The Democrat downgrade...

[ProfJohn]

The most significant point is still that there was no necessity to combine the debt ceiling with any other spending bills. The Republicans did this and set the stage for everything else, including teabaggers saying that if the country couldn't pay its bills, so what.

The
Republicans set this whole deal up and ran into the ground. The Democrats would have passed a clean bill on the debt ceiling and not created any doubts about the country's willingness or ability to pay it's debts.

The Republicans started the fire, and argue all the points you want about who added what fuel to it, but the fact remains that it should be the right that gets charged with arson. And its the teabaggers that threw the bomb into the bonfire just for good measure.

A clean bill would have been an automatic downgrade.

From way back in April:
"Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be
very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the
path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook
on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not
reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary
challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful
implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the
U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA'
sovereigns."
" We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals as the
starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in
substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we
see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties
remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional
negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy
until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the
first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014
(for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond
that time is possible.
Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures the Congress and the Administration might conclude are appropriate.
But for any plan to be credible, we believe that it would need to secure
support from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties."

That was LONG before the fighting in congress started.
And that was AFTER Obama's own spokesman came out and said they wanted a clean bill.

Again, give the Democrats what they WANTED and what they were calling for and we would have gotten a downgrade.

 

[First]

Clean debt ceiling increase bill was to be followed by another bill addressing the debt. No evidence S&P would have downgraded if only a clean debt ceiling bill were passed before a debt-centric bill.

Not hard to understand if you aren't a knuckle dragging troll PJ.

 

[ProfJohn]

That's because Obama had no freaking credible plan other then memorable speech highlights.

Where is that awesome quote from the CBO??

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf: “No, Mr. Chairman. We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.”

 

[werepossum]

Again, I'll ask you.

Link that shows this claim before the political debt-ceiling fight.

Would there be a point to this? Before and during the Dems' call for a clean debt ceiling increase bill, they wanted a bill that raised taxes and cut spending "in the tax code" (i.e. raised taxes.) Considering that promises of $2.4 trillion in cuts didn't keep us from being downgraded and that confiscating 100% of wage income above $250,000 still has us adding almost a trillion a year (and that's assuming that people earning more than $250,000 will continue working whilst government takes the difference), the effect would be the same.

The problem is what we are adding to the debt, not how much more we'd like to add to the debt. To solve this problem within a decade or two we're going to need actual cuts in federal spending. Keeping the deficit increase less than the increase in GDP only works if you start from a spending level that isn't batshit crazy.

Even a flip to a strong Republican Congress and President likely won't fix this problem. The Pubbies are talking a good game now, but in general the party in power wants more spending and debt ceiling increases, and the party out of power opposes debt ceiling increases - yet somehow they always find enough in common to get a debt ceiling increase. And they always will. A strong Tea Party Congress and President might break that cycle, but the resulting economic distress would just lead us to throw them out of power again. And even if we could swallow our bitter medicine, even the staunchest fiscal conservative becomes a fiscal libertine after six years in D.C.

 

[Jhhnn]

In related news,, Paul Ryan tries to make hay out of hte downgrade, gets 3 pinocchio's from the WP fact checker-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../08/gIQAKy5J3I_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

PJ would likely get 4 if he weren't more than a fly touting a giant load of manure...

 

[soundforbjt]

That doesn't prove that we'd have gotten an automatic downgrade if we'd passed a clean bill. Just suggests a maybe.

Proof not found. I want to see a hard line statement from S&P saying they would downgrade automatically if a clean bill was passed.

 

[First]

That doesn't prove that we'd have gotten an automatic downgrade if we'd passed a clean bill. Just suggests a maybe.

Proof not found. I want to see a hard line statement from S&P saying they would downgrade automatically if a clean bill was passed.

There is no proof, these guys are troll-tards.

 

[werepossum]

Clean debt ceiling increase bill was to be followed by another bill addressing the debt. No evidence S&P would have downgraded if only a clean debt ceiling bill were passed before a debt-centric bill.

Not hard to understand if you aren't a knuckle dragging troll PJ.

Read ProfJohn's post directly above yours for the quote. If you still think S&P would not have downgraded after a clean debt ceiling increase bill because of the promise of a later debt-addressing bill, thinking is not one of your proficiencies and henceforth you should avoid it. Um, avoid it more than you are currently doing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Then why are you pretending the GOP isnt in any way guilty?

The GOP plan that the Democrats all voted against would have prevented a downgrade.

But the Democrats are deathly afraid of a balanced budget amendment and won't even debate the subject.

Also, the GOP controls 1 out of 3 elected branches so there isn't much they can do to control the agenda.

BTW I blame the Bush era GOP for bad spending ALL the time. But the current GOP is at least trying to stop the debt madness before it destroys us.

This is a giant shit sandwich that was made by everyone for the last 30 years. Get off your ass and start going after the people who represent you and demand they do so honorably. Don't sit here finger pointing and being a hack.

Bush and many of the Republicans who supported him are gone. My local congressman is gone as well, voted out of office last year. Senator DeMint is as anti-spend as they come (voted for him last time) Not sure who else I can go after at this point...

I do know that I may work on a campaign this fall and next if I have the time.

 

[soundforbjt]

Would there be a point to this? Before and during the Dems' call for a clean debt ceiling increase bill, they wanted a bill that raised taxes and cut spending "in the tax code" (i.e. raised taxes.) Considering that promises of $2.4 trillion in cuts didn't keep us from being downgraded and that confiscating 100% of wage income above $250,000 still has us adding almost a trillion a year (and that's assuming that people earning more than $250,000 will continue working whilst government takes the difference), the effect would be the same.

The problem is what we are adding to the debt, not how much more we'd like to add to the debt. To solve this problem within a decade or two we're going to need actual cuts in federal spending. Keeping the deficit increase less than the increase in GDP only works if you start from a spending level that isn't batshit crazy.

Even a flip to a strong Republican Congress and President likely won't fix this problem. The Pubbies are talking a good game now, but in general the party in power wants more spending and debt ceiling increases, and the party out of power opposes debt ceiling increases - yet somehow they always find enough in common to get a debt ceiling increase. And they always will. A strong Tea Party Congress and President might break that cycle, but the resulting economic distress would just lead us to throw them out of power again. And even if we could swallow our bitter medicine, even the staunchest fiscal conservative becomes a fiscal libertine after six years in D.C.

The point is ProJo is talking out his ass and making ass umptions as fact.

A strong Teabagger Congress and Pres would destroy what's left of this country's middle-class.

We need more revenue and spending cuts, We also need jobs created by infastructure re-building.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

--snip--

You're right, most of the right is in denial. I'd also say the left is too, however. At this point, it doesn't matter who is at fault. What matters is that these issues get fixed and NONE of our politicians have enough guts to do what it takes.

 

[First]

Read ProfJohn's post directly above yours for the quote. If you still think S&P would not have downgraded after a clean debt ceiling increase bill because of the promise of a later debt-addressing bill, thinking is not one of your proficiencies and henceforth you should avoid it. Um, avoid it more than you are currently doing.

Please point out the specific S&P sentence in the quote where they say they would have downgraded U.S. debt after a clean debt ceiling bill pass in April with Congressional debate on debt in the following months. When you fail to find this quote don't be angry when I point and laugh at you for wimping out.

 

[ProfJohn]

Clean debt ceiling increase bill was to be followed by another bill addressing the debt. No evidence S&P would have downgraded if only a clean debt ceiling bill were passed before a debt-centric bill.

Not hard to understand if you aren't a knuckle dragging troll PJ.

And where is this bill??

Any evidence that it actually exists?

Or is it another of Obama's promises? Should I start a list of things Obama said he was going to do??

 

[ProfJohn]

That doesn't prove that we'd have gotten an automatic downgrade if we'd passed a clean bill. Just suggests a maybe.

Proof not found. I want to see a hard line statement from S&P saying they would downgrade automatically if a clean bill was passed.

From the link in the post above yours

As S&P put it: “Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive budgetary consolidation program — combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by 2013 — could lead us to maintain the rating where it is.”


A clean bill is not a meaningful step towards budgetary consolidation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Please point out the specific S&P sentence in the quote where they say they would have downgraded U.S. debt after a clean debt ceiling bill pass in April with Congressional debate on debt in the following months. When you fail to find this quote don't be angry when I point and laugh at you for wimping out.

See post 89 for your quote...

They never seemed to have come out and said directly that a clean bill would lead to a downgrade, but they did say that they WANTED cuts in the magnitude of $4 trillion and a clean bill includes NO cuts.

 

[soundforbjt]

From the link in the post above yours

As S&P put it: “Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive budgetary consolidation program — combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by 2013 — could lead us to maintain the rating where it is.”


A clean bill is not a meaningful step towards budgetary consolidation.

In your mind, you don't know and S&P doesn't state it in your quote either.

fail.

18 debt ceiling raises under Reagan and tripling of debt didn't result in our rating being changed.

 

[ProfJohn]

In your mind, you don't know and S&P doesn't state it in your quote either.

fail.

18 debt ceiling raises under Reagan and tripling of debt didn't result in our rating being changed.

Lousy quality video from Fox News with an interview with the director of S&P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5RizzBDs1I8#at=69

He comes right out and said that we needed a $4 trillion deal. NOT a clean debt ceiling.

Watch the interview you might learn something.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lousy quality video from Fox News with an interview with the director of S&P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5RizzBDs1I8#at=69

He comes right out and said that we needed a $4 trillion deal. NOT a clean debt ceiling.

Watch the interview you might learn something.

And Repubs were offered more than one, which they rejected, because they included tax increases.

You're now just arguing to argue, attempting to save a lame-ass attribution from the flushing action it deserves.

 

[OrByte]

I read PJ's "facts" for the lulz.

 

[werepossum]

The GOP plan that the Democrats all voted against would have prevented a downgrade.

But the Democrats are deathly afraid of a balanced budget amendment and won't even debate the subject.

Also, the GOP controls 1 out of 3 elected branches so there isn't much they can do to control the agenda.

BTW I blame the Bush era GOP for bad spending ALL the time. But the current GOP is at least trying to stop the debt madness before it destroys us.


Bush and many of the Republicans who supported him are gone. My local congressman is gone as well, voted out of office last year. Senator DeMint is as anti-spend as they come (voted for him last time) Not sure who else I can go after at this point...

I do know that I may work on a campaign this fall and next if I have the time.

To be fair, while it would have prevented a downgrade, it would also have some pretty severe economic affects. We are addicted to spending more than we make, and there is no comfortable path out of addiction.

The point is ProJo is talking out his ass and making ass umptions as fact.

A strong Teabagger Congress and Pres would destroy what's left of this country's middle-class.

We need more revenue and spending cuts, We also need jobs created by infastructure re-building.

I agree that we need more revenue and spending cuts. But I cannot support higher taxes (except for closing some loopholes like hedge fund managers) until we see REAL cuts. Not cuts in what we would LIKE to spend, not cuts in what we think we SHOULD spend, but cuts in what we spent last year. And we cannot afford jobs created by infrastructure rebuilding; we can't even afford to maintain infrastructure without borrowing money. Only after we get our financial house in order and begin bringing in more than we spend can we think about infrastructure improvements.

You're right, most of the right is in denial. I'd also say the left is too, however. At this point, it doesn't matter who is at fault. What matters is that these issues get fixed and NONE of our politicians have enough guts to do what it takes.

Agreed, but at this point I don't think there is a path that leads out of this mess without getting worse. Borrow more, it gets worse. Cut spending, it gets worse. Every choice is bad; it's just a matter of choosing the bad choice that leads most quickly to something good. The only thing on which all rational people can agree is that we have to stop our borrowing; what mix of spending cuts and tax increases best accomplishes that is purely speculation based on ideology.

Personally I'm in favor of austerity. Real austerity, not spending 10% more and calling it austerity. But it's personal opinion that this path leads most quickly to the land of not sucking. None of us really knows.

 

[werepossum]

Please point out the specific S&P sentence in the quote where they say they would have downgraded U.S. debt after a clean debt ceiling bill pass in April with Congressional debate on debt in the following months. When you fail to find this quote don't be angry when I point and laugh at you for wimping out.

S&P did not specifically say that they have downgraded U.S. debt after a clean debt ceiling bill pass in April with Congressional debate on debt in the following months. They have this failing where they issue statements that are crystal clear to all normal people without worrying about what morons feel . . .

There is one constant in the debt ceiling; if government can borrow more money, government will borrow more money. To be taken seriously, you'd have to show why this round of Congressional debate about debt should be taken more seriously than the last two decades of Congressional debate about debt.

Feel free to point and laugh at me, just remember to put on your helmet before you go outside.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oh forgot to add one thing and can't be bothered to go find a post to quote but S&Palso said that the BBA would have also done nothing for the credit rating.

“In general, we think that fiscal rules like these just diminish the flexibility of the government to respond. Also, when Congress has a long track record of trying to bind itself with various rules…But when push comes to shove, they don’t bind very much. So even if you had a Balanced Budget Amendment, you’d have some questions about it’s credibility, and it would just reduce your flexibility in a crisis.”

So please stop pretending that Cut, Cap and Balance was the answer and the GOP is somehow vindicated.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The debt ceiling issue was for what the government already owes and was already committed to spend. That pretty much had to pass. The debt ceiling wasn't about increasing spending. Don't you know that? You talk like raising the debt ceiling was about a spending spree the government was about to embark on.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The debt ceiling issue was for what the government already owes and was already committed to spend. That pretty much had to pass. The debt ceiling wasn't about increasing spending. Don't you know that? You talk like raising the debt ceiling was about a spending spree the government was about to embark on.

The Tea Party has assured us that the Debt Ceiling Increase was all about "Giving Obama a Blank Check". Just listen to Representative Bachmann's stump speech...

 

[ch33kym0use]

It's their own fault for the downgrade. If they didn't have the cap and overspend excessively then their wouldn't be a problem but it's late for that so either it gets worse or it gets better. It's really up to other people to decide what to do about it. Personally I wouldn't overspend and would live within my means and not borrow if other income isn't good enough. They can do what they like about it. It really doesn't bother me because i'll be ok anyway.