Tea Party Duplicity on the Debt Deal

[geauxtohell]

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.

Or the fact that we have gone almost 900 days without the dems proposing a federal spending budget.......that was a HUGE factor in S&P's decision to downgrade us.

Why didn't the original post mention this fact too? Its almost like it was a partisan opening post

Funny, I didn't see that in the S&P report.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Or the fact that we have gone almost 900 days without the dems proposing a federal spending budget.......that was a HUGE factor in S&P's decision to downgrade us.

Why didn't the original post mention this fact too? Its almost like it was a partisan opening post

Funny, I didn't see that in the S&P report.

I don't hold the S&P accountable for disclosing all the stupid found in Congress. I mean, they had to get the report out within a reasonable timeframe.

 

[geauxtohell]

Or the fact that we have gone almost 900 days without the dems proposing a federal spending budget.......that was a HUGE factor in S&P's decision to downgrade us.

Why didn't the original post mention this fact too? Its almost like it was a partisan opening post

Funny, I didn't see that in the S&P report.

I don't hold the S&P accountable for disclosing all the stupid found in Congress. I mean, they had to get the report out within a reasonable timeframe.

The S&P report was pretty careful to try and be partisan.

It was, all in all, a generally bipartisan hack job.

 

[saveliberty]

Did you mean nonpartisan? Yes, I think they did lay blame at the feet of both parties. Democrats quickly shook their heads no and pointed at the Republicans.

 

[geauxtohell]

why didn't Fitch ( who has just re-affirmed our AAA Bond rating btw Fitch affirms U.S. at AAA, outlook stable - Yahoo! News)
and Moddys downgrade us?

LOL. Did you take the time to actually read my post, Trajan? I only ask because I noted that Fitch just reaffirmed our AAA rating and also provided a link about it (maybe even the same link).

my bad, I blew right by it, apologies.





presto chango, exactly.
this is exactly why I give them short shrift, and using them as an example to pivot off is *shrugs*


you said-


Well that is your opinion, balanced against everyone’s parties of all stripes jockeying for position what ‘high ground ‘ is there to be had?

We just agreed (?) that S%&P really isn’t the go to on the topic or issue, the TP was IMHO ready to watch the debt ceiling date go by BUT the hostage (using the medias vernacular ) they would not shoot was DEFAULT, where the real danger lie(lay lied laid whatever) , as the 2 out of 3 didn't lower the rating how do you know the downgrades or actions of Fitch Moodys would have been worse?

Taking S&P at their word they would have dropped us to an D…..fine BUT, looking below at your verbiage, you do believe that there was a difference in outlook, so if we had gone past the debt ceiling drop dead date but NOT defaulted, you are sure that fitch and moodys would have downgraded us?









My like has zip to do with it.
Answering the above and below together, you are making an argument in mitigation.

The house being rigid or not have little effect on what his duties or choices are, what he can or cannot do, he himself said he had a plan yet despite requests to see it, no one has. I am aware he doesn’t hold the purse strings, BUT just as he is REQUIRED to submit a plan to scoring which then goes to the house every year for the budget process in Feb. and as every other pres. at one time or another has, he is always able to submit a plan to the house or senate for consideration. Rigidity and machinations, you are aware that Reid filibustered his own bill? And more club for growth ‘old reps’ ( see country club) voted against the bill than the TP did?

If the deck was stacked in the GOP’s favor and he was the mature one taking a deal because he just could not risk the countries rating, why then did Clinton come out smelling like a rose? A- Because, Clinton is a politician. Obama seems to have not been able to effectively manage the situation which as you inferred is at least partly due to his own making ala having a 2 year window, BUT we both know and I have shown, he and reid knew exactly what they were doing as to not discussing this debt ceiling in April nor December OR before they lost the house, this was meant to run down to the wire, he miscalculated……..and you do know that Boehner was going to say that not matter what he would up walking away with minus a complete shellacking, what do you expect him to say?

Anyway maturity was a word you used, I piggybacked on, when apparently to me at least the better word is ‘competence’ as in lack there of.

It seems to me the most powerful man in Dem. party right now is; Harry Reid- NOT Barak Obama. He was MIA and consigned himself to the fringes, popping in here and there, just where he wanted to be, leading from behind , ready to swoop in and take credit yet not to close to get dirty if it blew up.... so, I find it strange you mention 'leadership' without touching on the C in C etc. .

The President doesn't control the purse strings. He can only sign what comes across his desk. Sure he can lobby for his own position, but the GOP has the house and a significant portion of that house is part of a caucus that is ideologically rigid. I think Reid is good at the backroom deal, but I think the GOP came out ahead on this compromise. That's why Boehner said they got 98% of what they wanted on the thing.

That was a long post. I am going to do my best to address it. If I miss something crucial, just hit me with it again.

1.) I agree that the S&P report is bumpkis. I think it was a lot of shenanigans. I hope they lose respect over the matter. However, that doesn't mean we can simply dismiss it. The damage has been done. And it was totally un-necessary.

2.) I agree the DEMs screwed up by not getting budget deal in place when they had power. You'll never hear me praising the leadership ability of Pelosi and Reid. I think they suck as leaders, frankly. I think they are good at what they do for their districts, but they should have never been given the reigns. That is neither here nor there now.

3.) I speculate that Fitch and Moody would have downgraded us. I think Fitch would have, as they gave us a second look after the S&P report (they initially had reaffirmed our AAA report). One thing is for certain, this "crisis" was a completely self inflicted wound. There was no reason why the debt ceiling couldn't have been raised and the deficit v. revenue debate settled another day. The debt ceiling was used as leverage and it pushed us into a shitty position. Stupid.

4.) I agree Obama got outmaneuvered. He was somewhat screwed as he was not willing to risk our debt rating and the other side knew it. As it stands, we still got hit at least once. I do give him credit for trying to keep everything in check and taking it in the ass on that compromise. In the end, it came down to the wire. He could have refused to sign that bill and then he still would have been blamed. That's the way it goes when you are the president.

5.) I have no idea what Clinton has to do with any of this.

 

[geauxtohell]

Did you mean nonpartisan? Yes, I think they did lay blame at the feet of both parties. Democrats quickly shook their heads no and pointed at the Republicans.

Yes.

And both parties are pointing their fingers.

I am still trying to get at least one person on the right on this board admit that the S&P report wanted to see increased revenue.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did you mean nonpartisan? Yes, I think they did lay blame at the feet of both parties. Democrats quickly shook their heads no and pointed at the Republicans.

indeed they did (both theys )

 

[Oldstyle]

You are under the mistaken assumption that we are simply going to take your opinion on the matter as the gospel and if you simply toss out hyperbole and insist we are wrong, we are going to change our opinion.

Even if we could have covered our short term debt, not raising the debt ceiling would have been viewed as an act of bad faith and we would have gotten hit harder on the downgrade (even if not all the way to a D). It also would have resulted in another immediate conflict over this in the near future.

And you damn well know it. If you don't, you shouldn't insult other people's intelligence.

So you've retreated from your claim that not voting for an increase in the debt ceiling would have resulted in a D credit rating? It sure appears that way to me. Good that we've got that straightened out.

As for what is considered "an act of bad faith"? If you read the S&P report it's quite apparent that they have reservations about the trustworthiness of Congress and this President to make good on even the small deficit cuts that were passed but not specified.

And my insult to your intelligence was brought on by a REALLY ignorant post by yourself. I'm sorry if you didn't like being called on it but it is what it is.

And also to raise revenue.

I am not backing off the "D" comment. This article lays it out pretty nicely:

Six consequences of not raising the debt ceiling -- GovExec.com

So if we assume those are our six options to avoid default and seeing the cluster fuck that was the negotiations for the compromise, I am not confident that 1 or 3 would be accomplished. I am also not confident that it wouldn't have resulted in default. The second that happened, automatic "D" baby.

You seem to be confident that it wouldn't have resulted in a default. Fine. Neither of us can say with 100% confidence that we are right. The only result would have been to let it rip and see what happens.

"Financial Chicken".

Completely stupid.

Only one problem with your "six consequences" article, Geaux...3 of the 6 only apply if we did default on our bond debt which we've already established wouldn't happen. So all that doom and gloom about the stock market crashing and interest rates hitting record highs? That was strictly a scare tactic to make people accept a debt ceiling increase without putting up much of a fight for real deficit reduction. As for the other 3? Deep cuts and layoffs of non essential Federal employees is something to be desired...not avoided. Our Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient monster that needs to be shrunk. We could have taken a step towards making that happen during the debt ceiling talks but instead we allowed "big government junkies" on both sides of the aisle scare us off once again with the nonsense you're spouting. We got a token reduction of the defict...a reduction so small that S&P reacted to it by downgrading our credit rating.

 

[Oldstyle]

Did you mean nonpartisan? Yes, I think they did lay blame at the feet of both parties. Democrats quickly shook their heads no and pointed at the Republicans.

Yes.

And both parties are pointing their fingers.

I am still trying to get at least one person on the right on this board admit that the S&P report wanted to see increased revenue.

If you actually READ the S&P report you'll see that they were pointedly noncommittal about the make up of measures to trim the deficit. They didn't call specifically for either spending cuts or tax increases. What they did call for was meaningful cuts of the deficit which didn't occur.

 

[geauxtohell]

Only one problem with your "six consequences" article, Geaux...3 of the 6 only apply if we did default on our bond debt which we've already established wouldn't happen. So all that doom and gloom about the stock market crashing and interest rates hitting record highs? That was strictly a scare tactic to make people accept a debt ceiling increase without putting up much of a fight for real deficit reduction. As for the other 3? Deep cuts and layoffs of non essential Federal employees is something to be desired...not avoided. Our Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient monster that needs to be shrunk. We could have taken a step towards making that happen during the debt ceiling talks but instead we allowed "big government junkies" on both sides of the aisle scare us off once again with the nonsense you're spouting. We got a token reduction of the defict...a reduction so small that S&P reacted to it by downgrading our credit rating.

You haven't "established" anything. You've made unsupported claims.

You aren't even trying. Again, unless you want to drop the fact that you are a highly published and respected Ph.D. in economics, your opinion on the matter carries little weight to me.

If you want to start trotting out some real analysis of why it wasn't crucial to raise the debt ceiling, then I'll look at it.

You also missed the point of the post. So say we do have to start making cuts to things you deem need to be cut. What get's cut?

The debate on that alone would had gone on until the point of brinksmanship. Again.

You also keep stating that the sole reason for the downgrade was that the cuts weren't big enough. You are either playing fast and loose with the report, being disingenuous, or you haven't read it.

The small cuts was one thing that was cite. So was the lack of any way to raise revenue (that I can't get a single right wing poster to accept is fact, even though it is stated about eight times in the report), the primary reason we were downgraded, however, was that there was even a debate on raising the debt ceiling. This was virtually automatic in the past. The fact that it went to the edge of brinksmanship on this go around led the S&P to have real concerns that anything of substance could be done on future occasions, to include cuts, raising revenue and raising the debt ceiling when necessary.

But, by all means, keep telling me that not raising the debt ceiling was "no big deal".

 

[geauxtohell]

Did you mean nonpartisan? Yes, I think they did lay blame at the feet of both parties. Democrats quickly shook their heads no and pointed at the Republicans.

Yes.

And both parties are pointing their fingers.

I am still trying to get at least one person on the right on this board admit that the S&P report wanted to see increased revenue.

If you actually READ the S&P report you'll see that they were pointedly noncommittal about the make up of measures to trim the deficit. They didn't call specifically for either spending cuts or tax increases. What they did call for was meaningful cuts of the deficit which didn't occur.

No, what they said is that they took "no position on the mix of revenue and cuts" that needed to be made to put us back into fiscal order.

So you are telling me that you have read the report, you are just going to willingly misrepresent it to support your own position.

Save that bullshit for someone who will buy it.

BTW, how are spending cuts and raising revenue not related to reducing the deficit?

I guess you'll have to wow me with your superior understanding of economics on that one.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes.

And both parties are pointing their fingers.

I am still trying to get at least one person on the right on this board admit that the S&P report wanted to see increased revenue.

If you actually READ the S&P report you'll see that they were pointedly noncommittal about the make up of measures to trim the deficit. They didn't call specifically for either spending cuts or tax increases. What they did call for was meaningful cuts of the deficit which didn't occur.

No, what they said is that they took "no position on the mix of revenue and cuts" that needed to be made to put us back into fiscal order.

So you are telling me that you have read the report, you are just going to willingly misrepresent it to support your own position.

Save that bullshit for someone who will buy it.

BTW, how are spending cuts and raising revenue not related to reducing the deficit?

I guess you'll have to wow me with your superior understanding of economics on that one.

Well first of all...a call for revenue increases always means tax increases to you libs. S&P didn't call for tax increases because quite frankly increasing taxes in a weak economy historically SHRINKS revenues and is bad fiscal policy. They did call for revenue increases but made no suggestions on how to achieve that increased revenue and DID NOT call for tax increases. Even Christina Romer, Obama's ex-chief economic adviser and a dyed in the wool Keynesian understands that. She was on CNN this past Sunday and said that she didn't recommend raising taxes at this time. But you folks on the Left keep right on screaming for increased taxes on the "wealthy". It's amusing to watch. There is someone here who doesn't understand economics, my friend. Christina Romer seems to think that person would be "you".

 

[geauxtohell]

Well first of all...a call for revenue increases always means tax increases to you libs.

Cute.

S&P didn't call for tax increases because quite frankly increasing taxes in a weak economy historically SHRINKS revenues and is bad fiscal policy.

So does cutting government spending. Nothing like laying off government employees to help the unemployment figures.

The S&P did note we could have generated a lot more revenue if the tax cuts were allowed to expire.

They did call for revenue increases but made no suggestions on how to achieve that increased revenue and DID NOT call for tax increases.

Yeah, I guess we do have other options, huh? We could sell Alaska back to the Russians. We should get a pretty good return on our initial investment with the whole oil thing.

Even Christina Romer, Obama's ex-chief economic adviser and a dyed in the wool Keynesian understands that. She was on CNN this past Sunday and said that she didn't recommend raising taxes at this time. But you folks on the Left keep right on screaming for increased taxes on the "wealthy". It's amusing to watch.

Did you say "ex-chief economic adviser"?

Still waiting for some support for your claim that this whole debt ceiling thing was really no big deal.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well first of all...a call for revenue increases always means tax increases to you libs.

Cute.

S&P didn't call for tax increases because quite frankly increasing taxes in a weak economy historically SHRINKS revenues and is bad fiscal policy.

So does cutting government spending. Nothing like laying off government employees to help the unemployment figures.

The S&P did note we could have generated a lot more revenue if the tax cuts were allowed to expire.

They did call for revenue increases but made no suggestions on how to achieve that increased revenue and DID NOT call for tax increases.

Yeah, I guess we do have other options, huh? We could sell Alaska back to the Russians. We should get a pretty good return on our initial investment with the whole oil thing.

Even Christina Romer, Obama's ex-chief economic adviser and a dyed in the wool Keynesian understands that. She was on CNN this past Sunday and said that she didn't recommend raising taxes at this time. But you folks on the Left keep right on screaming for increased taxes on the "wealthy". It's amusing to watch.

Did you say "ex-chief economic adviser"?

Still waiting for some support for your claim that this whole debt ceiling thing was really no big deal.

Yes, I said "ex-chief economic adviser". In case you didn't notice most of Barack Obama's economic "dream team" resigned en masse when the stimulus didn't work and they didn't know what else to do. Romer ran back to Berkeley and Summers beat feet for Harvard. So much for brilliant "academics" leading us to prosperity. After talking about how things SHOULD be done a couple of adamant Keynesian devotees finally got their shot and proceeded to go down in flames. Good thing they had those tenured positions to fall back on!

And I never claimed the whole debt ceiling thing wasn't a big deal. I actually claimed exactly the opposite. It was a HUGE deal. It was a chance to finally start doing the right thing. I also pointed out that there was absolutely NO chance that we were ever going to default on our debt.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well first of all...a call for revenue increases always means tax increases to you libs.

Cute.



So does cutting government spending. Nothing like laying off government employees to help the unemployment figures.

The S&P did note we could have generated a lot more revenue if the tax cuts were allowed to expire.



Yeah, I guess we do have other options, huh? We could sell Alaska back to the Russians. We should get a pretty good return on our initial investment with the whole oil thing.

Even Christina Romer, Obama's ex-chief economic adviser and a dyed in the wool Keynesian understands that. She was on CNN this past Sunday and said that she didn't recommend raising taxes at this time. But you folks on the Left keep right on screaming for increased taxes on the "wealthy". It's amusing to watch.

Did you say "ex-chief economic adviser"?

Still waiting for some support for your claim that this whole debt ceiling thing was really no big deal.

Yes, I said "ex-chief economic adviser". In case you didn't notice most of Barack Obama's economic "dream team" resigned en masse when the stimulus didn't work and they didn't know what else to do. Romer ran back to Berkeley and Summers beat feet for Harvard. So much for brilliant "academics" leading us to prosperity. After talking about how things SHOULD be done a couple of adamant Keynesian devotees finally got their shot and proceeded to go down in flames. Good thing they had those tenured positions to fall back on!

And I never claimed the whole debt ceiling thing wasn't a big deal. I actually claimed exactly the opposite. It was a HUGE deal. It was a chance to finally start doing the right thing. I also pointed out that there was absolutely NO chance that we were ever going to default on our debt.

And the right thing, in your estimation, was to not raise the debt ceiling. Even though, we know it would have had financial repercussions.

You've stated that there was "no chance" we would default. You've yet to support that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Cute.



So does cutting government spending. Nothing like laying off government employees to help the unemployment figures.

The S&P did note we could have generated a lot more revenue if the tax cuts were allowed to expire.



Yeah, I guess we do have other options, huh? We could sell Alaska back to the Russians. We should get a pretty good return on our initial investment with the whole oil thing.



Did you say "ex-chief economic adviser"?

Still waiting for some support for your claim that this whole debt ceiling thing was really no big deal.

Yes, I said "ex-chief economic adviser". In case you didn't notice most of Barack Obama's economic "dream team" resigned en masse when the stimulus didn't work and they didn't know what else to do. Romer ran back to Berkeley and Summers beat feet for Harvard. So much for brilliant "academics" leading us to prosperity. After talking about how things SHOULD be done a couple of adamant Keynesian devotees finally got their shot and proceeded to go down in flames. Good thing they had those tenured positions to fall back on!

And I never claimed the whole debt ceiling thing wasn't a big deal. I actually claimed exactly the opposite. It was a HUGE deal. It was a chance to finally start doing the right thing. I also pointed out that there was absolutely NO chance that we were ever going to default on our debt.

And the right thing, in your estimation, was to not raise the debt ceiling. Even though, we know it would have had financial repercussions.

You've stated that there was "no chance" we would default. You've yet to support that.

When did I say that the right thing to do was not raise the debt ceiling? Your word comprehension is as shaky as your understanding of economics. I was actually in favor of raising the debt ceiling. In return for doing so however I wanted to see deficit reductions etched in STONE that totaled at least what the rating agencies were looking for...so a minimum of 4 trillion dollars in reductions.

As for my supporting my claim that there was no chance we would default? Why would we? We had plenty of money to pay off our creditors and to not do so would have resulted in an automatic credit rating reduction to a D. Even the idiots we have running Washington at the moment aren't dumb enough to allow that to happen. Even someone as economically "challenged" as yourself must understand that. Or am I giving you too much credit here?

 

[Trajan]

LOL. Did you take the time to actually read my post, Trajan? I only ask because I noted that Fitch just reaffirmed our AAA rating and also provided a link about it (maybe even the same link).

my bad, I blew right by it, apologies.





presto chango, exactly.
this is exactly why I give them short shrift, and using them as an example to pivot off is *shrugs*


you said-


Well that is your opinion, balanced against everyone’s parties of all stripes jockeying for position what ‘high ground ‘ is there to be had?

We just agreed (?) that S%&P really isn’t the go to on the topic or issue, the TP was IMHO ready to watch the debt ceiling date go by BUT the hostage (using the medias vernacular ) they would not shoot was DEFAULT, where the real danger lie(lay lied laid whatever) , as the 2 out of 3 didn't lower the rating how do you know the downgrades or actions of Fitch Moodys would have been worse?

Taking S&P at their word they would have dropped us to an D…..fine BUT, looking below at your verbiage, you do believe that there was a difference in outlook, so if we had gone past the debt ceiling drop dead date but NOT defaulted, you are sure that fitch and moodys would have downgraded us?









My like has zip to do with it.
Answering the above and below together, you are making an argument in mitigation.

The house being rigid or not have little effect on what his duties or choices are, what he can or cannot do, he himself said he had a plan yet despite requests to see it, no one has. I am aware he doesn’t hold the purse strings, BUT just as he is REQUIRED to submit a plan to scoring which then goes to the house every year for the budget process in Feb. and as every other pres. at one time or another has, he is always able to submit a plan to the house or senate for consideration. Rigidity and machinations, you are aware that Reid filibustered his own bill? And more club for growth ‘old reps’ ( see country club) voted against the bill than the TP did?

If the deck was stacked in the GOP’s favor and he was the mature one taking a deal because he just could not risk the countries rating, why then did Clinton come out smelling like a rose? A- Because, Clinton is a politician. Obama seems to have not been able to effectively manage the situation which as you inferred is at least partly due to his own making ala having a 2 year window, BUT we both know and I have shown, he and reid knew exactly what they were doing as to not discussing this debt ceiling in April nor December OR before they lost the house, this was meant to run down to the wire, he miscalculated……..and you do know that Boehner was going to say that not matter what he would up walking away with minus a complete shellacking, what do you expect him to say?

Anyway maturity was a word you used, I piggybacked on, when apparently to me at least the better word is ‘competence’ as in lack there of.

The President doesn't control the purse strings. He can only sign what comes across his desk. Sure he can lobby for his own position, but the GOP has the house and a significant portion of that house is part of a caucus that is ideologically rigid. I think Reid is good at the backroom deal, but I think the GOP came out ahead on this compromise. That's why Boehner said they got 98% of what they wanted on the thing.

That was a long post. I am going to do my best to address it. If I miss something crucial, just hit me with it again.

1.) I agree that the S&P report is bumpkis. I think it was a lot of shenanigans. I hope they lose respect over the matter. However, that doesn't mean we can simply dismiss it. The damage has been done. And it was totally un-necessary.

2.) I agree the DEMs screwed up by not getting budget deal in place when they had power. You'll never hear me praising the leadership ability of Pelosi and Reid. I think they suck as leaders, frankly. I think they are good at what they do for their districts, but they should have never been given the reigns. That is neither here nor there now.

3.) I speculate that Fitch and Moody would have downgraded us. I think Fitch would have, as they gave us a second look after the S&P report (they initially had reaffirmed our AAA report). One thing is for certain, this "crisis" was a completely self inflicted wound. There was no reason why the debt ceiling couldn't have been raised and the deficit v. revenue debate settled another day. The debt ceiling was used as leverage and it pushed us into a shitty position. Stupid.

4.) I agree Obama got outmaneuvered. He was somewhat screwed as he was not willing to risk our debt rating and the other side knew it. As it stands, we still got hit at least once. I do give him credit for trying to keep everything in check and taking it in the ass on that compromise. In the end, it came down to the wire. He could have refused to sign that bill and then he still would have been blamed. That's the way it goes when you are the president.

5.) I have no idea what Clinton has to do with any of this.

Self inflicted? Uhmmm sure, but by who? there is something wrong with the reps asking for cuts before another massive debt extension?

The timing of this was dictated by the Dems, from waaay back in August of 2010 when Hoyer confessed there would be no 2011 budget passed, the slag of appropriations bills they had let languish too on the long march to obama care etc etc etc ....
I have several times posted links to left of center newspapers etc. wapo et al showing in Reids words that he would not take up or make part of the discussions then in nov. 10, dec.10 or april 11 talk about the debt ceiling before they hammered out everything else AND only if he could maneuver the Reps. into taking some of the responsibility for the increase in debt and spending.....well, they tried and it appears they blew it.

The hows really don't matter once battle is joined, you know that.

And the debt ceiling bruhaha was a continuation really of the budget conversation started back in March as to trying to get a 2011 budget in place and stop having to pass CR's ( continuing resolutions) to fund the gov., we saw how that turned out. 7 precious weeks was spent on that.

They then, after cutting a minuscule 38.5 billion from a projected 3.2 Trillion budget took up the debt. ceiling. And the reference to Clinton is important because had the same fight and fewer cards, he was under enormous pressure due to ancillary issues ( personal, hillary issues) he didn't have the house OR the senate...yet?


Any offerings now are just mitigation imho, we ran up until the last minute because thats the way they wanted it, this isn't the first time at the rodeo for a debt ceiling crunch, far from it, history attests to this in past decades, each trying to use public opinion to force the other to blink, its paert of their game.

At the end of the day; There was no 'duplicity', they all played politics. they are all equally guilty ( and I am being generous here) , and there is a 'loser' as there always is.

the American people (perhaps…. for reasons imho I am not sure you agree with and the Obama…… so it goes.

 

[editec]

The fact that there was EVERY any question about whether or not we would PAY OUR DEBTS is why US debt was downgraded.

You can blame that on the TPM or the GOP, or the DNC, but the fact is that they are ALL responsible.

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact that there was EVERY any question about whether or not we would PAY OUR DEBTS is why US debt was downgraded.

You can blame that on the TPM or the GOP, or the DNC, but the fact is that they are ALL responsible.

Sorry, but I don't see that at all. Anyone who really understood the situation, knew that there was zero chance of our failing to pay our bond debt.

The reason we got downgraded was that we didn't make meaningful cuts to our deficit and showed no willingness to address the main driver of that debt...entitlements. The rest is just smoke and mirrors in a game of political brinksmanship. We STILL haven't addressed those issues and the clock is now ticking on another credit downgrade as soon as six months from now.

Get your shit together, Washington!