the text of S&Ps statement, they blame republicans

[eflatminor]

You called a direct quote a lie.

are you now trying to spin that?

I call taking a quote that is incidental to the main point of the report and calling it the reason for the downgrade when it is clearly is not is a lie.


So, yes, you're a ******* liar...just like your central planning buddies in Washington.

 

[Salt Jones]

and where does that get you salt?

It gets me in the same place I am now. I have no debt, thanks Dave Ramsey, and I work in an industry that thrives in chaos. This has been the best six years of my life and the sky's the limit.

 

[Ernie S.]

How can a direct quote be a lie?

When you extract one sentence from the context of the article, you are lying. IDIOT!!

 

[eflatminor]

Here is the entire paragraph
They down graded us because keeping the Bush tax cuts will cause a deficit in their calculations.






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. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

It says NO SUCH THING! My god you are full of shit! It simply says they expect no increase in tax revenues. That's it. You're overlooking every bullet point in the overview section of the report, all of which talk about DEBT.

Do you really think changing tax rates will cover the current $14.5 trillion of debt or the $7-8 trillion you fuckers plan to add in the next decade? If so, show us the math.

 

[Avorysuds]

Your ideas have been proven failures by history.

Tax cuts do not provide stimulus.

Deregulation done for dereulations sake causes messes.

The wealthy are not the most important people in a society

Well I guess you just proved Harding wrong when he got us out of a Depression in 1921 by doing what you just said does not work... Oh, is this where I get to call you a revisionist of history?

BTW TM, who the **** said the wealthy were the most important people insociety... cuz I'm only seeing you saying it.

 

[Truthmatters]

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

13th paragraph

"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."

What disingenuous bullshit...and you know it! First, you do realize that if we raised tax RATES, tax REVENUES would likely fallPROVE IT...but that's a side point to your full of shit suggestion. Namely, that we were downgraded because we've not raised tax rates.

Yes, you've quoted a sentence from the 13th paragraph but how about the bullet points from the OVERVIEW section of the report...the first part that tells us why they did what they did. Let's have a look:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics. oh you mean the debt limit agreement that the republicans got 98% of what they wanted by tehir own estimations?

• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.

• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

In addition, the report makes it clear that S&P takes no position on HOW we reduce the debt...as someone else has already posted.

Bottom line, your OP is full of shit.

My OP directly quotes them when they say they downgraded us BECAUSE the republicans refuse to allow taxes to be raised.

 

[eflatminor]

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

13th paragraph

"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."

What disingenuous bullshit...and you know it! First, you do realize that if we raised tax RATES, tax REVENUES would likely fallPROVE IT...but that's a side point to your full of shit suggestion. Namely, that we were downgraded because we've not raised tax rates.

Yes, you've quoted a sentence from the 13th paragraph but how about the bullet points from the OVERVIEW section of the report...the first part that tells us why they did what they did. Let's have a look:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics. oh you mean the debt limit agreement that the republicans got 98% of what they wanted by tehir own estimations?

• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.

• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

In addition, the report makes it clear that S&P takes no position on HOW we reduce the debt...as someone else has already posted.

Bottom line, your OP is full of shit.

My OP directly quotes them when they say they downgraded us BECAUSE the republicans refuse to allow taxes to be raised.

It says no such thing! A troll is one thing. You are bound and determined to prove to everyone just how full of shit you are. Listen closely asshole. The quote you referenced does NOT say what you're suggesting. It just doesn't.

 

[Truthmatters]

Just saying it doesnt say what it says is an insane arguement

 

[Full-Auto]

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

13th paragraph

"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."

What disingenuous bullshit...and you know it! First, you do realize that if we raised tax RATES, tax REVENUES would likely fallPROVE IT...but that's a side point to your full of shit suggestion. Namely, that we were downgraded because we've not raised tax rates.

Yes, you've quoted a sentence from the 13th paragraph but how about the bullet points from the OVERVIEW section of the report...the first part that tells us why they did what they did. Let's have a look:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics. oh you mean the debt limit agreement that the republicans got 98% of what they wanted by tehir own estimations?

• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.

• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

In addition, the report makes it clear that S&P takes no position on HOW we reduce the debt...as someone else has already posted.

Bottom line, your OP is full of shit.

My OP directly quotes them when they say they downgraded us BECAUSE the republicans refuse to allow taxes to be raised.

Then we will just thank you now for climbing off of Obamas hard on and pissing on America. OK!

 

[eflatminor]

Just saying it doesnt say what it says is an insane arguement

Your argument basically boils down to you demanding that 1 + 1 = 3. What a ******* dolt.

 

[BDBoop]

Double-dip recession: Why our current economic malaise is going to be hard to shake. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

What is really worrisome is that if we are in a contraction, we have lost some of our best tools to get out of it. Normally, to help jolt an economy from recession, Washington uses a combination of fiscal policy and monetary policy. During the last recession, which officially lasted from 2007 to 2009, Congress approved a $787 billion stimulus package, which included big spending programs and tax cuts targeted at returning money to families and encouraging businesses to add workers. The monetary policy pushback included dropping interest rates close to zero and the Federal Reserve engaging in two huge rounds of bond buying, swelling its books by more than $2 trillion.

This time around, fiscal policy is, for the most part, off the table, something confirmed to me yesterday by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The only measures that will pass Congress are ones that require minimal or no government spending. She mentioned some tax credits to incentivize businesses to hire workers, infrastructure investment, and policies to encourage China to let its currency rise against the dollar. Those measures would help, but probably only around the margins.

So. Who is the actual "dictator" here. My guess is the group of noisy little scorpions in the House, backed by Grover Norquist.

 

[Truthmatters]

Here is the entire paragraph
They down graded us because keeping the Bush tax cuts will cause a deficit in their calculations.






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. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

the first sentace says they have changed previous projections because Bush tax cuts will be Not be trimmed.

In the second sentance they say they believe this because republicans refuse to raise taxes and that congress has gone along with them.



You tell me what you think those two sentaces are saying?

 

[eflatminor]

Double-dip recession: Why our current economic malaise is going to be hard to shake. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

What is really worrisome is that if we are in a contraction, we have lost some of our best tools to get out of it. Normally, to help jolt an economy from recession, Washington uses a combination of fiscal policy and monetary policy. During the last recession, which officially lasted from 2007 to 2009, Congress approved a $787 billion stimulus package, which included big spending programs and tax cuts targeted at returning money to families and encouraging businesses to add workers. The monetary policy pushback included dropping interest rates close to zero and the Federal Reserve engaging in two huge rounds of bond buying, swelling its books by more than $2 trillion.

This time around, fiscal policy is, for the most part, off the table, something confirmed to me yesterday by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The only measures that will pass Congress are ones that require minimal or no government spending. She mentioned some tax credits to incentivize businesses to hire workers, infrastructure investment, and policies to encourage China to let its currency rise against the dollar. Those measures would help, but probably only around the margins.

So. Who is the actual "dictator" here. My guess is the group of noisy little scorpions in the House, backed by Grover Norquist.

Oh good, look who stopped in to drop a big smelly turd and walk away...typical.

 

[BDBoop]

Gotta love Fark.

Whatever you want to call the bad economy, it's here to stay for a long time due almost entirely to the "all spending is evil, we must protect the rich" mantra of the far right

 

[Oldstyle]

They said clearly that we need to raise taxes too.

Everyone with a brain and No religious devotoion to Norquist knows just cuts wont do it.

We have to bring in more money and cut.

We have been cutting and cutting.

Now we need to raise taxes to fix this mess.

Pretending we can fix it and not raise taxes is what the S&P said they made their decision on.

You really are one of the most clueless people I've ever run across. S&P made no declaration of HOW we need to address our deficit problem...whether it was by increasing taxes...cutting spending or a combination of the two. They simply said we needed to shrink the deficit and they said that the shrinkage they were looking for was in the 4 trillion range.

As for your contention that we have been "cutting and cutting"? Where? We haven't cut anything yet.

Go back and read the S&P explanation again and concentrate on what they say about having doubts about whether the cuts that have been PROPOSED will actually take place. In a nutshell S&P is saying they question whether or not our leaders will follow through on the cuts that are supposed to take place.

 

[Ernie S.]

Because they have more money.


They have benifited the most from our infrastructure.

That's complete bullshit.

Take a family with a $30,000 annual income and 4 kids. They own a car, probable an older one, that pollutes more than the wealthy man's auto.
They qualify for food stamps, probably some rental assistance. They generate mounds of garbage, and their kids go to public school at a cost of 8 to 10 grand a pop.
The wealthy tend to be older. Their kids are in private schools or grown up, they don't qualify for "entitlements" . They buy a new car every couple years, they pay exorbitant property taxes and generally employ people who would otherwise be collecting unemployment checks.
So, the guy making $1,000,000/year pays 400 grand in taxes for a couple grand in services and the family making 30 grand gets an earned income tax credit, 40 grand in tuition 20 grand in food stamps and rental assistance.
How is it that you can justify that?

 

[Truthmatters]

What disingenuous bullshit...and you know it! First, you do realize that if we raised tax RATES, tax REVENUES would likely fallPROVE IT...but that's a side point to your full of shit suggestion. Namely, that we were downgraded because we've not raised tax rates.

Yes, you've quoted a sentence from the 13th paragraph but how about the bullet points from the OVERVIEW section of the report...the first part that tells us why they did what they did. Let's have a look:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics. oh you mean the debt limit agreement that the republicans got 98% of what they wanted by tehir own estimations?

• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.

• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

In addition, the report makes it clear that S&P takes no position on HOW we reduce the debt...as someone else has already posted.

Bottom line, your OP is full of shit.

My OP directly quotes them when they say they downgraded us BECAUSE the republicans refuse to allow taxes to be raised.

Then we will just thank you now for climbing off of Obamas hard on and pissing on America. OK!

Thank you for your civility and provision of facts.

This level of debate surely will be what wins your party the next election.

 

[Avorysuds]

But they already said that Paul Ryans plan would have avoided this if passed and it didn't have any new taxes...

Hmm what do I belive the direct words for s&p or TM trying to restructure a lie over and over when she does not in face have a single quote saying taxes needed to be raised like she claims.

 

[The_GiantNoodle]

TM thinks "congress and the administration" is code talking for "republicans".

You fool. IT ******* SAYS REPUBLICAN right in the god damn sentence.

I love when presented with a fact, the hard core conservative will deny it so they dont have to live with it or face it. And we allow these retards to vote. Thanks for making America worse! Now go see a shrink because you need help.

 

[Ernie S.]

You called a direct quote a lie.

are you now trying to spin that?

As I said, taking one sentence out of context is a lie by omission!