Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Ummm, it's one thing to be able to read, and I congratulate you on that, but it's much more important to comprehend what you read. The latter seems to escape you. Your 'translation' is just another attempt at skewing what was actually written. It's funny how there's not one endorsement by S&P on what it considers good debt policy but yet here you are stating that you have the 'translation' and that they agree with a t-party policy. That's not 'translating' that's good ole fashioned partisan sermonizing and blatant baloney. Sorry bud, but you sorely lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to do any 'translating'. Again, from the actual S&P statement, with no 'translation'. 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. S&P explicitly states that "containing the growth in public spending" (note that they don't mention any cuts) and the failure to raise revenues are the driving factors behind the downgrade. So you can sermonize all you want but spare me the BS 'translation', it's ridiculous.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    why don't I bottom line it for you chief?

    The downgrade is because of the debt, not anything in your imaginary mind about republicans holding the economy hostage.  

    For someone so sure of themselves, you might try listening more to those that have been out here in the economy while you have been hiding out in some desk job the military.

     Hey, what was you screen name before you took up this one?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Who's defending the S&P? I was only pointing out the facts from their statement on the credit downgrade. They make no implicit or explicit relationship to the tax cut extension and the credit rating so I'm not sure what your point is about 'Who extended those cuts? ' It's apparent that the extension didn't figure into their analysis but that the lack of increased revenue most certainly affects the rating going forward.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Hey foobar, anyone can cookie cutter the press release and make a n argument.  Out here in the real world, we look at the facts. 

    You really expect people to support your contention that both parties voted in this debt ceiling raise, yet S&P only called out the republicans? Show us the facts if you are so sure.

    Your problem is between the keyboard and chair.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : Who's defending the S&P? I was only pointing out the facts from their statement on the credit downgrade. They make no implicit or explicit relationship to the tax cut extension and the credit rating so I'm not sure what your point is about 'Who extended those cuts? ' It's apparent that the extension didn't figure into their analysis but that the lack of increased revenue most certainly affects the rating going forward.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Your roots are showing......time to see what's behind door #1, it's really childish to hide behind something (or someone) you are not.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? :  Oh, so THATS what, "The G.O.P. created the debt crisis by demanding deficit reduction with a change in the ceiling amount", means! And here i thought the debt crisis was at least as old as Bush 43. Guess I gotta bone up on Reubenese.  Its seems to be an intruiging language loosely based on English
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    Greg: don't be a tool.  You are usually better than that.  The whole discussion is about what is happening NOW, not how the deficit first got created.  But you are right: Bush certainly started the deficit ball rolling towards the problems we are having today.  So the G.O.P. gets responsibility at the start and finish of our deficit issue.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : You're citing an opinion piece, which by definition, is biased. The actual S&P statement explicitly states that the failure to raise new revenues has a negative impact on the fiscal outlook of the US. They further state that it is the Repubs in Congress who are responsible for the lost revenue going forward. You can argue opinions all you want but you can't argue the facts as stated by S&P in their white paper on the downgrade. I would urge you to actually read the S&P statement rather than forming an opinion through the lense of biased op-ed articles. 
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    The S&P statement gives equal weight revenue and spending bottomlime it's the deficit, not one particular solution. From the S&P statement.  S&P in their statement appears to be more concerned about the spending side as a key to long term stability, but I'm OK with your interpretation equal blame and just address deficit.

    The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
    America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
    and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
    ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
    the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
    view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
    extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
    agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
    that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
    Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
    discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
    more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
    dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
    only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
    the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

    Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the
    structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt
    burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated
    sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal
    stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus
    might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by
    then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term
    fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S.
    population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at
    hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even
    More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).

    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.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : why don't I bottom line it for you chief? The downgrade is because of the debt, not anything in your imaginary mind about republicans holding the economy hostage.   For someone so sure of themselves, you might try listening more to those that have been out here in the economy while you have been hiding out in some desk job the military.  Hey, what was you screen name before you took up this one?
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    I (really, truly) hate to agree with you, but there is no mention of the Republicans being to blame in the S. and P. statement.  It describes a "gulf" between the two political parties on fiscal policy contributing to the downgrade. We can argue about who is most responsible for such a gulf, but the statement does not directly allocate blame.

    "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."

    http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from R3S1N20. Show R3S1N20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    The blame game is the exact reason were in this mess. regardless of whos fault it is we need to do something to fix and restore americas reputation as the greatest and most reliable nation on earth, but then again the blame game starts again on how to restore america.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : I (really, truly) hate to agree with you, but there is no mention of the Republicans being to blame in the S. and P. statement.  It describes a "gulf" between the two political parties on fiscal policy contributing to the downgrade. We can argue about who is most responsible for such a gulf, but the statement does not directly allocate blame. "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." http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    It's a svcky day when we agree, right?

    Keep the peace.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : They state explicilty that the Repub position on tax revenue undermines the ability of the US to address the fiscal crisis. 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... And as S&P states: 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. They are explaining the reson behind the downgrade, no new revenues were enacted, as in they want to see a mix of spending and revenue but only spending was addressed, which is why they downgraded the credit.   They went on to say that the lack of revenue weakens the government's ability to manage public finances.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Noticing a change in the position of the Republicans and BLAMING THAT POSTION for the current crisis are two different things.  Show me where it connects tax increases with maintaining the AAA rating, not your interpretive dance after the elipse.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    I'm guessing airborne is a new handle for lawboy, who has been absent today.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : They state explicilty that the Repub position on tax revenue undermines the ability of the US to address the fiscal crisis. 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... And as S&P states: 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. They are explaining the reson behind the downgrade, no new revenues were enacted, as in they want to see a mix of spending and revenue but only spending was addressed, which is why they downgraded the credit.   They went on to say that the lack of revenue weakens the government's ability to manage public finances.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Um, no.  that's not what they said.  you ep pulling out selective sections.  Here's the rest of the story:

    We view the act’s measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented,
    we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow.

    In other words, it's the debt stupid.  As far as the republicans:

    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.

    In other words, S&P doesn't care if it comes from increased taxes or real spending cuts, no blame on the republicans as you claim.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    Regardless,

    Yes there was an impasse recently when discussing the debt ceiling increase.  IT TAKES TWO.

    While TP ers were hoping for bigger cuts and no revenue increases, the Dems were shooting for smaller cuts and revenue increases.

    Now, we know that S&P said they wanted to see $4T in CUTS.  The TP plan, or that of the Repubs had those numbers.

    When Dems got word of the cuts in the Ryan plan they freaked out.  Ryan fell on his sword to do what was right.

    How, now knowing these facts can you blame the TP'ers.  Lets say they didn't hold such a hardline.  Lets say  they bought in to the Dem plan which had rev increases and very little in cuts.  Would anything have changed re: the downgrade?

    In my opinion no.  Not even close.  Both the S&P and the Repubs were on teh same page.  Many Repub politicians even commented on that threat made by S&P publicly prior to the debate.

    Did you hear it out of Obama's mouth prior to the passage of the bill?  Prior to the actual downgrade.  He may have said it.  I never heard it, and I do pay attention.  I got the impression Obama was not taking that threat seriously. 

    You can try and spin it all you want, but, if Dems listened to the TP ers and didn't fight the cuts, can't you say pretty confidently that we would not be looking at a downgrade?

    Think about it.  There would have been no impasse, and prolonged buffoonery, AND, we would have had the $4t in cuts.

    Am I not following something here? 
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]Regardless, Yes there was an impasse recently when discussing the debt ceiling increase.  IT TAKES TWO. While TP ers were hoping for bigger cuts and no revenue increases, the Dems were shooting for smaller cuts and revenue increases. Now, we know that S&P said they wanted to see $4T in CUTS.  The TP plan, or that of the Repubs had those numbers. When Dems got word of the cuts in the Ryan plan they freaked out.  Ryan fell on his sword to do what was right. How, now knowing these facts can you blame the TP'ers.  Lets say they didn't hold such a hardline.  Lets say  they bought in to the Dem plan which had rev increases and very little in cuts.  Would anything have changed re: the downgrade? In my opinion no.  Not even close.  Both the S&P and the Repubs were on teh same page.  Many Repub politicians even commented on that threat made by S&P publicly prior to the debate. Did you hear it out of Obama's mouth prior to the passage of the bill?  Prior to the actual downgrade.  He may have said it.  I never heard it, and I do pay attention.  I got the impression Obama was not taking that threat seriously.  You can try and spin it all you want, but, if Dems listened to the TP ers and didn't fight the cuts, can't you say pretty confidently that we would not be looking at a downgrade? Think about it.  There would have been no impasse, and prolonged buffoonery, AND, we would have had the $4t in cuts. Am I not following something here? 
    Posted by whatnow4[/QUOTE]

    you got it right.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts? : From the S&P statement: 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... It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options...weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency... That first part explicitly states that prior to the debt limit agreement, S&P had a 'base case scenario' as they call it, which included the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. After the debt bill was passed and they saw no new revenue and the resistance of the Reps to even address the issue, they changed their assumptions. It can be logically inferred that had revenues been included in the compromise, S&P would have reached a more positive evaluation of the credit rating. Of course that is only an inference and they don't specifically state that but it logically explains why they mentioned revenues in general and the Reps in particular. Revenues pay down the debt and the Reps stand in the way of revenues. That conclusion is further reinforced by the second part of the quote where S&P states that by not including revenues, it  weakens the government's ability to manage public finances. Nowhere did I see S&P state that $4trillion in cuts only, with no tax revenue, was necessary to avert a ratings downgrade. Do you have a link to an actual statement. And by that I mean a statement from S&P itself, not someone manipulating what the S&P actually said. The Dems proposed 3 to 1, cuts to revenue to hit the $4 trillion mark.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]


    no, it can't be logically inferred. s&p said they did not have a preference, between revenue or cuts.  you seem to want to ignore that part.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    I'm still waiting to see facts.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    Here is a fact for you.

    This is taken from the S&P's own report.  This is their justification in their own words.

    "

    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."


    So you see,  the tea party and their combative politics and refusal to work with the rational members of governemnt have destroyed the faith of investors for our government to function.

    The GOP has said time and time again that they're main goal is to makes sure Obama is a one term president.  They aim to make him appear to be a failure.  They are holding our economony hostage in order to get what they want by refusing to pass any policy that they don't write themselves, without any compromise.   

    Thats not governing, thats throwing a tantrum.

    The tea party and the GOP need to grow up, stop playing politics and start doing their job. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    In Response to Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?:
    [QUOTE]Here is a fact for you. This is taken from the S&P's own report.  This is their justification in their own words. " 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." So you see,  the tea party and their combative politics and refusal to work with the rational members of governemnt have destroyed the faith of investors for our government to function. The GOP has said time and time again that they're main goal is to makes sure Obama is a one term president.  They aim to make him appear to be a failure.  They are holding our economony hostage in order to get what they want by refusing to pass any policy that they don't write themselves, without any compromise.    Thats not governing, thats throwing a tantrum. The tea party and the GOP need to grow up, stop playing politics and start doing their job. 
    Posted by Ltown1[/QUOTE]



    Yet again, you conveniently won't post the rest of the report on the issue, where the S&P said they have no bias between the approaches from the two parties.  How can you blame the TEA party, who wanted to CUT MORE?????

    You are clueless.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

    Re: Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

    airborn-

    You are wrong.  Priot to the conclusion of teh debt ceiling talks, S&P said they wanted to see $4t in CUTS.

    CUTS CUTS CUTS.

    That is what this is about and has always been about.

    What is Moody's saying now?  CUTS CUTS CUTS.

    In my opinion and based on what I have read, while cuts are goal number one, they were alos looking to see if revsd could be increased.

    You are taking leaps in your analysis.

    And let me remind you, it TAKES TWO TO HAVE AN IMPASSE. 

    Just as you could say that is teh TP' ers fault, can't you also say it was the dems who were standing in the way of any SUBSTANTIAL cuts.  And those cuts were what S&P wanted to see.

    Come on, use your brain.

    S&P was not looking for no cuts (specifically entitlements) and huge increases in revs.

    Face it, that is bs, if that is what you are proposing. 
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share