S&P calls out the Republicans!

bravo said:
Moody's is threatening to downgrade US rating also.....
Click to expand...

Again, they just reaffirmed the US AAA rating and said that if we don't find some cuts in the next year they "could" lower our rating. Moody's isn't downgrading us.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
You are peddling the bullshit idea that we are in the same boat as the European folks. We do not have a debt crisis. Greece has a debt crisis. Ireland has a debt crisis. Portugal has a debt crisis. Italy is moving towards a debt crisis. Because these countries do not control their own monetary policies, their debt problems are compounded (cannot inflate away some of the debt). Banks in the France, UK and Germany (and to a lesser extent the US) holding lots of Greek, Irish, Portuguese and Italian debt have serious issues because of their exposure on that debt. These sovereign debt crises are causing a global financial panic.

Those are debt crises. The United States government, by contrast, has no debt crisis and investing in U.S. debt is a safe haven for investors, regardless of what the S&P says. Of course, if we do not reduce our annual deficits and get debt under control over the long term, we could, ten years from now, experience a debt crisis, but we are not even close to being there. I'd like to avoid that future as well, but pretending that enacting a BBA rightnow! is the only policy prescription to stave off that long term problem is absurd.
Click to expand...

Again, I am stating we are headed down that same road, and trying to press policy that pushes us further in that direction. We absolutely should not follow those nations into their suicide pact and should take a different path. You cannot solve a global debt crisis by gathering more debt, it is stupid to think that is the solution.
 
Good Luck said:
“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.”
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.
Click to expand...

But they resist closing tax loopholes which inexplicably exempt certain companies from the rates of taxation already on the books. It's not a lie. Republicans are tools.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Frankly, I think the S&P has the rating right. The major issue is the debt ceiling. We have the ability to pay our debts, but given the debt ceiling fracas, you have to question our willingness to pay it.
Click to expand...

Nah, we didnt raise the debt ceiling so we could afford to pay off our debts. We raised the debt ceiling so we could afford to spend more money. Only thing that caused them to question our willingness was the Obama administration constantly stating that we wouldnt. That we would "default" on our debt obligations. Which would only occur if he CHOSE not to pay them.
 
Damocles said:
This is true, but panicking over one company's ratings while the others still list the US as AAA for the foreseeable future is a bit much. It is absolutely not time to panic, especially when the company is one that has been so terribly wrong on important calls in the very near past. We shouldn't ignore the fact that they had their numbers wrong by a large margin then changed justification in mid-stream to meet what they had already decided on poor information.

We need to get the BBA passed and ratified, we can forestall a downgrade by more responsible companies, and have time to look in to the rather liquid nature of the justifications for this rating by this company all at once.

Basically, in large friendly letters on the cover we should be seeing, "Don't Panic!"
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is advocating panic. But, frankly, S&P is right in this instance, despite their track record. In fact, their track record is more one of holding rating too high, too long, than reducing rating too soon. Therefore, when a rating company with a history of holding ratings too high actually decreases ratings, that says something. The others are hesitating because of the political/economic backwash that would occur if they actually rated the U.S. government in the way they deserve.

Hell, AA+ is too high when you think about it. The more debt the U.S. government accumulates, the greater chance there will come the day when the debt becomes unsupportable, and we end up in default. Yet, when facing a financial crisis in both domestic and world economic venues, the DC monkeys can't even get their shit tight enough to actually reduce future deficits. The best they were able to come up with is an empty promise to reduce how fast the deficits will grow! If this were a person, or corporation, continually adding debt, and when they max out, their answer is to find another lender, what rating do you think ANY of the agencies would give them? ZZZ- would be too high.

We may not need to panic. But we most assuredly need to worry. We need a government willing to take the steps necessary to actually change directions, instead of being happy with slowing down how fast the precipice is approaching. What we have is a government too busy pointing fingers at the other guy to do their jobs and get a budget designed and passed that won't break us.

Despite the rhetoric of desperate ignorance from the wild eyed liberals, the fact is S&P's move was made on the basis that we cannot get our spending under control. How do you think a BBA would change that? Unless other things change dramatically, we'd simply end up with a federal government literally unable to function. The end result would be worse than if the critters had not raised the debt ceiling.

While I fully support a BBA, calling for one NOW, with no foreseeable end to the debt crisis bickering, would be putting the cart before the horse. While a BBA would FORCE a balanced budget, it can NOT force the two sides to agree how to attain that goal.

"Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!" "Tax the rich!" "Spending cuts!"

Do you really think a BBA would solve that bickering?
 
Do you really think a BBA would solve that bickering?
Click to expand...

Yes, eventually it would, because it would be impossible to raise taxes enough to cover the spending, or even a fraction of it. This is what is so silly about the entire argument. Raising "tax on the rich" does nothing, it doesn't even produce more revenues! We are SPENDING $1,600,000,000,000.00 more than we are currently taking in. We could literally confiscate the richest 1% entire earnings for this year, and it wouldn't pay for two months of this deficit! We are in way over our heads, and tax increases just will not do the trick, in fact, they may actually HURT efforts to rejuvenate economic prosperity. The ONLY answer is spending cuts... in a realistic world... in a logical context... all silliness and hyperbole aside... that's the ONLY solution to this problem.
 
All I can say is the Neocons won this one hands down. Using the formula that has worked well for them since Raygun, they ramped up the debt to an unsustainable level again, thereby forcing cuts on the vulnerable, yet wasting unbelievable amounts of lives and treasure in the process.
 
Return of Dune said:
All I can say is the Neocons won this one hands down. Using the formula that has worked well for them since Raygun, they ramped up the debt to an unsustainable level again, thereby forcing cuts on the vulnerable, yet wasting unbelievable amounts of lives and treasure in the process.
Click to expand...

good lord...yeah...because no democrats ever ramped up the debt

idiot
 
Yurt said:
good lord...yeah...because no democrats ever ramped up the debt idiot
Click to expand...
But, haven't you heard? Ramping up the debt with unsustainable, never ending entitlement programs is a GOOD thing!

Republicans overspending by 5 trillion over 8 years is BAD, because, you know, it's REPUBLICANS doing those dreaded REPUBLICAN things like the Pill Bill and NCLB.

But adding 7 trillion to the debt in 2.5 years is GOOD, because it's Democratic. Surely you can see the difference.
 
Good Luck said:
But, haven't you heard? Ramping up the debt with unsustainable, never ending entitlement programs is a GOOD thing!

Republicans overspending by 5 trillion over 8 years is BAD, because, you know, it's REPUBLICANS doing those dreaded REPUBLICAN things like the Pill Bill and NCLB.

But adding 7 trillion to the debt in 2.5 years is GOOD, because it's Democratic. Surely you can see the difference.
Click to expand...

the debt was at 10 trillion when bush left office...where do you get the 7 trillion from?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, sadly you're wrong. They are fairly representative of todays Republican party. I was a Republican for a long time. From 1980 to 2004 I was a registered Republican. Mainly cause I was pro main street business and my values are those mainly of the professional class. It actually began in the 80's but was substantially accelerated in the mid 1990s with the advent of right wing radio and Fox News that social conservatives (read angry rural white guys) have come to dominate the Republican party by becoming the witless lap dogs of corporate interest and very wealth plutocrats. Since then the more moderate influences in the party, people who would have been termed "Rockefeller Republicans" have been marginalized and evicted from the party. So now what you hear from Dixie and Bravo and Webway and others here on JPP from the right is fairly representative of todays Republican party politics and it scares the hell out of me.
Click to expand...

What can one say? That is sad.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Would S&P have downgraded the USA if the TEA Party policies had been fully enacted? :)
Click to expand...

If you were six feet down a hole would you ask who dug it or try to get out?
Can you not see that this finger pointing stupidity is exactly why you are being blasted by your major creditors? Are you completely blind to the fact that this is not a party issue but a national one?
It doesn't matter whether it is Obama's fault, the Tea party's fault or the fault of little green men from Mars. You are in the shit and the only way is out.
 
Lowaicue said:
If you were six feet down a hole would you ask who dug it or try to get out?
Can you not see that this finger pointing stupidity is exactly why you are being blasted by your major creditors? Are you completely blind to the fact that this is not a party issue but a national one?
It doesn't matter whether it is Obama's fault, the Tea party's fault or the fault of little green men from Mars. You are in the shit and the only way is out.
Click to expand...

LOL The reason we are in shit is because of liberal policies. If blame is not affixed then we are destined to dig ourselves deeper.
 
Damocles said:
I still am just wondering why the standard is set by a company that was so incredibly wrong on almost every call they made in the past decade...

Enron, AAA until 4 days before they collapsed, toxic mortgages... Bundle them up we'll give them AAA! I mean, WTF? Why are we listening to the worst prognosticators since Nostradamus wrote a bunch of bad poetry that people try to read things into after the fact?
Click to expand...

Obviously we need to keep banging the same drum.
Damocles, it doesn't matter whether the report is right or wrong, the damage has been done. Every time someone starts finger pointing and, in all fairness, it does seem to be the right who are guilty of that more than the left, you take a step away from sorting your country out.
Is it really because you hate Obama so much that you are prepared to see the financial world (not just the US) collapse in the hope he will go? Is that the working of a rational mind? Do you take notice of no one but Fox?
Can you dress and feed yourselves?
 
Ice Dancer said:
That's all good and fine Damo- and I can't help but feel there are those who will financially gain this morning. But the fact of the matter is our balance sheets are in chaos with no foreseeable fix.
Click to expand...

DJ down 634.76
S & P 500 index down 6.7%

If you do not pull together now you will have nothing left to pull.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But they resist closing tax loopholes which inexplicably exempt certain companies from the rates of taxation already on the books. It's not a lie. Republicans are tools.
Click to expand...

You are right, but in a slightly different way.
Republicans are indeed tools. They are the blind, unthinking tools of the fat cats. They are the foot soldiers of the Koch-up brothers. Up to their ears in muck and bullets they still prefer to shine the shoes of Fox rather than come to their senses. Tools they are. Tools with which the rich will get richer and when the tool is no longer needed it will be discarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top