A Failed Presidency -- The American Problem

poet said:
BS. Obama is still trying to clean up the mess left by the Bush Administration.

S&P calls out the Republicans!
“We have changed our assumption​ on this because the majority of Republican​s in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced​ by passing the act.” S&P on why they downgraded the US!
Click to expand...
It has been pointed out many times your precious quote is taken out of context. Here is the full paragraph:
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.
Click to expand...
The sentence continually, and quite deceivingly, referenced refers to the reason S&P decided that the Bush tax cuts are not likely to expire in 2012 as scheduled. It is NOT the reason they issued a reduced credit rating.

Either you are continuing to be willfully ignorant of the truth, or deliberately clinging to a known lie. Which is it?
 
Good Luck said:
It has been pointed out many times your precious quote is taken out of context. Here is the full paragraph:

The sentence continually, and quite deceivingly, referenced refers to the reason S&P decided that the Bush tax cuts are not likely to expire in 2012 as scheduled. It is NOT the reason they issued a reduced credit rating.

Either you are continuing to be willfully ignorant of the truth, or deliberately clinging to a known lie. Which is it?
Click to expand...


Can't we all just agree that the S&P is full of shit and that the only plausible basis for the debt ceiling downgrade, in light of their $2 trillion error, is based on its assessment of the political situation? It'd be a whole lot easier.
 
Good Luck said:
It has been pointed out many times your precious quote is taken out of context. Here is the full paragraph:

The sentence continually, and quite deceivingly, referenced refers to the reason S&P decided that the Bush tax cuts are not likely to expire in 2012 as scheduled. It is NOT the reason they issued a reduced credit rating.

Either you are continuing to be willfully ignorant of the truth, or deliberately clinging to a known lie. Which is it?
Click to expand...

illogical fallacy. A does not equal B. C is in another room.
 
while the article makes good points, i don't think the blame lays solely on obama's shoulders. as i've said before, i don't believe a president has that much power over the economy or this debt issue. as executive he has more power than individual members of congress, however, he can only do so much. he definitely gets a good share of blame, but not all. both parties used this as political football.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Can't we all just agree that the S&P is full of shit and that the only plausible basis for the debt ceiling downgrade, in light of their $2 trillion error, is based on its assessment of the political situation? It'd be a whole lot easier.
Click to expand...

they are only full of shit because you don't agree with them. as such you will simply attack them and not their reasons.
 
Yurt said:
they are only full of shit because you don't agree with them. as such you will simply attack them and not their reasons.
Click to expand...

Their mathematical errors demonstrate remarkably sloppy work and undermine their assessment of the debt situation.

First, S&P made a $2 trillion error on the long term debt figures. In the report, S&P says that it would revise the debt outlook from negative to stable if the Bush tax cuts for high income earners expired. That would bring in $900 billion in additional revenue,. $2 trillion is a shade more than $900 billion. According to the S&P, our outlook should be stable at least since they overstated our debt by $2 trillion, which is more that we would generate from expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But they didn't change their outlook after learning of the mistake. That makes no sense -- unless the debt numbers are largely unimportant to their rating analysis. Second, S&P previously said that a $4 trillion deal would save the AAA rating. Instead, we got a $2.4 trillion deal. Well, if you add the $2 trillion error to the $2.4 trillion deal you get more than $4 trillion, which should have been enough to save the AAA rating, at least according to the S&P.

Given the above, the only plausible explanation is that the rating downgrade was not a hard assessment of the debt situation and just running the numbers, but rather was largely based on its assessment of US political institutions.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Their mathematical errors demonstrate remarkably sloppy work and undermine their assessment of the debt situation.

First, S&P made a $2 trillion error on the long term debt figures. In the report, S&P says that it would revise the debt outlook from negative to stable if the Bush tax cuts for high income earners expired. That would bring in $900 billion in additional revenue,. $2 trillion is a shade more than $900 billion. According to the S&P, our outlook should be stable at least since they overstated our debt by $2 trillion, which is more that we would generate from expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But they didn't change their outlook after learning of the mistake. That makes no sense -- unless the debt numbers are largely unimportant to their rating analysis. Second, S&P previously said that a $4 trillion deal would save the AAA rating. Instead, we got a $2.4 trillion deal. Well, if you add the $2 trillion error to the $2.4 trillion deal you get more than $4 trillion, which should have been enough to save the AAA rating, at least according to the S&P.

Given the above, the only plausible explanation is that the rating downgrade was not a hard assessment of the debt situation and just running the numbers, but rather was largely based on its assessment of US political institutions.
Click to expand...

you're ignoring the rest of their reasons and focusing on an issue and trying to make it all about that issue. they corrected the one error, however, the rest of their analysis stands. they took major issues with entitlements, you of course ignore that and try to make it out as if it was only the monetary figure that decided the issue. the downgrade isn't even that big of a deal, people are blowing it out of proportion. while not a good thing, at this point it certainly isn't the end of the world. if both sides can come together and cut spending, let the tax loopholes go, let the bush tax cuts expire for those making 750K or more a year and so forth.
 
Putting a $2 Trillion error on the sideline like that has to win some board award for "marginalizing."

This is a non-partisan issue. Many on both the left & right are questioning this decision, and some are calling for investigation....
 
Closing the loopholes and implementing the flat rates tax plan which SF has been posting again is the best solution to begin solving our problems. Once the revenue and organizational schemes have been set straight, then we can go about solving our budget problems. Structure and finance first, then budgets.
 
Yurt said:
you're ignoring the rest of their reasons and focusing on an issue and trying to make it all about that issue. they corrected the one error, however, the rest of their analysis stands. they took major issues with entitlements, you of course ignore that and try to make it out as if it was only the monetary figure that decided the issue. the downgrade isn't even that big of a deal, people are blowing it out of proportion. while not a good thing, at this point it certainly isn't the end of the world. if both sides can come together and cut spending, let the tax loopholes go, let the bush tax cuts expire for those making 750K or more a year and so forth.
Click to expand...

I just demonstrated the reasons why their reasons are bullshit. The math does not support their reasoning. They corrected their mathematical error but they did not change their assessment one iota. You can't make a $2 trillion error and, claim you will adjust your outlook if $900 billion in revenues come through, correct the $2 trillion error and leave the part in about how you will revise the outlook if $900 billion in policy changes are made. It is mathematically inconsistent. Their analysis didn't change after they revised the numbers to the tune of $2 trillion. That's crazy.

And I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. No one really cares about their analysis. The flight to Treasuries continues unabated.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I just demonstrated the reasons why their reasons are bullshit. The math does not support their reasoning. They corrected their mathematical error but they did not change their assessment one iota. You can't make a $2 trillion error and, claim you will adjust your outlook if $900 billion in revenues come through, correct the $2 trillion error and leave the part in about how you will revise the outlook if $900 billion in policy changes are made. It is mathematically inconsistent. Their analysis didn't change after they revised the numbers to the tune of $2 trillion. That's crazy.

And I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. No one really cares about their analysis. The flight to Treasuries continues unabated.
Click to expand...

so the 2 trillion was the sole or main factor in their decision?
 
Hope Solo said:
Closing the loopholes and implementing the flat rates tax plan which SF has been posting again is the best solution to begin solving our problems. Once the revenue and organizational schemes have been set straight, then we can go about solving our budget problems. Structure and finance first, then budgets.
Click to expand...

Oh bullshit. It's the worst and dumbest partisan hack idea there is. Only a shit for brains would call for some regressive tax scheme that places the burden of taxation on our middle class. Hell we all ready have about the lowest tax rates for the wealthy in the world lowering it further for some crazy ideological reason is just plain stupid. Please spare us bad ideas.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh bullshit. It's the worst and dumbest partisan hack idea there is. Only a shit for brains would call for some regressive tax scheme that places the burden of taxation on our middle class. Hell we all ready have about the lowest tax rates for the wealthy in the world lowering it further for some crazy ideological reason is just plain stupid. Please spare us bad ideas.
Click to expand...

Actually the FAIR Tax scheme floating around gives a huge deduction to lower income folks- too much in my book. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game in order to avoid what we've ended up with: the lower 51% paying nothing and voting themselves more largess. That's the middle class" "best interest" that you keep mentioning but lack the 'nads to fully admit that's actually what you mean.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh bullshit. It's the worst and dumbest partisan hack idea there is. Only a shit for brains would call for some regressive tax scheme that places the burden of taxation on our middle class. Hell we all ready have about the lowest tax rates for the wealthy in the world lowering it further for some crazy ideological reason is just plain stupid. Please spare us bad ideas.
Click to expand...

Which will derive more revenues, Mr. Genius? A system where there are zero deductions and people pay the highest percentage owed on ALL of their income, or one where there are ridiculous loopholes and games being played, and where individuals are graduated into new income brackets?

Obviously minimum-wage earners will be exempted, and the lower-middle class will have a low rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top