S&P calls out the Republicans!

[Jarod]

THe report basically says we need two things to fix this problem.

Spending cuts and increased revenue.

It says we need additional spending cuts and both parties were to blame for not cutting spending more. Then it says we need increased revenue and the REPUBLICANS are to blame for that not happening.... But we already knew that because it was the line in the sand that the Republicans drew! Obama wanted a BIGGER package, but to get it he needed some increased Revenue.

 

[Onceler]

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

That's a nice way of saying he lied...

 

[Bonestorm]

Everyone is ignoring the biggest problem -- our government is dysfunctional and now the debt ceiling is a bargaining chip and the full, faith and credit of the United States is threatened every other year. It isn't difficult to imagine why, regardless of our debt burden relative to the size of the economy, the US was downgraded.

Debt isn't the only component of the rating analysis (and, in fact, debt as a percentage of GDP isn't a good predictor of rating). Political institutions play a big role.

 

[Good Luck]

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.

LOL WHERE? The fact that they have revised their estimate about whether the Bush tax cuts will not terminate based on the statement you guys keep putting up? Let's look at your "call out the Republicans" statement in full context, shall we? I tire of your outright lies.

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.

There, you have it. The assumption that was changed, and the ONLY assumption that was changed due to "the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues", is S&P's estimate as to whether the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2012 as scheduled. So much for all your lies about S&P basing their credit reduction on this factor. So much for your inferrence that increased revenues are essential part in any way of S&Ps move to downgrade the government.

The FACT is the move is based on estimates that U.S. total debt will exceed 85% of GDP by 2015, which, if true, would make the U.S. the most indebted nation in the world, in both real terms and in relation to GDP. They also estimate that:

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

Again, the focus is on national debt and deficit spending, NOT the so-called lack of revenue increases you keep lying about. They anticipate that the other AAA nations will manage to start decreasing their national debt by or prior to 2015, IN CONTRAST (their words) to the U.S. who will NOT even get balanced by 2015, let alone decrease debt. One can reasonably assume that they are basing their assumptions on the fact that Europe is actually cutting spending, even to the point of enacting austerity measures, while the U.S. government spends most of their time and efforts finger pointing and expounding ridiculous lies for their blind partisan twits to lap up like a dog lapping up cat piss. In short, lies and partisan rhetoric aside, the S&P credit downgrade is about debt, and the continued policies of the U.S. government to pile it on.

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL WHERE? The fact that they have revised their estimate about whether the Bush tax cuts will not terminate based on the statement you guys keep putting up? Let's look at your "call out the Republicans" statement in full context, shall we? I tire of your outright lies.


There, you have it. The assumption that was changed, and the ONLY assumption that was changed due to "the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues", is S&P's estimate as to whether the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2012 as scheduled. So much for all your lies about S&P basing their credit reduction on this factor. So much for your inferrence that increased revenues are essential part in any way of S&Ps move to downgrade the government.

The FACT is the move is based on estimates that U.S. total debt will exceed 85% of GDP by 2015, which, if true, would make the U.S. the most indebted nation in the world, in both real terms and in relation to GDP. They also estimate that:

Again, the focus is on national debt and deficit spending, NOT the so-called lack of revenue increases you keep lying about. They anticipate that the other AAA nations will manage to start decreasing their national debt by or prior to 2015, IN CONTRAST (their words) to the U.S. who will NOT even get balanced by 2015, let alone decrease debt. One can reasonably assume that they are basing their assumptions on the fact that Europe is actually cutting spending, even to the point of enacting austerity measures, while the U.S. government spends most of their time and efforts finger pointing and expounding ridiculous lies for their blind partisan twits to lap up like a dog lapping up cat piss. In short, lies and partisan rhetoric aside, the S&P credit downgrade is about debt, and the continued policies of the U.S. government to pile it on.

You do realize the revenues are a component of the debt analysis don't you? Saying that the issue is debt, not revenue is pretty asinine. If you increase revenues, you decrease debt.

 

[Good Luck]

THe report basically says we need two things to fix this problem.

Spending cuts and increased revenue.

It says we need additional spending cuts and both parties were to blame for not cutting spending more. Then it says we need increased revenue and the REPUBLICANS are to blame for that not happening.... But we already knew that because it was the line in the sand that the Republicans drew! Obama wanted a BIGGER package, but to get it he needed some increased Revenue.

Do you ever get tired of lying? Here is what S&P ACTUALLY says about the whole spending cuts vs revenue increases debate:

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

The ONLY thing they "blame" republicans for is revising their prediction on whether the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2012. They were anticipating Obama pushing through his proposal to increase tax rates on those making $250K or more. Now they estimate the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will remain unchanged at least through 2015.

The only other place they even mention tax revenues is in an alternate "revised upside scenario":

on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

Again, this is the assumption currently being revised to a "no change" assumption based on the Republican's insistence that no taxes be increased.

In short, you are letting your political masters con you into propagating massive lies about what the S&P is doing, and why they are doing it. The move was made in response to our government's inability to do ANYTHING of import with respect to addressing our horrendous debt and ever growing habit of deficit spending. They made a point of saying they are NOT taking any stance on the spending/taxing debate of the problem, only that the government is unable to come up with a plan that addresses the problem of debt.

 

[Damocles]

You do realize the revenues are a component of the debt analysis don't you? Saying that the issue is debt, not revenue is pretty asinine. If you increase revenues, you decrease debt.

Not with this government, when they received funds that paid them back for the TARP, they just disappeared into the ether and debt increased the next year even more... Increased revenue is not a guarantee that we'll pay debt, nor is any promise from Congress that must be held on future Congresses for 10 years... They have never come to pass, not even once, in our lifetimes. And this Administration can't even put forward a budget that Democrats will vote for. I don't remember there ever being a unanimous vote against a budget presented by a President with a majority in the house that voted unanimously to reject it, but that is what happened.

 

[Bonestorm]

Do you ever get tired of lying? Here is what S&P ACTUALLY says about the whole spending cuts vs revenue increases debate:

The ONLY thing they "blame" republicans for is revising their prediction on whether the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2012. They were anticipating Obama pushing through his proposal to increase tax rates on those making $250K or more. Now they estimate the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will remain unchanged at least through 2015.

The only other place they even mention tax revenues is in an alternate "revised upside scenario":


Again, this is the assumption currently being revised to a "no change" assumption based on the Republican's insistence that no taxes be increased.

In short, you are letting your political masters con you into propagating massive lies about what the S&P is doing, and why they are doing it. The move was made in response to our government's inability to do ANYTHING of import with respect to addressing our horrendous debt and ever growing habit of deficit spending. They made a point of saying they are NOT taking any stance on the spending/taxing debate of the problem, only that the government is unable to come up with a plan that addresses the problem of debt.

S&P made a point of not commenting on the appropriate mix of spending cuts to increased revenues, but it was clear that increased revenues need to be a part of the mix going forward to lower our long-term debt burden.

 

[Bonestorm]

Not with this government, when they received funds that paid them back for the TARP, they just disappeared into the ether and debt increased the next year even more... Increased revenue is not a guarantee that we'll pay debt, nor is any promise from Congress that must be held on future Congresses for 10 years... They have never come to pass, not even once, in our lifetimes. And this Administration can't even put forward a budget that Democrats will vote for. I don't remember there ever being a unanimous vote against a budget presented by a President with a majority in the house that voted unanimously to reject it, but that is what happened.

That's hilarious. If you have more money, you don't need to borrow as much money as you otherwise would. It's pretty simple. The fact that you have to try to argue this is quite telling.

 

[Damocles]

That's hilarious. If you have more money, you don't need to borrow as much money as you otherwise would. It's pretty simple. The fact that you have to try to argue this is quite telling.

Yet they still do, that is the fricking point. They "have" the money, it disappears into the ether and they STILL borrow exactly what they "planned". Tell me where they said, "We have this cash, let's use that instead of debt!" They. Just. Don't. And I'm not arguing anything, I am pointing out simple facts. Show me where in any of the spending that the money we received for TARP was ever figured in.... Just one. You'd think it "makes sense" but it just doesn't happen.

 

[Good Luck]

You do realize the revenues are a component of the debt analysis don't you? Saying that the issue is debt, not revenue is pretty asinine. If you increase revenues, you decrease debt.

Not if your increased revenues are not enough to cover the deficit - which they would not be, even if tax revenues were doubled. Yes, revenues are a part, which are included in their "upside alternate scenario" which includes the assumption that tax rates will go back to 200 levels for those making more than $250K. In that "upside alternate scenario" the credit rating for the U.S. would be "AA+ stable" as opposed to being threatened with additional downgrades, as the current rating stands. The bottom line is S&P pretty much lays it out that if we don't get our SPENDING under control, we'll only keep falling farther down the well of debt. They REPEATEDLY state that if the second round of cuts are not followed through, the credit rating will be downgraded again. They repeat this through several assumptions, including an assumption that includes 940 billion in added revenues by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the higher income brackets. So, we can carefully cling to the current credit rating AA+ IF we increase revenues and follow through on the spending cuts. Conversely, we INVARIABLY lose our already-lowered credit rating to something worse if we do not follow through on spending cuts, REGARDLESS of what we (realistically) do with revenues. The report is quite clear on this when S&P contrasts U.S. government deficits to the other 5 nations who enjoy a AAA credit rating. They make a particular note that the UK, Canada, Germany and France have all taken measures to start reducing their debt by 2015. The U.S. is not even going to reduce deficit spending by then, let alone debt. At best we are "reducing" our anticipated deficit increases. And THAT is what set off the reduction in credit rating.

Seems to me, that pretty much states deficit spending is the problem, and increasing revenues will, at the very best, save us from further credit downgrades. Also, S&P takes no position on other methods of increasing revenues. They simply state that the republicans refusal to raise tax rates altered their assumption on whether the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2012 or not.

Now, when it comes to raising revenues, we can go the tired old Democratic class warfare method of increasing income taxes the rich, OR we can get serious about putting some 7 MILLION more people to work, whose revenues from income PLUS medicare taxes PLUS FICA taxes would most definitely increase tax revenues dramatically more, not to mention help the economy in innumerable other areas. And I can guarantee you, doing the former will have a profound negative effect on our ability to accomplish the latter.

The liberal focus on tax revenues as a factor in all this is nothing less that continuing their class warfare propaganda of lies. They get votes out of making the poor feel better by claiming it's all the fault of those nasty rich republicans. But even if ALL the bush tax cuts were to expire, we STILL would not actually reduce our deficit spending, but merely reduce how fast our deficit spending increases. And it is our lack of political will to pull in our deficit spending that S&P is focusing on. They looked for a real economic plan to reduce spending, and possibly increase revenues, to bring about an actual balanced budget. Instead our DC monkeys gave us a bunch of flowery language and bullshit promises to cut spending, plus a new (and unconstitutional) governing body which allows the President direct power in the legislative process, as well as usurps the powers of both houses, and bypasses many of the other separation of powers protections of the Constitution.

And all you mindless twits can look at is the one statement, taken out of context, about republicans refusing to consider raising tax rates. (which they mis-state as refusing to consider raising tax revenues.)

 

[dixon76710]

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.

The standard was

republicans with a majority agree to anywhere close to a trillion in reductions?

If you add the requirement that the democrats agrree the republicans with a majority, ya got me there.

 

[NOVA]

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

Why.....its irrelevant....the debt wasn't 14 trillion then....it is now....if it was 8 trillion now it wouldn't be as serious....we wouldn't have been downrated....

It ain't 2000 or 2004 or 2008......its 2010 and things have changed.....

 

[Good Luck]

That's hilarious. If you have more money, you don't need to borrow as much money as you otherwise would. It's pretty simple. The fact that you have to try to argue this is quite telling.

And the fact that you ignore the fact that we cannot reasonably increase tax rates to even make more than a dent in anticipated deficit increases, let alone actually reduce the deficit, is also very telling. Also very telling is the manner all you tax-and-spend liberals ignore basic economics that raising taxes during poor economic times is plain assed STUPID.

 

[Onceler]

And the fact that you ignore the fact that we cannot reasonably increase tax rates to even make more than a dent in anticipated deficit increases, let alone actually reduce the deficit, is also very telling. Also very telling is the manner all you tax-and-spend liberals ignore basic economics that raising taxes during poor economic times is plain assed STUPID.

I think the refusal to consider closing loopholes severely limited the idea of compromise on the debt plan. The GOP refused to budge on their third rail; it set a tone - why would Dems give in on entitlements or one of their third rails? You can make the case that it was the opposite, or that it was both equally, but I saw the refusal to consider loopholes as the tone setter. Obama was talking much more about entitlement cuts before the GOP drew a line in the sand on that.

If they're not going to consider loopholes, and they're not going to make significant cuts to defense...what else are they offering? Is the idea that Dems have to cut everything dear to them to make it work?

It's a shame. It was a critical point in history, and a small part of the GOP's base seemed to dictate the debate. What we ended up w/ was a watered down version of nothing, where neither side conceded a thing, and where we just put our problems off for a few years.

If I'm in charge, I'm all in. Privatize SS, cut defense by a 3rd, reform Medicare, close loopholes. This crisis demanded courage, and that both parties abandon their base; neither did.

 

[Good Luck]

S&P made a point of not commenting on the appropriate mix of spending cuts to increased revenues, but it was clear that increased revenues need to be a part of the mix going forward to lower our long-term debt burden.

Yea, clear to those who already have that presupposition so firmly locked in their minds it cannot be removed without serious brain damage.

To those who actually read the words as written, instead of seeking out justification for their preconceptions, there are ZERO places in which the S&P report says tax increases MUST be a part of the economic deficit reduction plan for it to meet their criteria for balanced budget and reduced debt.

 

[Damocles]

I think the refusal to consider closing loopholes severely limited the idea of compromise on the debt plan. The GOP refused to budge on their third rail; it set a tone - why would Dems give in on entitlements or one of their third rails? You can make the case that it was the opposite, or that it was both equally, but I saw the refusal to consider loopholes as the tone setter. Obama was talking much more about entitlement cuts before the GOP drew a line in the sand on that.


If they're not going to consider loopholes, and they're not going to make significant cuts to defense...what else are they offering? Is the idea that Dems have to cut everything dear to them to make it work?

It's a shame. It was a critical point in history, and a small part of the GOP's base seemed to dictate the debate. What we ended up w/ was a watered down version of nothing, where neither side conceded a thing, and where we just put our problems off for a few years.

If I'm in charge, I'm all in. Privatize SS, cut defense by a 3rd, reform Medicare, close loopholes. This crisis demanded courage, and that both parties abandon their base; neither did.

Add a BBA sent to the states and you'll have me signing up, but that was Obama's third rail....

Plus I believe that if you were in charge you would actually present a plan and sell it rather than shoot out trial balloons and pretend you have a plan that you just won't show anybody. I believe he had a 1500 page plan like I believe that Nixon had a secret plan for victory in Vietnam.

 

[Good Luck]

I think the refusal to consider closing loopholes severely limited the idea of compromise on the debt plan. The GOP refused to budge on their third rail; it set a tone - why would Dems give in on entitlements or one of their third rails? You can make the case that it was the opposite, or that it was both equally, but I saw the refusal to consider loopholes as the tone setter. Obama was talking much more about entitlement cuts before the GOP drew a line in the sand on that.

If they're not going to consider loopholes, and they're not going to make significant cuts to defense...what else are they offering? Is the idea that Dems have to cut everything dear to them to make it work?

It's a shame. It was a critical point in history, and a small part of the GOP's base seemed to dictate the debate. What we ended up w/ was a watered down version of nothing, where neither side conceded a thing, and where we just put our problems off for a few years.

If I'm in charge, I'm all in. Privatize SS, cut defense by a 3rd, reform Medicare, close loopholes. This crisis demanded courage, and that both parties abandon their base; neither did.

Why don't you look into when, and by which party, many of those loopholes were put in place? Then look at exactly how much democratic support there actually was for closing some of those loopholes. Do try to remember there are a lot of very rich and politically powerful democrats out there, who like their loopholes just as much as the republicans do. Yes, it was a case of partisanship outweighing the legislative process. but the entire "they did it first/more" mantra is so tiring as to induce nausea.

The federal government is, indeed failing us, and that failure is coming from both sides of the aisle. And a LOT of that is due to not having a genuine leader when we NEED a real out front, "follow me!" LEADER. When a REAL leader says "Follow me!", the reaction is a cheer and rush to follow. Sorry, but Obama may have been a whiz at community organizing, but he is NOT a leader. When Obama says "Follow me!" even a large faction of democrats look at him and say "who the fuck do you think you are?"

 

[Onceler]

I don't see why it matters at all who put the loopholes in place. Closing them would have gone a long way; it was the Cantor faction that refused, period. Dems would have been on board w/ closing loopholes at this stage.

Good luck w/ the "genuine leader" thing. That's not our process; we don't attract the best people, or people close to the best people, or people who have even heard of the best people. You have to be crazy to run for President in 2012.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yea, clear to those who already have that presupposition so firmly locked in their minds it cannot be removed without serious brain damage.

To those who actually read the words as written, instead of seeking out justification for their preconceptions, there are ZERO places in which the S&P report says tax increases MUST be a part of the economic deficit reduction plan for it to meet their criteria for balanced budget and reduced debt.

If you actually read the press release and that's what you take away from it, you need your head examined. Or remedial reading comprehension. The S&P "upside" scenario assumes that the Bush tax cuts on high earned will lapse. It's clear that S&P thinks increased tax revenues must be part of the overall fiscal policy changes necessary to improve its outlook on US debt.