S&P calls out the Republicans!

[NOVA]

Where is the quote where they called out the president or his administration?

How about, "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".

What party is fighting tooth and nail to NOT REDUCE SPENDING....and for HIGHER DEBT every year for the next decade....

Heres a clue...It ain't the Tea Party and it ain't the Republicans....so the threat to an even lower rating is real....
and again.....increaseing revenue is not the same as increasing tax rates...and the right will certainly consider increased revenue if done in a responsible manner....

 

[Onceler]

How about, "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".

What party is fighting tooth and nail to NOT REDUCE SPENDING....and for HIGHER DEBT every year for the next decade....

Heres a clue...It ain't the Tea Party and it ain't the Republicans....so the threat to an even lower rating is real....
and again.....increaseing revenue is not the same as increasing tax rates...and the right will certainly consider increased revenue if done in a responsible manner....

Where did you get that idea?

They wouldn't budge on closing loopholes. They said it was a non-starter - a line in the sand.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Where is the quote where they called out the president or his administration?

did you even read your own link? you cherry picked your quote and ignored where they also called out the dems and obama's administration. this is why onceler had a hissy fit when i pointed out the truth. you believe the statements by S&P hold only republicans responsible. when i pointed out that they in fact hold everyone responsible, onceler shit himself and did his best to hide the truth. your cherry picked quote is but one of many that talk about the "why" jarod. you're not a dishonest person by nature, but you need to really read your link and then come back and tell if they don't call out anyone else.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It worked this time. Excellent. I had to fix the database, and it's all going correctly now.

Thanks Damo....appreciate your efforts. Sucks not getting my Sunday politics fix!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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 and now they have the religion of deficit reduction. Where the hell have they been hiding? The hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[Onceler]

Another day, another Yurt meltdown.

ODS must be hard to live with...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Exactly and now they have the religion of deficit reduction. Where the hell have they been hiding? The hypocrisy is staggering.

who are "they"

you and your mysterious people responsible for everything bad in the world...lord forbid any dem be responsible

 

[Good Luck]

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.

LOL You are defending an analysis based on a single line in a multi-page report, and you accuse ME of spin? If you didn't have your pathetically empty head so far up the donkey's ass you could look out its nostrils, you'd be an outstanding candidate for a career in standup.

And guess what: when government changes the tax code for the expressed purpose of INCREASING someone's tax burden, that is a tax increase regardless of how the increase is accomplished. Reminds me of the time under Clinton when the dems claimed their new tax laws were not a tax increase. Yet, somehow, my taxes went up anyway. Loopholes (which I agree need to be gotten rid of, along with 99% of the rest of the vast, overly complicated tax code) are emplaced to adjust downward the tax burden of those who can take advantage of the loophole. (which are, admittedly, aimed mainly at the wealthy - but aimed by whom?) Thus, when a loophole is closed, it is for the purpose of increasing the tax burden of those who are using the loophole. It really is very simple when you look through the lies and obfuscations. When tax codes are changed so as to result in decreasing the tax burden of targeted groups, that is a tax cut for those groups targeted. When tax codes are changed so as to increase the tax burdens of targeted groups, that is a tax INCREASE for those groups targeted, no matter how you want to spin it. It does not matter what methods are used to gain the increase.

You are right about one thing: they blew it big time with their so-called compromise. You just are wrong as to why the plan blows.

 

[Jarod]

did you even read your own link? you cherry picked your quote and ignored where they also called out the dems and obama's administration. this is why onceler had a hissy fit when i pointed out the truth. you believe the statements by S&P hold only republicans responsible. when i pointed out that they in fact hold everyone responsible, onceler shit himself and did his best to hide the truth. your cherry picked quote is but one of many that talk about the "why" jarod. you're not a dishonest person by nature, but you need to really read your link and then come back and tell if they don't call out anyone else.

Um, For the second time... Please find a quote where the Democrats are called out by name or otherwise in this S&P report......

 

[Onceler]

LOL You are defending an analysis based on a single line in a multi-page report, and you accuse ME of spin? If you didn't have your pathetically empty head so far up the donkey's ass you could look out its nostrils, you'd be an outstanding candidate for a career in standup.

And guess what: when government changes the tax code for the expressed purpose of INCREASING someone's tax burden, that is a tax increase regardless of how the increase is accomplished. Reminds me of the time under Clinton when the dems claimed their new tax laws were not a tax increase. Yet, somehow, my taxes went up anyway. Loopholes (which I agree need to be gotten rid of, along with 99% of the rest of the vast, overly complicated tax code) are emplaced to adjust downward the tax burden of those who can take advantage of the loophole. (which are, admittedly, aimed mainly at the wealthy - but aimed by whom?) Thus, when a loophole is closed, it is for the purpose of increasing the tax burden of those who are using the loophole. It really is very simple when you look through the lies and obfuscations. When tax codes are changed so as to result in decreasing the tax burden of targeted groups, that is a tax cut for those groups targeted. When tax codes are changed so as to increase the tax burdens of targeted groups, that is a tax INCREASE for those groups targeted, no matter how you want to spin it. It does not matter what methods are used to gain the increase.

You are right about one thing: they blew it big time with their so-called compromise. You just are wrong as to why the plan blows.

I'd love to see the GOP campaign on a platform devoted to keeping loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of open

The S&P is referring to CONCRETE MEASURES to raise revenues. They're not referring to an ideological angle that they might agree with that might indirectly someday increase revenues. That's what I meant by spin; it was really silly to listen to.

 

[Jarod]

Did The last set of republicans with a majority agree to anywhere close to a trillion in reductions?

 

[Damocles]

Did The last set of republicans with a majority agree to anywhere close to a trillion in reductions?

The one they passed in the Congress had 4 Trillion in fake "cuts"*. Pay attention. You have to remember all the people talking about the "Ryan Plan".




*They are fake because they do not actually cut anything they are simply reductions in the baseline assumed increases in spending. That baseline budgeting makes it easy for idiots to say they are "cutting" things when spending still increases.

 

[Jarod]

I said Republicans with a majority, talking about when they had the house senate and presidency....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Um, For the second time... Please find a quote where the Democrats are called out by name or otherwise in this S&P report......

good lord, you can read the same article and somehow believe the S&P is only calling out republicans, but you can't find anywhere that they also (to your logic given the OP) call out anyone else.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

that is one paragraph jarod. there are others. your OP ignores that they also "blame" obama and the dems.

 

[dixon76710]

Did The last set of republicans with a majority agree to anywhere close to a trillion in reductions?

This set did with cut, cap and balance. 3.7 trillion without the balaced budget amendment getting through the states. With that making it through the states, who knows how much more it would have been. Certainly would of prevented an SP downgrade.

 

[Good Luck]

I'd love to see the GOP campaign on a platform devoted to keeping loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of open

They already are, under the economic theory that raising taxes during an economic downturn is a bad idea. And, while I agree loopholes need to be done away with, I also agree that raising taxes by ANY method at this time would be more likely result in decreased revenues than increase them.

The S&P is referring to CONCRETE MEASURES to raise revenues. They're not referring to an ideological angle that they might agree with that might indirectly someday increase revenues. That's what I meant by spin; it was really silly to listen to.

Tell me, did you read the S&P report, or do you just pay attention to those portions, and certain pro-democrat/anti-republican political statements made afterward, as approved by your political masters?

Try reading the actual report, instead of relying on MSM reports on what certain S&P officials say about it. www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf.

The S&P's report did NOT focus on, or even significantly mention, the failure of the plan to come up with a way to increase revenues. In fact they make a point of stating they had no official preference toward any balance between increased revenues or reduced spending. Your entire premise comes from what an S&P official SAID in a personal interview AFTER the report had already been released. (ie: you premise is based on an UNOFFICIAL presumption of an individual, instead of the actual document explaining the reasons for the credit downgrade.)

You act as if the S&P was using the lack of any revenue increasing ideas as their primary reason for decreasing our government's credit rating. That is patently untrue. The FOCUS of the S&S move is on DEFICIT reduction, a position made plain by their report, which includes the warning that further credit rating reductions are likely if the proposed spending cuts are not followed through. Seems to me, if the OFFICIAL document explaining the credit downgrade says that more downgrades are likely if the SPENDING CUTS proposed are not followed through, then SPENDING CUTS are their primary concern with respect to the legislation passed raising the debt ceiling.

S&P also proposes in other documents that tax revenues can not be a significantly higher portion of the GDP than they are now and still maintain a stable economy, thus indicating they agree with republicans that any increased revenues need come from economic growth (such as putting several million people back to work) as opposed to increasing rates - by whatever method - on certain groups.

 

[Jarod]

good lord, you can read the same article and somehow believe the S&P is only calling out republicans, but you can't find anywhere that they also (to your logic given the OP) call out anyone else.



that is one paragraph jarod. there are others. your OP ignores that they also "blame" obama and the dems.

One, I never made the claims you say I made above, I never said the S&P ONLY called out Republicans.

Two, your quote does not call the Democrats out any more than it calls out the Republicans. My quote however calls out only the Republicans. I cant find any portions of the report that only calls out Democrats like where they specifically called out the Republicans.

 

[Jarod]

This set did with cut, cap and balance. 3.7 trillion without the balaced budget amendment getting through the states. With that making it through the states, who knows how much more it would have been. Certainly would of prevented an SP downgrade.

They passed something in the House that they knew would never pass the Senate, anyone who knjows anything about Congress will tell you thats like 1000% easier than passing something the has a chance in the Senate. My question is about what the Republicans did last time they had the House Senate and Presidency..... They were singing a different spending tune then....In fact they were more about spending than the Democrats currently are.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

One, I never made the claims you say I made above.

Two, your quote does not call the Democrats out any more than it calls out the Republicans. My quote however calls out only the Republicans.

that is my point jarod. you made the thread out to be the S&P were only calling out republicans. you didn't even know they also called out obama's admin and the dems. now...when faced with the truth, you say - any more than it calls out the Republicans - that is the point jarod, the S&P called out everyone, but your OP and your posts make it out as if it is only republicans. your buddy onceler tried to hide that, but the truth cannot be hidden when it is that obvious.

 

[Jarod]

that is my point jarod. you made the thread out to be the S&P were only calling out republicans. you didn't even know they also called out obama's admin and the dems. now...when faced with the truth, you say - any more than it calls out the Republicans - that is the point jarod, the S&P called out everyone, but your OP and your posts make it out as if it is only republicans. your buddy onceler tried to hide that, but the truth cannot be hidden when it is that obvious.

I never said the report did not call out the Democrats. NEVER, thats you reading into it.

It calls out the REPUBlICANS out MUCH more than it does the Democrats. Sorry that upsets you.