S&P calls out the Republicans!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-07-11-03-40
The credit rating agency's managing director, John Chambers, tells ABC's "This Week" that if the fiscal position of the U.S. deteriorates further, or if political gridlock tightens even more, a further downgrade is possible.
Chambers also said Sunday that it would take "stabilization and eventual decline" of the federal debt as a share of the economy as well as more consensus in Washington for the U.S. to win back a top rating.
Not a word about Republicans or raising taxes/revenue.....
Just these TWO issues....
1.... "stabilization and eventual decline" of the federal debt as a share of the economy
2......as well as more consensus in Washington
Both problems caused by Democrats in Washington.....
The credit rating agency's managing director, John Chambers, tells ABC's "This Week" that if the fiscal position of the U.S. deteriorates further, or if political gridlock tightens even more, a further downgrade is possible.
Chambers also said Sunday that it would take "stabilization and eventual decline" of the federal debt as a share of the economy as well as more consensus in Washington for the U.S. to win back a top rating.
Not a word about Republicans or raising taxes/revenue.....
Just these TWO issues....
1.... "stabilization and eventual decline" of the federal debt as a share of the economy
2......as well as more consensus in Washington
Both problems caused by Democrats in Washington.....
Good Luck
New member
“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.”
Typical propagation of lies fed us by the government.
First, the republicans have NEVER resisted measures that would raise REVENUES. Sorry, Charlie. The lie, proposed by democrats and propagated by their pet MSM, is exposed. What the republicans resist is raising TAXES during an economic downturn. That is FAR different from raising revenues. And this is simple, supported economic theory: raised taxes in a sluggish economy will result in DECREASED revenues, not increases. Therefore, from that standpoint, the Republicans are fighting for maximum revenues in the face of the typical Democratic class warfare rhetoric.
Second, the quote is taken out of context (a typical method of liberal dishonesty). The entire S&P report CLEARLY states that the reason for the downgrade is that the so-called compromise debt ceiling increase has done NOTHING real with respect to gaining control over deficit spending and the ballooning national debt. And this only makes sense. Any credit reporting agency will not hesitate to downgrade the credit rating of an individual when their debt history shows they are rapidly accumulating more debt than they can handle.
There are two ways to address debt or deficit spending: increase income or reduce spending. This is a base reality (which is why liberals cannot understand it - reality is beyond their ken) of ANY economic system, be it a single household budget, or a national budget. Therefore, when current economic conditions indicate that increasing income (revenues) is highly unlikely, the better answer to is to reduce spending. Now, if we were in a thriving economy, like we had in the 90s, it is possible to increase revenues by increasing tax rates. However, as Clinton found out the hard way, doing so has the effect on a thriving economy that a drag chute has on a top-fuel racer. Placing a drag chute on an economy that is barely moving forward is not only a bad idea, it is an outright STUPID one. So reducing spending becomes the only viable option left. All the rhetoric of "we need to do both" has no bearing when the actions of trying to increase revenues by increased taxation will only result in more economic downturn.
Yet, when push comes to shove, the ONLY "cuts" in spending proposed (yes PROPOSED, not mandated, or even promised, but PROPOSED) by the debt ceiling bill are reductions of planned increases in spending. Of course, if one were working with a balanced budget, cutting increases in spending when one is faced with static revenues would be good enough. But when already faced with $3.6 TRILLION in deficit spending during Obama's first two years in office, cutting increases is like ordering a diet coke to go with the two Big Macs, large fries, chocolate shake and hot apple pie, and hoping the diet coke will help you lose weight.
Bottom line: S&S lowered the credit rating of the U.S. government because the U.S. government will continue to accumulate unsupportable debt under the debt ceiling "compromise" recently signed into law.
Typical propagation of lies fed us by the government.
First, the republicans have NEVER resisted measures that would raise REVENUES. Sorry, Charlie. The lie, proposed by democrats and propagated by their pet MSM, is exposed. What the republicans resist is raising TAXES during an economic downturn. That is FAR different from raising revenues. And this is simple, supported economic theory: raised taxes in a sluggish economy will result in DECREASED revenues, not increases. Therefore, from that standpoint, the Republicans are fighting for maximum revenues in the face of the typical Democratic class warfare rhetoric.
Second, the quote is taken out of context (a typical method of liberal dishonesty). The entire S&P report CLEARLY states that the reason for the downgrade is that the so-called compromise debt ceiling increase has done NOTHING real with respect to gaining control over deficit spending and the ballooning national debt. And this only makes sense. Any credit reporting agency will not hesitate to downgrade the credit rating of an individual when their debt history shows they are rapidly accumulating more debt than they can handle.
There are two ways to address debt or deficit spending: increase income or reduce spending. This is a base reality (which is why liberals cannot understand it - reality is beyond their ken) of ANY economic system, be it a single household budget, or a national budget. Therefore, when current economic conditions indicate that increasing income (revenues) is highly unlikely, the better answer to is to reduce spending. Now, if we were in a thriving economy, like we had in the 90s, it is possible to increase revenues by increasing tax rates. However, as Clinton found out the hard way, doing so has the effect on a thriving economy that a drag chute has on a top-fuel racer. Placing a drag chute on an economy that is barely moving forward is not only a bad idea, it is an outright STUPID one. So reducing spending becomes the only viable option left. All the rhetoric of "we need to do both" has no bearing when the actions of trying to increase revenues by increased taxation will only result in more economic downturn.
Yet, when push comes to shove, the ONLY "cuts" in spending proposed (yes PROPOSED, not mandated, or even promised, but PROPOSED) by the debt ceiling bill are reductions of planned increases in spending. Of course, if one were working with a balanced budget, cutting increases in spending when one is faced with static revenues would be good enough. But when already faced with $3.6 TRILLION in deficit spending during Obama's first two years in office, cutting increases is like ordering a diet coke to go with the two Big Macs, large fries, chocolate shake and hot apple pie, and hoping the diet coke will help you lose weight.
Bottom line: S&S lowered the credit rating of the U.S. government because the U.S. government will continue to accumulate unsupportable debt under the debt ceiling "compromise" recently signed into law.
http://www.truthout.com/mainstream-media-ignores-sp-attack-republicans/1312651460
That is where I got it from.. I'll look later for the full report.
That is where I got it from.. I'll look later for the full report.
That's pretty bad spin. The S & P report is pretty clear, and you know that's not what they're referring to. You won't find a more adament low-tax leftie than me, but there is a time to address the tax code, and a time to appease our creditors. This was the latter.
Closing loopholes that only the wealthy can utilize isn't a tax increase. No one can tell me that losing our credit rating is going to be good for revenues. No one can say that the market losing 500 points is going to be good for revenues. They blew it w/ this debt plan.
How much did BushII increase the national debt?
How many times did BushII raise the debt ceiling?
How many times have you complained about either?
Exactly right.....the tax code needs a revamping....from top to bottom....and raising revenue DOES NOT mean raining tax rates...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/03/republicans-open-to-raising-revenue.html
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011...senators_willing_to_consider_deal_to_inc.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...blicans-are-opposed-to-actually-raising-taxes
Closing loopholes that only the wealthy can utilize ????
Interesting....
What loophole do they have that the rest of us do not...and at what dollar value does this alleged loophole kick in....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the S&P also called out obama's admin......
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so, it is ok to only point out that the S&P called out republicans, but when someone truthfully notes that the S&P also called out obama's admin, that makes them a hack
wow...just wow
is it your claim that the S&P did not call out obama?
The thread is about Republicans. I just think your ODS & hackery are funny.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
unbelievable. you are truly the most dishonest person on this board. the thread is about the S&P calling out a group of people. stating the fact that they also called out obama, is not off topic. it provides a more truthful picture of exactly what the S&P said. jarod's OP implies that the S&P only called out the republicans. jarod posted the link to the story and from the full link we LEARN that the S&P called out the administration, the democrats and the republicans. that link is what this thread is about, jarod's OP title does not give an accurate portrayal of what the S&P said. according to you, providing a more accurate portrayal of what was said makes me a hack....so to you, the truth is hackery. and pointing out the truth really bothers you, i'll try and refrain in the future from posting truth when you're around. i don't want to offend your sensibilities.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
NOTE: onceler says that if you talk about this link, you are a hack and are dishonest. please refrain from talking about anything contained in this link. you may only discuss how it is the republicans fault, you may not discuss how the S&P put the responsibility on anyone else.
Where is the quote where they called out the president or his administration?
Jarhead, Hardhead, Lardhead....what a hack post.....
After reading the actual full report...http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...=1245316529563
your post can in good conscience, almost be called an outright lie....or at least a gross mis-characterization of the full report findings...
Nice cherry-picking though....
Don't get carried away just because Onecell, the Pinhead agreed with you....