S&P Cuts US Credit Rating to AA+

[The Other Side]

That is something you made up.
The S&P did not say they wanted to raise taxes.

What they actually said is that the US Government appears to be incapable of structural changes and decision-making to control the US debt and ensure continued ability to pay their debt.

This "structural inability" applies to both the Republicans and the Democrats.

You and klein seem to be getting your misinformation from the same place (Rachel Madcow?) as he posted the same thing yesterday and I corrected him too!

geez, a little early to hit the hops eh Hoax?

FROM S&P: """"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.""

Let me break this down for you.

The S&P wanted to see Tax Increases along with deep cuts in order to address the deficit problem. Given the political rhetoric coming from the right wing tea party nutcases, they dont see any agreements in the future to raise REVENUES (TAXES) in the future and any hopes of cutting the deficit is not promising.

The S&P does indeed want tax increases. Thats what raising revenues means.

Dont play on words Hoax, you sound like foxed spews.

You stand corrected.

Peace.

 

[toonertoo]

When they talk about cutting, why not start where you know there is FRAUD? A small area it may be But it is fraud. Why spend it? I know of doctors offices who have signs posted....1 visit per week, for medicaid patients. Who goes to the doctor every week? Even my sick father with heart trouble, parkinsons, etc, old people problems, only went once every three months.
How about the woman who calls an ambulance once a week or more, for one of her many children or herself. Do you realize an ambulance bill is usually 400 bucks before it pulls out of base? And yup we are paying for it.
Instead of having 15,000 more IRS workers out there examining our orifaces to see if we illegally took a tax deduction...why not put them at the door of a grocery store to examine the carts of the poor?.

How about ambulance dispatchers being held to some kind of guideline on when to send an ambulance, and if it is not indeed an emergency, the cost should be on the caller, not me. That does not require government intervention, it requires common sense. I know if I have tests not ordered, or necessary, I must pay. Why dont they?
overdose, broken arm, seizure, yup ambulance on the way.
Runny nose, scraped knee, nope.
Who and how do we fund medicaid? Why do people who never paid a dime get to collect, while others I have seen and known, fight for yrs for measly payments.
I remember them telling me that I should divorce my husband then he could get SSI, and medicaid, and food stamps. No question. otherwise it will be years before his disability will come through. I said, keep it.
Something is terribly wrong, and it did not start with Obama, but he is sure encouraging it.

 

[Buddybrown]

Not according to the top White House advisor, David Axelrod. David Axelrod: This Is A 'Tea Party Downgrade' A top White House adviser is blaming the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating on Tea Party Republicans, whom he says were unwilling to compromise on how to reduce the federal debt.

Axelrod, like Obama is part of the problem, not the solution. Their spending ways have greatly contributed to the shame America is now facing. Time for some real change!!!!!!

 

[Babagounj]

Here's a neat idea.
Let's do away with as much red tape as possible, to show the business community that the USA is willing to begin a much more business friendly environment.
Thus as more businesses begin to operate and create more jobs then number of jobless people will drop, thus fewer will be seeking gov't handouts and adding more taxes that can be collected.
No real cuts , nor increases in more taxes would be needed.
I find this to be a win-win for all.

 

[Babagounj]

How about the Dept of Education ?
Do they really need their own SWAT TEAMS ?
I know of no other country that sees this as a necessary function.

 

[klein]

Years from now, in history classes, kids won't even be able to see what plan Obama may have submitted when they study this fiasco. They'll be handed scribbles on napkins and sticky notes. There is no plan. Like there's no evidence that he was even here.

"We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical." That's it, we're in the Outer Limits!!

You are right in History !
It was the first time another budget was needed just to raise the debt ceiling. It has never been done before, nor ever been asked to be done.
First try - and it FAILED !

If more Tea party members are voted in, and the Republican party wins next election, this theatre will still continue, as the Tea Party is against any sort of raising the debt ceiling, no matter at what costs !

It all could have been avoided , just by getting rid of those Bush Tax cuts for the rich !
Or atleast compromise and add 1% to all State sales taxes, and each State could have giving the rich that extra revenue.
It would work out to a Trillion.

 

[Catatonic]

Moreluck,

why is it that you leave out the most important part of the S&P downgrade? Placing blame is easy moreluck, your party is claming 98% responsibility for the deal, S&P wanted to see TAX INCREASES and that wasnt going to happen because the other 2% wanted them.

Instead, by design, the republicans sabotaged our economy by dragging the debt debate too long and settling for 98% of what they wanted. FAIL!

Maybe you understand now?

Peace.

THE ABOVE IS YOUR ORIGINAL POST THAT I RESPONDED TO WHEN I POSTED THIS:

That is something you made up.
The S&P did not say they wanted to raise taxes.

What they actually said is that the US Government appears to be incapable of structural changes and decision-making to control the US debt and ensure continued ability to pay their debt.

This "structural inability" applies to both the Republicans and the Democrats.

You and klein seem to be getting your misinformation from the same place (Rachel Madcow?) as he posted the same thing yesterday and I corrected him too!

FROM S&P: "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."

The above is your post where you finally posted what the S&P actually said.

I'll leave it to the readers to read the above understand how you distort, twist and fabricate things to try and put forth your point of view.

PS - At least you had the integrity to include the "or" in your shouting of S&P's quote. LOL "or was that a mistake?"


If you go back and read my posts, I said all along that what the S&P published reasons were that "the contentious and fitful process of reducing the US debt" was the core reason for the downgrade.

I don't understand why you and others feel the need to distort and fabricate things up to try in arguing your point of view. It destroys the credibility of the other points you make which are truthful or at least a sincere expression of your opinion. If you are as smart as you claim to be, this should be obvious to you but your posts suggest otherwise.

 

[The Other Side]

THE ABOVE IS YOUR ORIGINAL POST THAT I RESPONDED TO WHEN I POSTED THIS:

That is something you made up.
The S&P did not say they wanted to raise taxes.

What they actually said is that the US Government appears to be incapable of structural changes and decision-making to control the US debt and ensure continued ability to pay their debt.

This "structural inability" applies to both the Republicans and the Democrats.

You and klein seem to be getting your misinformation from the same place (Rachel Madcow?) as he posted the same thing yesterday and I corrected him too!






The above is your post where you finally posted what the S&P actually said.

I'll leave it to the readers to read the above understand how you distort, twist and fabricate things to try and put forth your point of view.

PS - At least you had the integrity to include the "or" in your shouting of S&P's quote. LOL "or was that a mistake?"


If you go back and read my posts, I said all along that what the S&P published reasons were that "the contentious and fitful process of reducing the US debt" was the core reason for the downgrade.

I don't understand why you and others feel the need to distort and fabricate things up to try in arguing your point of view. It destroys the credibility of the other points you make which are truthful or at least a sincere expression of your opinion. If you are as smart as you claim to be, this should be obvious to you but your posts suggest otherwise.

HOAX,

it was you that distorted what was said. Like all the republicans who spoke on foxed spews, they all left out the issue of raising revenues as discussed by the S&P.

This sentence you posted is a complete fabrication and edited by you to mean something completely different that the quote I posted which can be verified by the S&P statement.

You stated "I said all along that what the S&P published reasons were that "the contentious and fitful process of reducing the US debt" ..."

That is not what they said, you extrapolated the actual sentence and created a new one. My quote is accurate and doesnt need to have several interpretations. The wording is clear. Congress will have to return and raise taxes if they ever want to see the credit rating improved.

You can cry foul, but you are the one making stuff up, just like foxed spews.

Show me anywhere in the actual S&P statement that contains the sentence you quoted. (word for word)

Ill wait.

Peace.

p.s._ what I posted is the second time I posted the S&P statement.

 

[The Other Side]

Again, Im sorry your party chose to accept 98% of the blame for the deal that caused our rating to be downgraded and the eventual collapse of our economy. Maybe that wasnt such a great idea.

But then again, the republicans never know what to say.

Peace.

 

[Catatonic]

HOAX,

it was you that distorted what was said. Like all the republicans who spoke on foxed spews, they all left out the issue of raising revenues as discussed by the S&P.

This sentence you posted is a complete fabrication and edited by you to mean something completely different that the quote I posted which can be verified by the S&P statement.

You stated "I said all along that what the S&P published reasons were that "the contentious and fitful process of reducing the US debt" ..."

That is not what they said, you extrapolated the actual sentence and created a new one. My quote is accurate and doesnt need to have several interpretations. The wording is clear. Congress will have to return and raise taxes if they ever want to see the credit rating improved.

You can cry foul, but you are the one making stuff up, just like foxed spews.

Show me anywhere in the actual S&P statement that contains the sentence you quoted. (word for word)

Ill wait.

Peace.

p.s._ what I posted is the second time I posted the S&P statement.

I am a Libertarian and don't really care for either party - I am a fiscal conservative and a liberal on personal rights so I find both good and bad in each party.


My intent was not to try and win an argument with you on whether the Republicans or Democrats were to blame for the downgrade. My intent was to expose, for those who can't see the obvious, how you distort and take out of context what is actually said, By the way, I dislike Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity equally. Neither of their TV personae ever present the truth - it is always a distorted and twisted perception of reality - much like your persona here on BC.

Carry on .. I am bored with this aimless but entertaining discourse and must cut the grass.

Peace,

H

 

[The Other Side]

I am a Libertarian and don't really care for either party - I am a fiscal conservative and a liberal on personal rights so I find both good and bad in each party.


My intent was to expose, for those who can't see the obvious, how you distort and take out of context what is actually said, By the way

H

Again you repeat that I distorted something that was said, when in fact between you and I, I posted the actual wording and you provide a mis-quoted with convenient editing and try to pass it off as substance.

I challenged you and you failed.

In the imortal words of Monty Python " run away , run away".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_u4UTvk9w

Peace.

 

[The Other Side]

And by the way,, there is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative"...its only catch phrase...if you didnt know.

Peace.

 

[klein]

I just had to post this comment that was made after an article about the S&P downgrade :


6 users liked this comment 0 users disliked this comment
mikemaximum 7 hours ago

We are for sure witnessing the fall of the USA. Many predicted it years ago and warned the government of the path they were taking but the corruption of politicians continued and decisions were taken solely to profit war mongers, big companies and pharmas. Still do today.
Afghanistan and Iraq was the final stupid decisions that brought the US to his knees. The Russians standing in the background laughing as they did the same exact mistakes that ruined the USSR in the early 90's.
Wasn't that the USSR bankruptcy a good example of what countries shouldn't do? Not for dumb American politicians. When Bush came into power, he had a surplus but he quickly turned it into a debt and a huge one at that.
While the rest of the world stared at the television during the 2004 election, they were dumbfounded to see Bush back in the driver's seat again. While the world saw him as the most stupid President ever, over 50% of Americans thought he was the man. The same people think that raising taxes is not the right way to pay the debt...AMAZING!
With such stupidity running around, it's simple to understand why the US will now fall just as other super powers did in the past.
If OPEC decides to switch from the US dollar to the Euro for oil transactions as I'm sure most continents except for America will pressure them to do so, then it will be the end of the US. The army will slowing disappear, jets, tanks guns ect for sale just as the old USSR did ...heck Mexico will have a better economy. Parlez espaniol anyone? All those States just might turn into Provinces...lol Chanting USA USA USA? I don't think so.​

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

 

[tourists24]

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

Anymore, there is no fiscal conservatism in our federal government. Only 2 parties taking us down. One just a little quicker than the other.

 

[Catatonic]

Anymore, there is no fiscal conservatism in our federal government. Only 2 parties taking us down. One just a little quicker than the other.

I did find it very irksome, disingenuous and essentially a lie that the Republicans were saying the bill would cut government spending when it actually increased government spending by $7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Some of them did allude to it but it was all just a big lie.

 

[klein]

I did find it very irksome, disingenuous and essentially a lie that the Republicans were saying the bill would cut government spending when it actually increased government spending by $7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Some of them did allude to it but it was all just a big lie.

I give it $7 Trillion in 5 years time, no matter which party is in power.

 

[Lue C Fur]

I tend to watch Bloomberg rather than CNN or Fox when it comes to economic issues. Not much political positioning there and they bring in real experts and experienced business people.
I watch Bloomberg also...for the hottie anchors.

A poor person never created a job ... we need rich people because they create jobs.
Amen brother.

 

[moreluck]

I give it $7 Trillion in 5 years time, no matter which party is in power.

Nobody wants to take your bets on the demise of our country!!!

 

[wkmac]

I did find it very irksome, disingenuous and essentially a lie that the Republicans were saying the bill would cut government spending when it actually increased government spending by $7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Some of them did allude to it but it was all just a big lie.

In other words, you were upset with the typical standard operating procedure of the republican..opps I mean democrat..oh wait republican.....dammit....democrat...but republican.....uh....what.....OH SCREW IT!



Asian markets will open within the hour and all were down 3% to 4% Friday. From the Nikkei website, article saying market will open to a "New World" after the US downgrade.

The U.S. downgrade "is going to be a seismic event," said Ed Rogers, chief executive officer of Rogers Investment Advisors, the Japan advisory firm of New York-based investment firm Wolver Hill Asset Management. Beyond the initial downdraft in stock markets, "the most impact will likely be felt in the currency markets: The dollar is going to continue to get pummeled."