What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tea Party Duplicity on the Debt Deal

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
The greatest irony of the aftermath of the debt downgrade is that the Tea Party, and most notably Michele Bachmann, have claimed political victory on the matter. To listen to Congress Woman Bachmann, the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right. Upon reading the S&P report, it's clear that allowing August 2nd to pass without raising the debt would have led to a larger downgrade and unlike spending cuts (which can be further addressed at a later date), the debt ceiling had a hard deadline and once that boat sailed, it would have been too late to fix the mess.

The S&P indicated in their report that the largest reason for the downgrade was the fact that there was even a debate about raising the debt ceiling before the deadline and that their fears that it wouldn't be raised in the future due to political brinksmanship.

As much as they would like to claim otherwise, the Teaparty certainly doesn't have any high ground on the issue. No so ironically, if the teaparty had gotten their way and not raised the debt ceiling, the downgrades would have been much worse.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

Pushing Rope: Standard and Poors Places United States on Credit Watch

Not raising the debt ceiling would have been a frigging disaster. We don't have to debate it, S&P lays it out in plain English. It's futile to debate whether we would have really defaulted if the debt ceiling wouldn't have been raised. S&P and other credit agencies are in the business of predicting adverse events before they happen. They don't take a "wait and see" attitude on the matter. Not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad faith (like not paying off your credit card minimum).

The compromise was far from perfect, but it got us off credit watch.

More from the article:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy.
Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

In other words, the absurd "self inflicted wound" that was the debt ceiling "crisis" is exactly what led to this. The problem is that the Tea Party doesn't compromise, and Washington is built on compromise. Even when their own party brokered a deal that gave them "98% of what they wanted"* many of them (with some notable exceptions - thank you Allen West) still voted against it, to include Michele Bachmann, who wants to run the entire country.

The compromise wasn't perfect, but it likely staved off a financial meltdown. The TP ironically gets to sit back and throw stones because they didn't get their own way. If they had, we would be in an economic disaster right now.

As it stands, S&P is the only credit firm that handed us a minor downgrade and that was controversial unto itself with many analysts calling "foul". Moody's reaffirmed the AAA rating, and Fitch* just reaffirmed it as well after giving it a second look.

U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating Is Affirmed by Fitch at AAA; Outlook Is Stable - Bloomberg

We can only speculate what would have happened if the TP caucus was more sufficient and able to stymie the process. The American people aren't ignorant of this either. There is a reason the TP has falling in the polls since August 2nd. So the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was a last minute deal that averted a larger crisis.

The Tea Party hasn't proven that it possesses the adult leadership necessary to work across the aisle to take the measures necessary to right our financial ship. Tell me again why these people need to be given the keys to the kingdom?

*
House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government."
Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
The greatest irony of the aftermath of the debt downgrade is that the Tea Party, and most notably Michele Bachmann, have claimed political victory on the matter. To listen to Congress Woman Bachmann, the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right. Upon reading the S&P report, it's clear that allowing August 2nd to pass without raising the debt would have led to a larger downgrade and unlike spending cuts (which can be further addressed at a later date), the debt ceiling had a hard deadline and once that boat sailed, it would have been too late to fix the mess.

The S&P indicated in their report that the largest reason for the downgrade was the fact that there was even a debate about raising the debt ceiling before the deadline and that their fears that it wouldn't be raised in the future due to political brinksmanship.

As much as they would like to claim otherwise, the Teaparty certainly doesn't have any high ground on the issue. No so ironically, if the teaparty had gotten their way and not raised the debt ceiling, the downgrades would have been much worse.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

Pushing Rope: Standard and Poors Places United States on Credit Watch

Not raising the debt ceiling would have been a frigging disaster. We don't have to debate it, S&P lays it out in plain English. It's futile to debate whether we would have really defaulted if the debt ceiling wouldn't have been raised. S&P and other credit agencies are in the business of predicting adverse events before they happen. They don't take a "wait and see" attitude on the matter. Not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad faith (like not paying off your credit card minimum).

The compromise was far from perfect, but it got us off credit watch.

More from the article:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy.
Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

In other words, the absurd "self inflicted wound" that was the debt ceiling "crisis" is exactly what led to this. The problem is that the Tea Party doesn't compromise, and Washington is built on compromise. Even when their own party brokered a deal that gave them "98% of what they wanted"* many of them (with some notable exceptions - thank you Allen West) still voted against it, to include Michele Bachmann, who wants to run the entire country.

The compromise wasn't perfect, but it likely staved off a financial meltdown. The TP ironically gets to sit back and throw stones because they didn't get their own way. If they had, we would be in an economic disaster right now.

As it stands, S&P is the only credit firm that handed us a minor downgrade and that was controversial unto itself with many analysts calling "foul". Moody's reaffirmed the AAA rating, and Fitch* just reaffirmed it as well after giving it a second look.

U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating Is Affirmed by Fitch at AAA; Outlook Is Stable - Bloomberg

We can only speculate what would have happened if the TP caucus was more sufficient and able to stymie the process. The American people aren't ignorant of this either. There is a reason the TP has falling in the polls since August 2nd. So the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was a last minute deal that averted a larger crisis.

The Tea Party hasn't proven that it possesses the adult leadership necessary to work across the aisle to take the measures necessary to right our financial ship. Tell me again why these people need to be given the keys to the kingdom?

*
House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government."
Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

How does the democrat conference call of any cut being Extreme before negotiations started play into this?
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
58,192
Reaction score
10,071
Points
2,030
The debt crisis was precipitated by the failure of Democrats to accept basically the same bill six months earlier. That is fact. Also, when progress was starting to be made the week before the deadline, Obama suddenly wants MORE tax increases. Again, a Democratic failure of epic proportion.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
88,464
Reaction score
74,304
Points
3,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
The debt crisis was precipitated by the failure of Democrats to accept basically the same bill six months earlier. That is fact. Also, when progress was starting to be made the week before the deadline, Obama suddenly wants MORE tax increases. Again, a Democratic failure of epic proportion.
PAYGO!!!...What the hell ever happened to SanFranNan's precious PAYGO?!?!?! :eusa_whistle:
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
The debt crisis was precipitated by the failure of Democrats to accept basically the same bill six months earlier. That is fact. Also, when progress was starting to be made the week before the deadline, Obama suddenly wants MORE tax increases. Again, a Democratic failure of epic proportion.
PAYGO!!!...What the hell ever happened to SanFranNan's precious PAYGO?!?!?! :eusa_whistle:

Nancy Pelosi announced after taking the house in 2007 that the end of deficit spending was here.
 

Oldstyle

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
31,206
Reaction score
4,927
Points
1,160
Location
Florida
The greatest irony of the aftermath of the debt downgrade is that the Tea Party, and most notably Michele Bachmann, have claimed political victory on the matter. To listen to Congress Woman Bachmann, the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right. Upon reading the S&P report, it's clear that allowing August 2nd to pass without raising the debt would have led to a larger downgrade and unlike spending cuts (which can be further addressed at a later date), the debt ceiling had a hard deadline and once that boat sailed, it would have been too late to fix the mess.

The S&P indicated in their report that the largest reason for the downgrade was the fact that there was even a debate about raising the debt ceiling before the deadline and that their fears that it wouldn't be raised in the future due to political brinksmanship.

As much as they would like to claim otherwise, the Teaparty certainly doesn't have any high ground on the issue. No so ironically, if the teaparty had gotten their way and not raised the debt ceiling, the downgrades would have been much worse.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

Pushing Rope: Standard and Poors Places United States on Credit Watch

Not raising the debt ceiling would have been a frigging disaster. We don't have to debate it, S&P lays it out in plain English. It's futile to debate whether we would have really defaulted if the debt ceiling wouldn't have been raised. S&P and other credit agencies are in the business of predicting adverse events before they happen. They don't take a "wait and see" attitude on the matter. Not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad faith (like not paying off your credit card minimum).

The compromise was far from perfect, but it got us off credit watch.

More from the article:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy.
Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

In other words, the absurd "self inflicted wound" that was the debt ceiling "crisis" is exactly what led to this. The problem is that the Tea Party doesn't compromise, and Washington is built on compromise. Even when their own party brokered a deal that gave them "98% of what they wanted"* many of them (with some notable exceptions - thank you Allen West) still voted against it, to include Michele Bachmann, who wants to run the entire country.

The compromise wasn't perfect, but it likely staved off a financial meltdown. The TP ironically gets to sit back and throw stones because they didn't get their own way. If they had, we would be in an economic disaster right now.

As it stands, S&P is the only credit firm that handed us a minor downgrade and that was controversial unto itself with many analysts calling "foul". Moody's reaffirmed the AAA rating, and Fitch* just reaffirmed it as well after giving it a second look.

U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating Is Affirmed by Fitch at AAA; Outlook Is Stable - Bloomberg

We can only speculate what would have happened if the TP caucus was more sufficient and able to stymie the process. The American people aren't ignorant of this either. There is a reason the TP has falling in the polls since August 2nd. So the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was a last minute deal that averted a larger crisis.

The Tea Party hasn't proven that it possesses the adult leadership necessary to work across the aisle to take the measures necessary to right our financial ship. Tell me again why these people need to be given the keys to the kingdom?

*
House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government."
Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

What I find most amusing is how people like you can take what S&P said in their report and spin it to where you think we were downgraded SOLELY because the debt limit debate went down to the very last minute and conservatives wanted more cuts in return for raising the ceiling.

We got downgraded because S&P thinks we have too much debt and that we don't have the political stomach to make tough cuts to entitlements to resolve the situation.
 
OP
geauxtohell

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
How does the democrat conference call of any cut being Extreme before negotiations started play into this?

As deflection.

No doubt both parties share some blame. This thread is about the disaster that would have happened if the TP got their way and didn't raise the debt ceiling (something the establishment GOP knew needed to happen). In the end of the day, a compromise was reached.

Had that not happened, it would have been a disaster. Ironically, the TP wants to play "I told you so", when (if you bother to read the report) that simply is not the case.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
How does the democrat conference call of any cut being Extreme before negotiations started play into this?

As deflection.

No doubt both parties share some blame. This thread is about the disaster that would have happened if the TP got their way and didn't raise the debt ceiling (something the establishment GOP knew needed to happen). In the end of the day, a compromise was reached.

Had that not happened, it would have been a disaster. Ironically, the TP wants to play "I told you so", when (if you bother to read the report) that simply is not the case.

aH THE WHAT IF ARGUMENT, THAT MUST ASSUME NO OTHER MEASURES WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. Greenspan said quite clearly we could just print money.
 
OP
geauxtohell

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
The greatest irony of the aftermath of the debt downgrade is that the Tea Party, and most notably Michele Bachmann, have claimed political victory on the matter. To listen to Congress Woman Bachmann, the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right. Upon reading the S&P report, it's clear that allowing August 2nd to pass without raising the debt would have led to a larger downgrade and unlike spending cuts (which can be further addressed at a later date), the debt ceiling had a hard deadline and once that boat sailed, it would have been too late to fix the mess.

The S&P indicated in their report that the largest reason for the downgrade was the fact that there was even a debate about raising the debt ceiling before the deadline and that their fears that it wouldn't be raised in the future due to political brinksmanship.

As much as they would like to claim otherwise, the Teaparty certainly doesn't have any high ground on the issue. No so ironically, if the teaparty had gotten their way and not raised the debt ceiling, the downgrades would have been much worse.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

Pushing Rope: Standard and Poors Places United States on Credit Watch

Not raising the debt ceiling would have been a frigging disaster. We don't have to debate it, S&P lays it out in plain English. It's futile to debate whether we would have really defaulted if the debt ceiling wouldn't have been raised. S&P and other credit agencies are in the business of predicting adverse events before they happen. They don't take a "wait and see" attitude on the matter. Not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad faith (like not paying off your credit card minimum).

The compromise was far from perfect, but it got us off credit watch.

More from the article:



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

In other words, the absurd "self inflicted wound" that was the debt ceiling "crisis" is exactly what led to this. The problem is that the Tea Party doesn't compromise, and Washington is built on compromise. Even when their own party brokered a deal that gave them "98% of what they wanted"* many of them (with some notable exceptions - thank you Allen West) still voted against it, to include Michele Bachmann, who wants to run the entire country.

The compromise wasn't perfect, but it likely staved off a financial meltdown. The TP ironically gets to sit back and throw stones because they didn't get their own way. If they had, we would be in an economic disaster right now.

As it stands, S&P is the only credit firm that handed us a minor downgrade and that was controversial unto itself with many analysts calling "foul". Moody's reaffirmed the AAA rating, and Fitch* just reaffirmed it as well after giving it a second look.

U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating Is Affirmed by Fitch at AAA; Outlook Is Stable - Bloomberg

We can only speculate what would have happened if the TP caucus was more sufficient and able to stymie the process. The American people aren't ignorant of this either. There is a reason the TP has falling in the polls since August 2nd. So the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was a last minute deal that averted a larger crisis.

The Tea Party hasn't proven that it possesses the adult leadership necessary to work across the aisle to take the measures necessary to right our financial ship. Tell me again why these people need to be given the keys to the kingdom?

*
House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government."
Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

What I find most amusing is how people like you can take what S&P said in their report and spin it to where you think we were downgraded SOLELY because the debt limit debate went down to the very last minute and conservatives wanted more cuts in return for raising the ceiling.

We got downgraded because S&P thinks we have too much debt and that we don't have the political stomach to make tough cuts to entitlements to resolve the situation.

If you actually read my post, that's not what I said:

" the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right."

S&P also lamented that the deal had no mechanism to raise additional revenue, but I don't hear the right wing acknowledging that.

All that aside, not raising the debt ceiling would have been a disaster and the S&P fears that "brinksmanship" on the effort will allow a future event where we won't get it done. as it stands, this was a last minute deal.
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,838
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
The greatest irony of the aftermath of the debt downgrade is that the Tea Party, and most notably Michele Bachmann, have claimed political victory on the matter. To listen to Congress Woman Bachmann, the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right. Upon reading the S&P report, it's clear that allowing August 2nd to pass without raising the debt would have led to a larger downgrade and unlike spending cuts (which can be further addressed at a later date), the debt ceiling had a hard deadline and once that boat sailed, it would have been too late to fix the mess.

The S&P indicated in their report that the largest reason for the downgrade was the fact that there was even a debate about raising the debt ceiling before the deadline and that their fears that it wouldn't be raised in the future due to political brinksmanship.

As much as they would like to claim otherwise, the Teaparty certainly doesn't have any high ground on the issue. No so ironically, if the teaparty had gotten their way and not raised the debt ceiling, the downgrades would have been much worse.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

Pushing Rope: Standard and Poors Places United States on Credit Watch

Not raising the debt ceiling would have been a frigging disaster. We don't have to debate it, S&P lays it out in plain English. It's futile to debate whether we would have really defaulted if the debt ceiling wouldn't have been raised. S&P and other credit agencies are in the business of predicting adverse events before they happen. They don't take a "wait and see" attitude on the matter. Not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad faith (like not paying off your credit card minimum).

The compromise was far from perfect, but it got us off credit watch.

More from the article:



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

In other words, the absurd "self inflicted wound" that was the debt ceiling "crisis" is exactly what led to this. The problem is that the Tea Party doesn't compromise, and Washington is built on compromise. Even when their own party brokered a deal that gave them "98% of what they wanted"* many of them (with some notable exceptions - thank you Allen West) still voted against it, to include Michele Bachmann, who wants to run the entire country.

The compromise wasn't perfect, but it likely staved off a financial meltdown. The TP ironically gets to sit back and throw stones because they didn't get their own way. If they had, we would be in an economic disaster right now.

As it stands, S&P is the only credit firm that handed us a minor downgrade and that was controversial unto itself with many analysts calling "foul". Moody's reaffirmed the AAA rating, and Fitch* just reaffirmed it as well after giving it a second look.

U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating Is Affirmed by Fitch at AAA; Outlook Is Stable - Bloomberg

We can only speculate what would have happened if the TP caucus was more sufficient and able to stymie the process. The American people aren't ignorant of this either. There is a reason the TP has falling in the polls since August 2nd. So the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was a last minute deal that averted a larger crisis.

The Tea Party hasn't proven that it possesses the adult leadership necessary to work across the aisle to take the measures necessary to right our financial ship. Tell me again why these people need to be given the keys to the kingdom?

*
House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government."
Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

What I find most amusing is how people like you can take what S&P said in their report and spin it to where you think we were downgraded SOLELY because the debt limit debate went down to the very last minute and conservatives wanted more cuts in return for raising the ceiling.

We got downgraded because S&P thinks we have too much debt and that we don't have the political stomach to make tough cuts to entitlements to resolve the situation.

we were downgraded for a number of reasons-mainly because the mouthbreathers on the right don't have the balls to raise taxes to pay for all the stupid shit both parties have spent our money on- y'know, like spending the last 10 years in afghanistan chasing goats with cruise missiles and the last eight fucking up the balance of power in the ME, and the mouthbreathers on the left are too fucking stupid to realize that if you're trying to get out of a hole, the first step is to put down the shovel.
 
OP
geauxtohell

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.

Oh! Hyperbole from powerline blog and the Tampa Republicans!

Even better, it has little to do with the OP! We all agree the debt has to be brought under control.

But if you want to bitch about passing the debt on to our children, then why didn't Bush raise taxes to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan up front?

Yeah, those bills are due (with interest) and are a large part of the hole we are in.

I am sure the good Republicans down in Tampa weren't concerned with the debt when Bush leading us into Iraq for a "cakewalk".
 
OP
geauxtohell

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
aH THE WHAT IF ARGUMENT, THAT MUST ASSUME NO OTHER MEASURES WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. Greenspan said quite clearly we could just print money.

That worked well for the Weimar Republic. Tell me, do you gripe about inflation too?

All that aside, I notice no one wants to address the disastrous game of financial chicken that the TP caucus wanted us to undertake.
 
OP
geauxtohell

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
we were downgraded for a number of reasons-mainly because the mouthbreathers on the right don't have the balls to raise taxes to pay for all the stupid shit both parties have spent our money on- y'know, like spending the last 10 years in afghanistan chasing goats with cruise missiles and the last eight fucking up the balance of power in the ME, and the mouthbreathers on the left are too fucking stupid to realize that if you're trying to get out of a hole, the first step is to put down the shovel.

I agree with that. The point of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of the TP in claiming that this was a disaster that would have been avoided if only they would have gotten their way.

The report indicates that if they would have gotten their way, it would have been a fucking disaster. It's relevant when the man purveyor of this point is a presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann.

Off topic: I agree with you. We need cuts, more revenue, and an end to military adventurism. I would like to see the President approach this in a manner where the whole nation is mobilized in a "war on the debt" to try and bring the country together in a manner in which we were during World War II where everyone sacrifices to address a common problem.

Probably won't happen.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del

Oldstyle

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
31,206
Reaction score
4,927
Points
1,160
Location
Florida
The greatest irony of the aftermath of the debt downgrade is that the Tea Party, and most notably Michele Bachmann, have claimed political victory on the matter. To listen to Congress Woman Bachmann, the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right. Upon reading the S&P report, it's clear that allowing August 2nd to pass without raising the debt would have led to a larger downgrade and unlike spending cuts (which can be further addressed at a later date), the debt ceiling had a hard deadline and once that boat sailed, it would have been too late to fix the mess.

The S&P indicated in their report that the largest reason for the downgrade was the fact that there was even a debate about raising the debt ceiling before the deadline and that their fears that it wouldn't be raised in the future due to political brinksmanship.

As much as they would like to claim otherwise, the Teaparty certainly doesn't have any high ground on the issue. No so ironically, if the teaparty had gotten their way and not raised the debt ceiling, the downgrades would have been much worse.



Pushing Rope: Standard and Poors Places United States on Credit Watch

Not raising the debt ceiling would have been a frigging disaster. We don't have to debate it, S&P lays it out in plain English. It's futile to debate whether we would have really defaulted if the debt ceiling wouldn't have been raised. S&P and other credit agencies are in the business of predicting adverse events before they happen. They don't take a "wait and see" attitude on the matter. Not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad faith (like not paying off your credit card minimum).

The compromise was far from perfect, but it got us off credit watch.

More from the article:



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

In other words, the absurd "self inflicted wound" that was the debt ceiling "crisis" is exactly what led to this. The problem is that the Tea Party doesn't compromise, and Washington is built on compromise. Even when their own party brokered a deal that gave them "98% of what they wanted"* many of them (with some notable exceptions - thank you Allen West) still voted against it, to include Michele Bachmann, who wants to run the entire country.

The compromise wasn't perfect, but it likely staved off a financial meltdown. The TP ironically gets to sit back and throw stones because they didn't get their own way. If they had, we would be in an economic disaster right now.

As it stands, S&P is the only credit firm that handed us a minor downgrade and that was controversial unto itself with many analysts calling "foul". Moody's reaffirmed the AAA rating, and Fitch* just reaffirmed it as well after giving it a second look.

U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating Is Affirmed by Fitch at AAA; Outlook Is Stable - Bloomberg

We can only speculate what would have happened if the TP caucus was more sufficient and able to stymie the process. The American people aren't ignorant of this either. There is a reason the TP has falling in the polls since August 2nd. So the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was a last minute deal that averted a larger crisis.

The Tea Party hasn't proven that it possesses the adult leadership necessary to work across the aisle to take the measures necessary to right our financial ship. Tell me again why these people need to be given the keys to the kingdom?

*

Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

What I find most amusing is how people like you can take what S&P said in their report and spin it to where you think we were downgraded SOLELY because the debt limit debate went down to the very last minute and conservatives wanted more cuts in return for raising the ceiling.

We got downgraded because S&P thinks we have too much debt and that we don't have the political stomach to make tough cuts to entitlements to resolve the situation.

If you actually read my post, that's not what I said:

" the downgrade was the result of "not cutting enough" and steadfastly refused to vote to raise debt ceiling. That's about 20% right."

S&P also lamented that the deal had no mechanism to raise additional revenue, but I don't hear the right wing acknowledging that.

All that aside, not raising the debt ceiling would have been a disaster and the S&P fears that "brinksmanship" on the effort will allow a future event where we won't get it done. as it stands, this was a last minute deal.

There was no "lamenting" by S&P that the debt ceiling deal didn't have mechanisms to raise additional revenue. If you read the report, S&P didn't make a case for what percentage of cuts versus tax increases it favored. S&P simply pointed out that there was insufficient deficit reduction in the plan and beyond that S&P had reservations that even the reductions in spending that were in the plan would actually be carried out by Congress.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,267
Points
1,283
This is why the tea party will shrink innto oblivian
 

Oldstyle

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
31,206
Reaction score
4,927
Points
1,160
Location
Florida
S&P's biggest problem with us is that they don't think we have a plan to address entitlement spending and THAT is the single biggest driver of future deficits.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
aH THE WHAT IF ARGUMENT, THAT MUST ASSUME NO OTHER MEASURES WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. Greenspan said quite clearly we could just print money.

That worked well for the Weimar Republic. Tell me, do you gripe about inflation too?

All that aside, I notice no one wants to address the disastrous game of financial chicken that the TP caucus wanted us to undertake.

The point is your premise is built on what ifs.
 

Oldstyle

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
31,206
Reaction score
4,927
Points
1,160
Location
Florida
aH THE WHAT IF ARGUMENT, THAT MUST ASSUME NO OTHER MEASURES WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. Greenspan said quite clearly we could just print money.

That worked well for the Weimar Republic. Tell me, do you gripe about inflation too?

All that aside, I notice no one wants to address the disastrous game of financial chicken that the TP caucus wanted us to undertake.

Just curious, Geaux...if the Tea Party's calls for fiscal sanity is tantamount to "financial chicken"...then how would you describe the failure of Democrats to address unfunded entitlement spending that is projected to be 300% of our GDP in twenty years?
 
OP
geauxtohell

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,170
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
There was no "lamenting" by S&P that the debt ceiling deal didn't have mechanisms to raise additional revenue. If you read the report, S&P didn't make a case for what percentage of cuts versus tax increases it favored. S&P simply pointed out that there was insufficient deficit reduction in the plan and beyond that S&P had reservations that even the reductions in spending that were in the plan would actually be carried out by Congress.

Did you read it?

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues
is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.

It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options.

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.

The act contains no
measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues
, though the committee
could recommend them.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. 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.

Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as
consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to
stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it
incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and
2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration
is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government
debt would rise from

(For perspective, the S&P doesn't think that additional revenue will be there because they don't think the 2003 tax cuts will be allowed to lapse)

The difference I see on this issue, is that most people on the left are honest enough to acknowledge that the S&P wanted to see larger cuts (to include Social Security) but most people on the right deny that they weighed in on the need for revenue. Something that, if you are functionally literate and bothered to read the report, is clearly not true.

The best I can get is the gobbeldygoop about "the S&P takes no position on the mix of cuts and revenue..."

You notice they said "mix". That means they think we need both. And if that doesn't do it for you, you can re-read the above snippets from the report.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top