the text of S&Ps statement, they blame republicans

[Full-Auto]

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.

Believe me its difficult to not just lay into you. MAYBE SOME IN YOUR FACE WOULD WAKE YOU UP.

I think youre a freak and just like the abuse.

 

[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.

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?

Ah! Changing your tune now are you? Now your description of the paragraph 13 quote leaves out your previous assertion, that taxes are WHY we were downgraded.

Those two sentences are saying that S&P revised it's outlook because it does not see any change in the tax code in the near future whereas previously they expected the current tax rates to increase at the end of 2012. You continue to overlook the main bullets points that lay the blame for the downgrade squarely on our level of current and projected debt. Get over it man, the central planner from both parties have fucked us.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Right, we should do like you do (in my sig), or claim the TP held the country hostage at gun point (like you do all the time). Or we can sit around claiming the "other side" has failed policies proven by history and never give an example because the policies you're talking about are still active or expanded under Obama...

I do enjoy the fact that you make more people reconsider being a crazy fringe liberal more than any debate could.

 

[Ernie S.]

You called a direct quote a lie.

are you now trying to spin that?

Taking one paragraph that supports your position is a lie of omission. It is a quite lengthy article, most of which you choose to ignore. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering!

 

[Oldstyle]

S&P has put us on notice that they no longer are accepting "promises to cut" as proof that cuts will be made.

"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...during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

That's S&P pointedly telling us they don't fully trust that even the miniscule proposed cuts will be made.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.one car? are yuou really this foollish multiple cars for personal use and vehicles for business
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 use every bit of our infrastructure more than any regular family. Courts, roads, police, fire inspections,traffic lights, bridges and every bit of our infrastructure are used more by a person who has a business than the average working family
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.they pay the same property taxes anyone who owns property pays
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.No because they do not use our infrastructure to the same extent just becazuse you claim they do
How is it that you can justify that?

There is no need to justify something that is untrue

 

[Si modo]

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.one car? are yuou really this foollish multiple cars for personal use and vehicles for business
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 use every bit of our infrastructure more than any regular family. Courts, roads, police, fire inspections,traffic lights, bridges and every bit of our infrastructure are used more by a person who has a business than the average working family
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.they pay the same property taxes anyone who owns property pays
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.No because they do not use our infrastructure to the same extent just becazuse you claim they do
How is it that you can justify that?

There is no need to justify something that is untrue

Coming from such a liar as you, your post really means nothing.

But thanks for wasting my time, again.

 

[auditor0007]

The Bush tax cuts will expire at some point,I bet that the Libs will not be satisfied with that alone and will demand more tax hikes.

I would be fine with that happening. I have a hunch though, that when they are due to expire again, they will be extended again. And yes, if we are going to increase taxes, it means we should let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, not just those making over $250,000.

 

[Valerie]

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

Read and comprehend the entire thing in context... See post 33 of this thread.


After the passage of this act, S&P revised their projections of potential upside AND potential downside. Your quote is plucked from their view on the "potential base case scenario" which was revised due to several factors including the potential of the committee not coming to a compromise on letting the tax cuts expire and the difference in counting on those revenues going forward, based on the fact that a compromise had yet to be reached provided by the bi-partisan passage of the act itself. In their statement, S&P also acknowledged the possibility of coming to such a compromise via impending committee, so this in no way means they are BLAMING THE DOWNGRADE on the Republicans.

"Our revised downside scenario... also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. "

 

[Oldstyle]

They also point out...quite correctly, I might add...that it doesn't look like taxes will be raised given the current stance of House Republicans. Of course they won't be raised! What's amusing to me is that the liberals didn't raise taxes when they controlled the Senate, House and the White House for two years. The reason? Doing so in a weak economy would be a fiscal disaster. THAT is the reason taxes weren't raised then and won't be raised now. All this talk by Democrats about doing so? It's total hot air to make them look good for their liberal cliques back home. They know only too well that raising taxes is going to further depress the economy.

So let's cut out the silly games, Kiddies.

We can't raise taxes because it's an economy killer.

Anyone with half a brain (sorry Truthmatters) realizes that. So why don't we cut to the chase and do what needs to be done. Reform entitlements and cut government waste.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

Right, we should do like you do (in my sig), or claim the TP held the country hostage at gun point (like you do all the time)I do not say gun point, I call it swinging an axe. Remember your own leader called it hostage taking and said they should do it again. Or we can sit around claiming the "other side" has failed policies proven by history and never give an example because the policies you're talking about are still active or expanded under Obama...I give examples every day here you just ignore the facts provided you.

I do enjoy the fact that you make more people reconsider being a crazy fringe liberal more than any debate could.

Yeap you will really win elections with mere personal insults huh?

 

[auditor0007]

Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the **** does this country think they are??

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

 

[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.one car? are yuou really this foollish multiple cars for personal use and vehicles for business I own one car and one motorcycle
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 use every bit of our infrastructure more than any regular family. Courts, roads, police, fire inspections,traffic lights, bridges and every bit of our infrastructure are used more by a person who has a business than the average working family I haven't done anything that would require me to use the court system, police or fire departments. My motorcycle burns less gasoline and causes less wear and tear on infrastructure than the POS vehicle you likely drive
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.they pay the same property taxes anyone who owns property paysNo, a family on rental assistance and food stamps, doesn't own a house, so they pay little, if any property taxes, idjut!
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.No because they do not use our infrastructure to the same extent just becazuse you claim they dowrong again, but why would I expect any different?
How is it that you can justify that?

There is no need to justify something that is untrue

Is that why you never justify anything you claim?

 

[Harry Dresden]

"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."

Do you think repeating a lie helps your argument.

There was 800 billion offered, then you guys moved the goal posts.

what i find funny is how many times TM has said that Republicans keep on repeating the same shit over and over......and yet she will do the same thing in just about every one of the Threads she is in.....are they related?......

 

[Harry Dresden]

How can a direct quote be a lie?

Hitler said the Germans were a Superior Race?......a direct quote and a lie......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Both sides are to blame. That's what the downgrade said and that's what Americans believe.

cant argue with that......well TM will......but thats her problem....

 

[Valerie]

A senior Obama administration official is calling Standard & Poor's move to downgrade U.S. credit "a facts-be-damned decision," saying the rating agency admitted to an error that inflated U.S. deficits by $2 trillion.

U.S. Treasury officials received S&P's analysis Friday afternoon and alerted the agency to the error, said the administration official, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.

The agency acknowledged the mistake, but said it was sticking with its decision to lower the U.S. rating from a top score of AAA to AA+.

"This is a facts-be-damned decision," the official said. "Their analysis was way off, but they wouldn't budge."

Other sources familiar with the S&P matter called the move political and said the decision was rushed out too quickly.

Obama administration official: Credit rating agency move 'way off' - CNN.com

 

[Oldstyle]

Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the **** does this country think they are??

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

Despite strident claims from the far left, I don't think many people want to completely dismantle the Federal Government. We NEED a central government. We don't however need the bloated, inefficient monstrosity we have now. The problem has gotten so out of control that I think it's time to sit down and have a frank discussion about WHY we have all of the programs and paper pushers we now have in the Federal Government. If I were the "CEO" of America I would be sitting down with the heads of all of my "departments", asking them to justify their continued existence. If they couldn't show me why they were ESSENTIAL then I would get rid of them. In the Private Sector that scenario would have played out long ago. It's time the Public Sector got a taste of reality.

 

[eflatminor]

Right there in the statement they put the blame on republicans refusual to use all the tools we have on hand to solve this mess and what does the right do?


Insult me for posting the information and deny (yet again) the cold hard facts.


They are a drag on America, they refuse to see anything that gets in the way of their historically failed ideas.

Its the reason S&P did this.

The last thing anyone wanted to see was more spending and a higher debt ceiling...

Republicans compromised to progressive mental retardation...

We lost our AAA rating because we approved a higher debt ceiling..

Who the **** does this country think they are??

No, we did not lose our AAA rating because we raised the debt ceiling. Had we not raised the debt ceiling, our rating would likely have fallen further than it did. And what most people want to see is a reduction in spending along with an increase in revenue, not just a reduction in spending. The reason for this is very simple; most people don't want to completely gut the Federal Government the way the far right wing kooks do. Downsizing the government is not a bad thing; completely dismantling it would be a bad thing. But we know that most in this forum would love to see the whole thing dismantled regardless of how bad it would be for this country.

That doesn't jive with the reality of financial ratings. If any entity, from an individual to a country, is in deep debt with the threat of a credit rating downgrade hanging over their head, no credit rating agency is going to ding them if they cut up a credit card or otherwise refuse to take on more debt. That in and of itself is a good thing from the rating agency's point of view.

Of course, cutting up your credit card is only a first step. You have to prove to the credit raters that you have the income to pay your debt obligations (which we do) and that you have the balls to stop making unnecessary expenditures and to sell what you don't need (which we don't).

Not even the most die hard Tea Partier would resist tax REFORM. Merely raising tax rates on some is not tax reform and would in all likelihood result in less revenue to the government...and that isn't going to help anyone.

Bottom line, if we had a coherent plan out of Washington that rejected more debt, cut spending dramatically, and overhauled the tax system by simplifying it and getting rid of loopholes and favors to big business, we would not be in this mess.

 

[del]

That's funny. I see a whole lot of "congress and the administration", and "democrats and republicans" in their statement. Didja actually read it, or are you just regurgitating some talking point that you received?

Silly question. Of course its the second option.

ctrl-f *republican*


deep, deep research on TM's part