Anyone on the Left want to discuss the facts?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

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

    So far, I like having him on here.  That is how you debate.  As opposed to responses of LMLAO or "do you need a kleenex" or "I hope the stock market tanks and all repubs lose their wealth".

    At least this guy has a brain.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

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

    Here was the question to S&P exec John Chambers, and his reply:

    Q: “There’s been a figure of $4 trillion dollars circulating as an example of the scope of  fiscal consolidation measures that could work to stabilize the U.S. debt-gdp ratios. Could you explain how that figure was arrived at since it was mentioned in S&P’s reports and where it figures in S&P analysis?”

    A: “First of all, that figure comes initially from the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission, and it was embraced by President Obama  in his April 13 speech and Paul Ryan in his counter-budget proposal. And so you had policy makers converging around the amount. Now actually the $4 trillion, depending on whether it is front-loaded or back-loaded, is not going to do the trick in terms of stabilizing U.S. government debt-to GDP ratios. But it takes you pretty far along. And I think a grand bargain of that nature would signal, you know, the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal issues of the United States, to actually stabilize the debt-to-GDP. The IMF says it takes  7.5% of GDP consolidation. I think we have more than that"


    This was prior to the debt deal.  And they made it clear they were expecting AT LEAST 4 trillion in cuts. 

    I am sorry.  It was made public and the Dems ignored it.


    "And I think a grand bargain of that nature would signal, you know, the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal issues of the United States, to actually stabilize the debt-to-GDP."

    No grand bargain reaching that amount, and therefore, they were not serious.  Hence the downgrade. 


    Also, if you notice they mentioned Bowles-Simpson and the Ryan plan.

    What was the Dem response to both of those plans?  I'll tell you.  "Paul Ryan wants old people to go hungry".

    Look at the facts.  And don't try to manipulate them to make your case.

    If the Dems did not fight the TP ers, we would have had the $4trillion in cuts and no "acrimonious" debates.

    If the TP ers went along with Dems, we would not have had that dollar cut, let alone NO cuts to entitlements that S&P SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

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

    4-6 trillion is what they said.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. 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]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]

    Come on LT, this is were it's easy to say figures lie and liars figure.  Look at the rest of the S&P statement,...they didn't balme any one entity now did they.

    But they did seem to focus in on the inability address entitlement spending.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. 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? : C'mon joe, this is where it's easy to see a partisan slant to your 'reading' of the statement. 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... They clearly and explicitly singled out the reps for resisting revenue increases which caused the S&P to change their assumptions from a scenario with  revenue increases to one without, which in turn lowered their expectations of deficit savings. This is where 'You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts' comes into play. It's right there in black and white, no parsing or spinning can change that.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    I read the S&P statement posted on their website and they didn't blame.  I've copied and posted the prior response to you that you apparently never read.

    ***********************************************************

    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.


     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. 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? : Apparently you have a problem concentrating. I have said time and again that the TWO issues specifically mentioned in the S&P paper that are needed to address the debt are controlling spending and the reps refusal to allow revenue increases. Those are the facts. Both parties are mentioned as contributing to gridlock but ONLY the reps are called out by name for blocking revenue increases. No where are the Dems mentioned other than within the context of partisan politics. The Reps are SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY named as a factor in the debt problem by blocking any revenue increase. 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... The Reps alone were named and their actions forced S&P to change their assumptions of the fiscal situation. Show me one instance where the Dems are mentioned in such a way as "resisting any measure".
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    I humbly stand corrected, I went back and word searched the document.  That being said I'll pull a S&P and state that it really doesn't change anything.

    We all search for facts or positions that align with our own to wit the crux of the problem is...

    From the S&P statement.............

    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.


     
  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? : C'mon joe, this is where it's easy to see a partisan slant to your 'reading' of the statement. 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... They clearly and explicitly singled out the reps for resisting revenue increases which caused the S&P to change their assumptions from a scenario with  revenue increases to one without, which in turn lowered their expectations of deficit savings. This is where 'You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts' comes into play. It's right there in black and white, no parsing or spinning can change that.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]



    airborne, you are BLIND and foobar if you think joe is a partisan.

    Of course, your partisan blinders come straight from the pages of the Nation, which has over and over been shown to BE WRONG on this issue.  give it up, you are outgunned.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_4286401. Show user_4286401'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? : Hey stupid,......EVERYONE has tried to tell you, the Republicans have a small majority in the HOUSE ONLY!!!!!   The DEMOCRATS have the Senate and the White House!!!!!! There and only there is where the "problem" is.  Take a course or something will ya?
    Posted by jmel[/QUOTE]

    -Great answer to one of the forums libturds.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD'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? : Especially the Iraq related stuff.  A simple Google search shows COMPLETE CONGRESSIONAL support for invasion, yet, these b o o b s can`t stop the "Bush`s fault" thing.  I`m guessing they are all drop-out, welfare, MSNBC-watching-dorks.
    Posted by jmel[/QUOTE]

    An equally simple search would show that support was based on faulty, highly dubious intel, and the admin botched the whole thing anyway.  We never should have been there.  Iraq created way more problems than it solved.

    But the trillion or so (at least) for that half-azzed war pales in comparison to the '01 and '03 tax cuts which only added to the long term debt.  This is indisputable.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. 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? : Hey stupid,......EVERYONE has tried to tell you, the Republicans have a small majority in the HOUSE ONLY!!!!!   The DEMOCRATS have the Senate and the White House!!!!!! There and only there is where the "problem" is.  Take a course or something will ya?
    Posted by jmel[/QUOTE]

    You apparently do not understand how the rules of the Senate work: fillibusters and "holds" allow the minority considerable power to halt the agenda of both the Senate majority and the President.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

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

    Lack of cuts and political gridlock.

    IT TAKES TWO FOR POLITICAL GRIDLOCK.

    Airborne you are nuts if you are trying to pin it on them alone.

    So, they did not want rev increases.  And we know the S&P doesn't care how it comes about.  So, if Dems didn't block cuts, we would not have had political gridlock.

    And to our earlier discussion, you were right.  Cuts in this conversation can mean two things.  Cuts to spending or, rev increases that then create cuts.

    However, tomato, tomato. . . . .gridlock because of rev increases or cuts, is gridlock.

    End of story.  But enough with this "it is all the repubs fault".  That is bogus and you know it. 

    I remind you that S&P said that it was clear our politicians were not serious about CUTS. 

    So, who is not serious?  I would argue the Dems are not serious.  They refused entitlement cuts, WHEN THE S&P specifically mentioned a lack of entitlement cuts as a problem.

    See where I am coming from? 
     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

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

    "The initial proposal was a grand bargain of $4trillion with $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. That was what Obama and Boehner were negotiating. There was Dem opposition to be sure but it was Boehner who backed out, not Obama." 

    WRONG.

    Boehner and Obama came to an agreement, and then Obama took it to Dems and they wanted 50% higher increases in revs.

    That is when Boehner walked away.  As he said, Obama moved the goal posts.

    Also, tell me what the reaction was by those on the left to the RYan plan?  Reid said it was dead on arrival, WITHOUT ANY debate. 


    You are contradicting yourself here.  I am sorry.  You said S&P did not care if it was rev increases or cuts, right?

    Well, when S&P said it was clear politicians were not serious, then can't you say they are implying they were not serious about cuts or rev increases?

    There were two reasons why S&P downgraded, poltiical gridlock and a lack of the cuts (rev increases or cuts) that they wanted to see.

    While they call out Repubs for a lack of desire to see rev increases, they are alos calling out Dems for a lack of desire to allow cuts to ENTITLEMENTS.

    They said it.  Entitlements.  Were Repubs blocking that?

    I never siad that I thought they should have capitualted.  If that is how you took it, I did not explain myself correctly.  Both of my examples were hypotheticals.

    If you notice I have also said if the TP ers gave in on rev increases. . . we would have still been downgraded for too little cuts.

    I am all for rev icreases.  Overturn the Obama tax cuts for the rich.  Increase taxes for those who make over 250, marginally.  Increase taxes even more for those who make over 1 million.

    I am also for removing all charitable deductions for thsoe who make over 1 million.  If you make that much, you should not be making charitable donations for tax write off reasons alone (by the way, this will never get by Dems).

    But, that being said, in my opinion, I agree with S&P, Dems have not been serious about cuts.

    I remind you of the following.  Take a look at the ads against Ryan. 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

    Ya, that will allow for compromise. 
     
  25. 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? : First off, I'm not the one pinning the downgrade on the Reps. S&P singled them out and explicitly stated that their stance on new revenue was one of two contributing factors. The other being overall partisan politics. If you read the S&P statement, it singles out the Reps and makes no mention of the Dems position. Since this is a debate on the downgrade, we can only go by the S&P statement and it pointed the finger directly at the Reps. Anything else is speculation and not factual. From the all media reports, the Dems did not like the cuts but they didn't block them either.  The initial proposal was a grand bargain of $4trillion with $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. That was what Obama and Boehner were negotiating. There was Dem opposition to be sure but it was Boehner who backed out, not Obama.  And yes it takes two parties for a gridlock but just taking one side and saying the other should have capitulated ignores one of the basic tenets of the Founding Fathers ideas of gov't, compromise. It's why Congress is constructed the way it is, to foster compromise. Your idea of the Dems should have conceded everything ignores the fact of the Reps lack of compromise on the initial negotiations. It could be said if the Reps compromised initially then all this could have been avoided.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    It was the Dems that blew up the grand deal; go back and check the chain of events from July 7th forward.  The Progressives caucus speaks out, Pelosi speaks out, the Black caucus spoke out against the deal because it address entitlements before the TP Caucus piled on a few days later.

     

Share