S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA

And another fact. This was a crisis contrived and executed by the Tea Party. Boehner is quoted as saying as much. (To his credit, he called them out on it and he was right. It didn't work.

"a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works."

They created it, fed it and will now use it in the next election. We will just have to see what percentage of Americans they are able to fool. I bet it is a lot.

BendBrewer said:

No, it means you compromise. Had Obama got his revenue increase in exchange to even more cuts than the GOP got, this would have been averted.

So the Tea Party's refusal to compromise not only cost us a rating ding, it cost them trillions in cuts they had sought all for the sake of the richest 1% of Americans who are all on vacation right now.

That's reality.

Click to expand...

Wrong, thats not why the rating was dinged, i can't argue with you any more on this, if you are unable to read and do your own thinking I cannot help you, just know this, you are 100% wrong and no matter how much you try to prove that you aren't you just won't be able to come up with any evidence or facts to prove it. You can have your own opinion on what you think, but opinions are often wrong, just like humans are often wrong. I have already PROVEN beyond any doubt WHY the USA was DOWNGRADED. You have now found the reason for the Negative outlook and are trying to spin it into the downgrade. Anyone who cares to read the entire text of the S&P statement can easily discern the 2 totally different points.

Are you saying that we are talking about 2 different things?

Then how in the hell can I be wrong if I am not talking about what you are talking about? I thought we were talking about the downgrade in the ratings outlook. That is why I posted that statement.

Tell ya what we really should have done. We should have compromised and said we would make enough cuts in spending to actually be BELOW what we take in, and then on top of that we tax EVERYONE more. And guess what we do with all the extra money? We pay off our debt!!!!! Bet we would have kept that triple A rating and would have had a bunch more folks coming to buy our treasuries!!!

Politically impossible with half the country receiving subsidies from the other half.

BendBrewer said:

Are you saying that we are talking about 2 different things?

Then how in the hell can I be wrong if I am not talking about what you are talking about? I thought we were talking about the downgrade in the ratings outlook. That is why I posted that statement.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats what I have been trying to tell you for the last 10 posts. The outlook is a separate rating that gets attached to the actual credit rating. You can have AAA rating but have a negative outlook, in fact that is what S&P had us at since 2008. Before that we were AAA with a positive outlook.

doesn't mean we do what Obama wants.

Click to expand...

Really? Cmon man, the "grand bargain" would've been, what, 16% revenues? You realize out of EVERY deficit reduction package EVER that is the most skewed towards cuts vs. deficits, right? Even Reagan's package had plenty of revenue increases, Bush 2 raised taxes as part of a deficit reduction deal (1/3rd), Clinton's deal was ~1/4 revenues....


Explain to me, with solid reasoning, how Obama was asking for too much... Can you?

would have had a bunch more folks coming to buy our treasuries!!!

Click to expand...

10 year bonds are at 2.4% so I'm not convinced that's turning out to be an issue.

mame said:

Really? Cmon man, the "grand bargain" would've been, what, 16% revenues? You realize out of EVERY deficit reduction package EVER that is the most skewed towards cuts vs. deficits, right? Even Reagan's package had plenty of revenue increases, Bush 2 raised taxes as part of a deficit reduction deal (1/3rd), Clinton's deal was ~1/4 revenues....


Explain to me, with solid reasoning, how Obama was asking for too much... Can you?

10 year bonds are at 2.4% so I'm not convinced that's turning out to be an issue.

Click to expand...

Read much?? You seem to assume things.

NoDrama said:

Tell ya what we really should have done. We should have compromised and said we would make enough cuts in spending to actually be BELOW what we take in, and then on top of that we tax EVERYONE more. And guess what we do with all the extra money? We pay off our debt!!!!! Bet we would have kept that triple A rating and would have had a bunch more folks coming to buy our treasuries!!!

Politically impossible with half the country receiving subsidies from the other half.

Click to expand...

mame said:

R

Click to expand...

Were we on the verge of Depression during those times? Well, Were we?

If I recall, Reagan allowed the left their tax increase on the condition of a 2-1 spending cut, of which, they never made good on.

fck 401k can't take many more days like this. It is indefensible what they've done.

NoDrama said:

Read much?? You seem to assume things.

Click to expand...

I did read that you'd tax everyone more and cut a ton, but when you said compromise "doesn't mean we do what Obama wants" it felt like you were implying that the Tea Party was actually willing to compromise(or even, that raising the debt ceiling was the compromise, as many of them have tried to spin it) which is obviously just not true at all.

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.

BendBrewer said:

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.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-does-not-believe-the-bush-tax-cuts-will-get-lifted-in-2012-2011-8#ixzz1USfOHevJ
​

Click to expand...

The key phrase in your statement is "resist any measure". Absent the new commission doing anything with the Bush cuts (likely that they will though), then the cuts will expire. It would take a "measure" to change that, not the other way around. So it won't take additional legislation to let them expire.

True Tet but that would be the end of all the Bush Tax Cuts. Legislation would need to be put into place to keep most of them while allowing some to expire. That is what the President has always said he wanted to do and he needs a deal in order to do that.

My guess is they all expire and new cuts for 98% of Americans be proposed to make the GOP vote against tax cuts for 98% of Americans right before an election. Should be interesting.

Yep, there has to be a deal; Obama will not break the all-important political promise of not letting taxes go up on anyone making less than $250k - especially right before his re-election... It'd be Bush Sr. all over again.

mame said:

Interest rates are very low right now, so hopefully the impact of S&P's downgrade is minimal (moody's and others still have us at AAA, right?).

Blame the Tea Party; If they allowed Beohner to accept Obama's "grand bargain" the deficit reduction would've made it over the ARBITRARY(but that's a whole different argument) mark of $4 trillion and we would've averted a downgrade. That's right BLAME THE FUCKING EXTREMIST, NO COMPROMISE DICKS

BLAME THE FUCKING TEA PARTY

Click to expand...

Nice try.

Half of the Donks in the House voted against the debt limit increase, too. If you reply that those votes were 'symbolic,' then the same applies to the Teabaggers who voted against it as well.

The S&P downgraded the U.S. after the debt surpassed 100% of the GDP. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Responsibility for the Obama Downgrade should be laid at the feet of the party in charge, whose policies caused it. In other words: It's the SPENDING, Stupid (Not calling YOU stupid, btw).

mame said:

Yep, there has to be a deal; Obama will not break the all-important political promise of not letting taxes go up on anyone making less than $250k - especially right before his re-election... It'd be Bush Sr. all over again.

Click to expand...

He also cannot go back on his pledge to not allow the tax cuts for the rich to continue any longer on his watch. He get's beat in a Landslide if he re.....uhm if he goes back on that promise. He could propose new cuts for 98% to go into effect the day Bush's cut expire and put the ball in Boehner's court. What's Boehner going to do? Not hold a vote on Tax Cuts right before an election?

The Tea Party blocked 3 Trillion in Cuts. I still blame them.

What has the Tea Party accomplished in Washington? This is their first real concrete result. Ruining our credit.

BendBrewer said:

He also cannot go back on his pledge to not allow the tax cuts for the rich to continue any longer on his watch. He get's beat in a Landslide if he re.....uhm if he goes back on that promise. He could propose new cuts for 98% to go into effect the day Bush's cut expire and put the ball in Boehner's court. What's Boehner going to do? Not hold a vote on Tax Cuts right before an election?

Click to expand...

lol the term is Reneg, not ReNIG. Short for renegotiate. Nothing racist about it. No need to put your foot in your mouth.

Gee, you don't even appreciate my effort at a chuckle.

Lighten up a bit.