the curve looks like. We don't know where we are on the curve. If we are below t*, raising taxes results in increased revenue. If we are past the point of t*, raising taxes results in a loss of revenue.

Again, even if the assumptions of the Laffer Curve are correct (also debatable), who can say with confidence what the curve looks like and where we are at on the curve.

There are too many variables. Which means that embracing supply side economics would be an experiment at best.

As I said, we've tried it before, it didn't work.

 

[geauxtohell]

But the bottom line still remains...we got downgraded because we couldn't agree on how to reduce our deficit.

S&P doesn't believe Washington has the backbone to make hard decisions. They also quite clearly are skeptical about whether even the too small cuts that have been proposed will in fact be made.

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

Also in the report, we need to raise revenues.

You mean how you read the report, it would best to raise
revenues

S&P must remain professional , which is why they clearly state in the press release:

"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."

If they were to pick sides then it would only worsen the political debate
Obviously, they can't stop people from trying to twist and use their press release
to some political advantage that does not exist, but this is standard for both sides.

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

 

[Neotrotsky]

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

Also in the report, we need to raise revenues.

You mean how you read the report, it would best to raise
revenues

S&P must remain professional , which is why they clearly state in the press release:

"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."

If they were to pick sides then it would only worsen the political debate
Obviously, they can't stop people from trying to twist and use their press release
to some political advantage that does not exist, but this is standard for both sides.

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

Do they?

Here it is again

"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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Join the Constitutional Conservative Movement. Just join and as many,we will triumph. The Socialists/Progressives & Neocons clearly don't have the answers.

 

[geauxtohell]

You mean how you read the report, it would best to raise
revenues

S&P must remain professional , which is why they clearly state in the press release:

"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."

If they were to pick sides then it would only worsen the political debate
Obviously, they can't stop people from trying to twist and use their press release
to some political advantage that does not exist, but this is standard for both sides.

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

Do they?

Here it is again

"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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't think anyone "wanted" a default. The problem is that some people were willing to "play chicken" with the issue and let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling.

If you read the report, S&P made it clear that that would have been disasterous. Read the intro were they talk about taking us off "credit watch" due to raising the debt ceiling. They further indicated that a large part of the downgrade was due to all the bickering that almost allowed the deadline for the debt ceiling (something they note hadn't been a problem in the past) pass without a raise.

Anyone that states that not raising the debt ceiling prior to the deadline or that it wouldn't be a big deal because we could have avoided default through other means clearly hasn't read what S&P actually said in there report.

But the bottom line still remains...we got downgraded because we couldn't agree on how to reduce our deficit.

S&P doesn't believe Washington has the backbone to make hard decisions. They also quite clearly are skeptical about whether even the too small cuts that have been proposed will in fact be made.

And it would have been much, much worse if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. The goofs that voted against the compromise and are bitching about it now are full of shit. It's as simple as that. You know it. I know it. It's in the report.

In other words, if August 2nd had passed without a compromise, we wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling, likely be in or close to default, have no cuts and no plan for raised revenue. We'd be 0-3.

I agree with your last point. It's in the report. Also in the report, we need to raise revenues. Another reason they felt the "compromise" didn't go far enough to address the problem.

It's hilarious to watch Bachmann try to act like the good guy on this issue. If she got her way and the compromise failed, Monday morning would be a disaster. As it stands, it's going to be bad enough.

Where in the S&P's report do you see them calling for raising taxes? I just watched the head of S&P's rating commission on TV saying that what was really needed to fix the problem was entitlement reform because entitlements were by far the largest driver of the debt. So who was calling for that...Democrats? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared entitlements "off the table".

 

[Liability]

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

Do they?

Here it is again

"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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

Let's say for the sake of a wild example, that you are having a debate with another chef.

His proposed mix is one half sugar and one half arsenic.

Your proposal is a combination of sugar, some eggs, a little milk and some flour BUT ZERO point ZERO per cent arsenic.

He says, "o.k. I'll go with the cutting some of the sugar, adding the eggs, the milk and the flour BUT you have to agree to at least 15% arsenic."

You (gee, for SOME reasons) say, "uhm. No."

HE gets IRATE and says, "You are UNREASONABLE! YOU REFUSE TO COMPROMISE! I met you MORE than half way! Why won't you COMPROMISE!?"

Yeah. Good question. Why WON'T you compromise?

 

[BDBoop]

They took some subtle jabs in there. It's clear they want Medicare to be cut. But on the whole, it's pretty non-partisan.

My point is that they claim we need cuts and increased revenue. Not simply one or the other.

Hell, they say as much in your quote.

Do they?

Here it is again

"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."

Nope not there
Mix could be from 0 cuts to 100 percent tax increases
or 100 cuts to 0 tax increases
or a combination of both

Their statement is pretty non-partisan
After all, they are professional and
anything else would bias the debate in DC.

Here's some basic math for you: If you have two ingredients and you put 100% of one and 0% of the other into a bowl. That's not a mix.

Like I said, you are beng deliberately obtuse by claiming that the S&P doesn't want to see revenues raised.

As they have plainly said, they want some sort of mix.

You can't have a budget without an income. Criminy, people.

Not to mention; this is not about debt. This is about honoring that which is already incurred. We are not a ******* dine-n-dash nation.