The Hill: S&P credit rating analysis values spending cuts more than tax revenue

[MeBelle]

Excellent track record????



Again Mortgage Back Securities had a AAA rating. By the S&P. That's like saying the Titanic had an excellent track record.

So are you saying that a AAA rating by S&P really means nothing at all to anyone?

 

[Wiseacre]

I'll never understand it - libs want to raise taxes on the rich, which gets them 70-80 billion a year in more revenue. But they're running a deficit of around 1.5 trillion, so where does the other 1.42 or so of deficit get covered? Has to be spending cuts, and the only areas big enough to cut that much are defense and entitlements. 70-80 billion vs 1.42 trillion, how is there even a question about where the great majority of the problem is. Of course S&P values spending cuts more than tax hikes, that's where the money is.

 

[MeBelle]

I'm reading liberal posts and just going wow, just freaking wow.

Libs have you completely lost your minds? I've put up direct quotes by David Beers from S&P stating it is the DEBT. And what do the Dems do? They call S&P amateurs.

YIKES!!!

Even China is saying America's borrowing days are over.

Now that kind of cracks me up!

DECEMBER 16, 2010, 10:18 A.M. ET
S&P Upgrades China's Credit Rating
By AARON BACK
BEIJING—Standard & Poor's Ratings Services upgraded China's sovereign-debt rating, citing its large foreign reserves, strong fiscal position and positive growth outlook.

S&P raised its rating on China's sovereign debt to double-A-minus from A-plus, reflecting "the government's modest indebtedness, a strong external asset position, and our view of the economy's exceptional growth prospects," the agency said Thursday.

The announcement from S&P follows a similar move by Moody's Investors Service, which raised its rating for China's sovereign debt last month.

S&P said the government may face "contingent liabilities in the banking system that could materialize if an extended economic slowdown unfolds," but that China's many strengths outweigh that potential pitfall.

The upgrade amounts to a vote of approval for China's response to the financial crisis. "We believe the Chinese authorities would respond to future threats to financial stability with timely measures, based on our observation over the past two years," S&P analyst Kim Eng Tan said.

S&P Upgrades China's Credit Rating - WSJ.com

China got an upgrade because it held "large foreign reserves". Meaning USA????

 

[Zander]

A spending freeze would solve our problems quickly. Why aren't the dolts in DC talking about that?

 

[Dr.House]

See, this is the classic Republican stance. We'll cut the budget as long as you don't touch our sacred cows, the big cow being defense.

Defense needs to cut in half over time, and its past debts paid for with higher taxes. Let people feel the cost of unnecessary wars and the cost of the power of the defense lobby.

See, this is the classic Tax 'n Spend liberal stance... "Tax the Rich"

Newsflash: If you taxed everybody making $250,000+ a year at 100% you'd net roughly $900,000,000,000.

You need new schtick.

How about we tax 1/10th of that and get 90 billion a year, that might at least pay for one of the wars.

The one in Libya?

 

[Neotrotsky]

That's not war

How do I know?
Because Papa Obama told me so

 

[Karsinogenic]

All comments above make conventional assumptions. Get out of the Babylon Box.

"Money" is "keceph" (in Bible) which is silver. We haven't had real money in decades!

The US federal regime* owes a "debt" of many NOTHINGS, accumulating interest (also contrary
to our original law - Leviticus 25 Jubilee info!) to a bunch of gangsters, the past century!

It's all owed to a cabal of private bankers who CONSPIRED to set up this trap in 1910!
See "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" G Edward Griffin.
(Once they set it up along with Income Tax to pay themselves interest, they pushed a huge need for borrowing in two world wars, plus a credit collapse depression when the feds gave them all the gold people had as it was "bankrupt" to them 1933!. The biggest heist in history! Then they created more cycles and usury to themselves. Now they want more and more. It's endless!)

So let's repudiate the Federal Reserve and all its "money" and all "debt" to it.

Go back to silver coins. (Not gold, they stole a huge pile of that! Silver is better for daily trade amounts.)

Repudiation of the whole Fed Res pile is what "they" (our Controllers) really fear. They'd lose control! Maybe more, like in the French Revolution. (Controllers were not undone until they were really gone.)

With that conspiracy gone, we'd dump a lot of burdens we now make for the Babylon Gang!

*PS: The present "regime" itself is without original Authority. We had a monarch sworn to uphold Bible Law or "royal" law. The Illuminati/Freemason leaders of revolt in 1776+ drove a limited tax revolt into a changed regime, DEVOID of Bible Law as the ultimate. Original law gives no authority for this change.

By the way, in silver, farm wages were about a dime (0.072 ounces) per hour around 1910 (US South). We have no more silver around now (probably less as it isn't saved as money), but many more people. So a silver half dollar a day might be reasonable wages now, with prices to match. Foks who invested in the faulty regime (for un-biblical "retirement" etc) made a bad investment. No "entitlements." Corporate wealth is also unvalid. No authority for corporations and (manupulated) stock markets exists! End them.
Then you'll have no perpetual labor vs managment feuds!

 

[olemizmom]

It is probably time for the Tea Party, if they are going to survive, to take at least some responsibility for this. Even terrorists will do that. And I suspect that the Tea Party freshmen will be held accountable in several ways. Not in the least will be their committee responsibilities.

A populist movement lacks theory, but is very effective in collecting fringe membership. I see the Tea Party as the hippies of the new millenium. A real mixed bag. But, if you shed the most extreme members, at the core of the Tea Party, are issues that neither the Republican or Democratic rank and file have addressed successfully. They can't. Our two party system is a tug and pull-a compromise that doesn't leave either side completely sated.

I believe the most pressing issues are: the shrinking middle class and the tax burden they face; abortion; and gay rights. We've had Republican president and majority republican congress and Democrate president with majority democrate congress with no substantial changes on the federal level to these issues. And with abortion and gay rights, I don't think either side really wants to tackle those issues.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Truth is the analyze Borrowing habits, and Revenue. However it is false to claim that they want us to raise taxes or cut spending. What they want is for us to Borrow less money. Whether that happens because we spend less, or because we raise new Revenues is not as important to them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

See, this is the classic Tax 'n Spend liberal stance... "Tax the Rich"

Newsflash: If you taxed everybody making $250,000+ a year at 100% you'd net roughly $900,000,000,000.

You need new schtick.

How about we tax 1/10th of that and get 90 billion a year, that might at least pay for one of the wars.

The one in Libya?

The one in Afghanistan more likely. Yes, the one Obama escalated for no good reason, with overwhelming support from the GOP.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Almost
Congress actually voted for the other two under Bush

But you will be happy to know
with overwhelming support from the Democrats, as well

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is worth repeating, assuming it's already been posted:

From the Standard and Poor's statement on the downgrade:

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.

 

[Dr.House]

How about we tax 1/10th of that and get 90 billion a year, that might at least pay for one of the wars.

The one in Libya?

The one in Afghanistan more likely. Yes, the one Obama escalated for no good reason, with overwhelming support from the GOP.

So your saying 0bama's War in Libya is due to GOP support for it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The one in Libya?

The one in Afghanistan more likely. Yes, the one Obama escalated for no good reason, with overwhelming support from the GOP.

So your saying 0bama's War in Libya is due to GOP support for it?

No I was referring to the GOP's support for the Afghanistan war.

 

[Dr.House]

The one in Afghanistan more likely. Yes, the one Obama escalated for no good reason, with overwhelming support from the GOP.

So your saying 0bama's War in Libya is due to GOP support for it?

No I was referring to the GOP's support for the Afghanistan war.

I wasn't talking about that... My comment was on Libya....

Reposted in case you missed it:

The one in Libya?