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.
LOL PJ... your desperation is showing.
Grab these for a sec.
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.
The point is rather simple. Look at how it was damn near impossible to get relatively small deficit cuts when so called default was on the line. Are you honestly arguing that it would have been easier and more effective with nothing to force them to act?
S&p said we needed at least $4t in deficit reduction that wasn't bullshit smoke and mirrors. Every plan originally put out, including obamas and the Republicans, was pure bullshit if you actually read more than the headlines.
The reps took a hard line against revenue increases and the dems took a hard line against meaningful entitlement reductions, there simply is no meaningful deficit reduction without both of those.
From ProfJohn's earlier post, his bolding:Any chance you won't wimp out and actually quote how crystal clear this is with a little excerpt from S&P's statement, lest you be tagged with the very same moron moniker? Though I imagine you are sufficiently used to said description by now.
Is this your version of waving the white flag or are you going to nut up and quote something? Quoting conservatives canards doesn't count in case you were curious (what am I saying, to be curious you first have to be somewhat introspective, my fault).
S&P has been exquisitely clear all along that the problem is the debt. Had the Republicans given in to the Democrats' demand for a clean $4 trillion debt ceiling increase back in April, S&P would have downgraded back in April. Again, the problem is the debt; as soon as we agree to take on the additional debt without implementing concrete cuts in the deficit, our fiscal profile is meaningfully weaker than that of other AAA nations and we get downgraded unless we show immediate and tangible action to fix this problem. Promises will not do it; Congress has been promising to address the national debt for decades and has done nothing. Passing a clean debt ceiling increase is admitting that nothing would be done by F.Y. 2013.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.
From ProfJohn's earlier post, his bolding:
S&P has been exquisitely clear all along that the problem is the debt. Had the Republicans given in to the Democrats' demand for a clean $4 trillion debt ceiling increase back in April, S&P would have downgraded back in April.
Again, the problem is the debt; as soon as we agree to take on the additional debt without implementing concrete cuts in the deficit, our fiscal profile is meaningfully weaker than that of other AAA nations and we get downgraded unless we show immediate and tangible action to fix this problem. Promises will not do it; Congress has been promising to address the national debt for decades and has done nothing. Passing a clean debt ceiling increase is admitting that nothing would be done by F.Y. 2013.
One more time - the problem is the debt. Passing a clean debt ceiling increase merely shows that we are not serious about the problem.
Then perhaps you should read the entire S&P statement instead.Nowhere in that bolded statement does it say passing a clean debt ceiling increase would have resulted in a downgrade.
Then perhaps you should read the entire S&P statement instead.
Yip, that party that caused all this. THEY'RE the ones to blame. That damn party. They're out to get us all.
Which one is the bad one again?
Both of them. This country needs a legimate third political party.... badly.
I'll give you some more ammo. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it for "stimulus", asserting that the economy would grow 3,000% and thus eliminate the national debt by Thursday week. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it on lottery tickets around the world, practically guaranteeing our fiscal rescue. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it researching clean energy derived from unicorn farts and fairy dust, thereby eliminating our oil imports. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it on making John Kerry's hair even more poofy, thereby attracting a REALLY rich widow who'd bail out the country from his allowance. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it on helping a google of Nigerian princes/businessmen/ministers launder their money, thus earning enough to make us fiscally solvent. Hey, if you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. If you're going to be an idiot, why hold anything back? Go for an economy stimulating $100 trillion increase, not a measly $4 trillion increase.Nowhere in that bolded statement does it say passing a clean debt ceiling increase would have resulted in a downgrade. Feel free to quote that sentence, you won't be able to. The debt deal got done in August and will be finalized in November and, apparently, S&P doesn't believe that will be enough. Which is fine of them to think that, but nowhere does it say a clean debt ceiling passage and a delayed debt deal would result in a downgrade past a certain date (and the earliest date they give is past the 2012 elections).
Except there's no evidence of this and your wimp-outs from direct quotes on such an April scenario are transparent.
Except it really isn't admitting such nonsense since the Repubs control the House and would have continued to pass legislation throughout the year to address the debt and it would have forced the Senate and Obama to concede if they wanted to get any other project of theirs done. Not particularly difficult to understand and certainly no reason to think the House wouldn't have been able to get something passed on a debt deal before the 2012 elections without a debt ceiling bullet in the chamber. It just would have made their position weaker.
Debt ceiling increases without requisite budget cuts is the historical norm. Sorry.
So...let me get this straight...you actually think S&P wouldn't have lowered our rating if we just raised the debt ceiling and kicked the can down the road another year? Perhaps you should read the report again as it appears that you've missed the sense of urgency it imparts.You mean the part of their statement where they say 2013 is the cutoff date for meaningful debt reform and not some obscure clean debt ceiling increase in April 2011? Because that's exactly what S&P says here: "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 [2013], this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns.""
Not sure what you've been watching but the Congress had to kick the can down the road to get this current bill passed even with a debt ceiling default looming. They never work swiftly no matter what; they simply would have acted less quickly with it already passed. Would S&P have downgraded the U.S. to AA+ if they hadn't addressed the debt by this particular month, as if August is some particularly special month, if the political narrative hadn't included a debt ceiling increase? Of course not, S&P would have no basis to do this, it's only when the debt-ceiling-being-tied-to-spending narrative came up after the election that this was even considered as part of any rating agency's analysis. S&P specifically mentions the lack of adequate political cooperation as a reason for the downgrade. (we're assuming in this hypothetical a clean debt ceiling was passed in April). If anything, a clean debt ceiling increase would have made S&P happier because it would have given one less bargaining chip for Repubs to use to thwart revenue raisers, a key part of why S&P downgraded U.S. debt.
How the fuck could you or anyone know considering the $4T Dem bill was never publicly revealed in full? Are you assuming the $4T Dem plan was a reworked Simpson-Bowles plan adopted in part (or whole, who knows) in the Senate Gang of 6? S&P cited revenue raisers as a reason for downgrade too, and AFAIK they have made no public assertion of one plan clearly being superior to the other.
[/quote]There is some entitlement reductions (minor) in the current bill, that's fact. See here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365eah/pdf/BILLS-112s365eah.pdf The revenue raisers are going to come with the 12-person Super Congress this November. It's 12 people who will vote on it so they can take the heat politically. Repubs and Dems are playing a game where neither have to take any heat for tax increases because they'll argue they never voted for them, these 12 other guys did. They just couldn't do it in time for the August deadline. Pushing it to November does not at all affect the long-term debt problems the U.S. faces, it's political wrangling. If S&P had any credibility they would have waited the 3 months it'll take to see the likely hundreds of billions (if not $1T+) we'll see in increased taxes in the next bill.
From ProfJohn's earlier post, his bolding:
S&P has been exquisitely clear all along that the problem is the debt. Had the Republicans given in to the Democrats' demand for a clean $4 trillion debt ceiling increase back in April, S&P would have downgraded back in April. Again, the problem is the debt; as soon as we agree to take on the additional debt without implementing concrete cuts in the deficit, our fiscal profile is meaningfully weaker than that of other AAA nations and we get downgraded unless we show immediate and tangible action to fix this problem. Promises will not do it; Congress has been promising to address the national debt for decades and has done nothing. Passing a clean debt ceiling increase is admitting that nothing would be done by F.Y. 2013.
One more time - the problem is the debt. Passing a clean debt ceiling increase merely shows that we are not serious about the problem.
I'll give you some more ammo. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it for "stimulus", asserting that the economy would grow 3,000% and thus eliminate the national debt by Thursday week. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it on lottery tickets around the world, practically guaranteeing our fiscal rescue. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it researching clean energy derived from unicorn farts and fairy dust, thereby eliminating our oil imports. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it on making John Kerry's hair even more poofy, thereby attracting a REALLY rich widow who'd bail out the country from his allowance. Nowhere did S&P specifically state that it would downgrade if we borrowed another $100 trillion and spent it on helping a google of Nigerian princes/businessmen/ministers launder their money, thus earning enough to make us fiscally solvent. Hey, if you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. If you're going to be an idiot, why hold anything back? Go for an economy stimulating $100 trillion increase, not a measly $4 trillion increase.
I'm well aware that raising the debt ceiling without requisite budget cuts is the historical norm. That was in fact my point. S&P is also aware of that fact. That is in large part how we got into this mess. Again, the problem is our huge debt (now larger than GDP) and the frightening rate of its increase. You are arguing that raising the debt ceiling without requisite budget cuts - which we both agree is the historical norm - would somehow convince S&P that this time, it's going to be different. That this time, we're serious about fixing the problem. That this time, even though we're doing the exact same thing we've always done, it means something exactly opposite of what it's always meant before, every other time we've done it. Bullshit.
So...let me get this straight...you actually think S&P wouldn't have lowered our rating if we just raised the debt ceiling and kicked the can down the road another year?
Perhaps you should read the report again as it appears that you've missed the sense of urgency it imparts.
BTW....I couldn't find your S&P quote in the August 5 statement...what gives? Ah...I see...you're quoting the April statement. Nothing like taking old information and using it to make an irrelevant point regarding current circumstances. A lot has happened since that statement was made....and none of it was positive.
You two realize you're arguing with someone who actually thinks people would need training on how to pick up trash, right? Just sayin...
In fairness to First, I believe he shifted to the April statement in response to my reposting ProfJohn's April statement, which was specifically in rebuttal to his and other Dems' claims that S&P actually wanted us to do exactly what we've always done - kick the can down the road - only in a timely manner. That of course would totally make purposeless S&P saying anything at all in April, since the one certainty was that neither side was actually going to deny itself more money to spend. It would also totally make purposeless all three major agencies downgrading our outlook from neutral to negative. However the current Democrat line is that we were downgraded because of the Tea Party. Since the Tea Partiers are the only ones in Congress remotely interested in doing what S&P says we must do, blaming them requires that we ignore what S&P actually said and insist that had we done what we always do - raise the debt ceiling, ignore the hard choices, and appoint yet another useless commission - we would not have been downgraded. This requires believing that S&P actually wanted us to borrow more money, as quickly as possible, so the content of their statements (where they say just the opposite) must be ignored at all costs. Go figure.So...let me get this straight...you actually think S&P wouldn't have lowered our rating if we just raised the debt ceiling and kicked the can down the road another year? Perhaps you should read the report again as it appears that you've missed the sense of urgency it imparts.
BTW....I couldn't find your S&P quote in the August 5 statement...what gives? Ah...I see...you're quoting the April statement. Nothing like taking old information and using it to make an irrelevant point regarding current circumstances. A lot has happened since that statement was made....and none of it was positive.
I give up. This is like arguing with an eight year old off his Riddlin. No one can honestly make your argument, so there is no point in attempting to refute it.No no, you said, and I quote, that S&P was "crystal clear" with their intention to downgrade a clean debt ceiling bill. If you're not going to bother pointing out where S&P made such a claim simply admit you fucked up and jumped the gun with such a ridiculous assertion. I mean really now, if anything S&P says in their statement that the U.S. has years (more than one yr) to come up with whatever they consider to be an adequate plan to address long-term debt. Do they even mention the debt ceiling as a deal breaker in some form or fashion the way you're describing it to be in terms of a clean bill? Nope, not publicly at least.
Fact is the spending problem you keep mentioning like some some of dumb terminal/parrot is only part of the reason S&P downgraded; they specifically mention the inability to agree on revenue raisers as part of their rationale for downgrading and AFAIK don't put any magnitudes or percentages on the relative importance on spending vs. revenue (though perhaps that's implied in favor of less spending, though certainly not in terms of your strawman clean debt ceiling claim, which is complete, total and utter fabrication).
My point was and is simple, neither side really wants to balance the budget or bring the deficit under control. The Republicans have done a good job pretending they do but their own plans show otherwise. For you to argue that they would have magically tackled the deficit issue at some later date is laughable if you have actually been paying attention.
I said ever plan put forth, as in the ones that I could actually read. I assume the rest were just as much bullshit smoke and mirrors by going off of what both sides had already released. Perhaps I am wrong on this one but if there was a decent plan it was never seriously considered which coincides with my point.
It was all a bunch of political theater. Even the plans with the so called big cuts were completely backloaded (READ: another Congress/Presidents problem) used bullshit accounting and included things we already planned to cut (Iraq/Afghan war spending for example).
If I am wrong, could you please post the "good" plan you are speaking of? I would really enjoy reading it.
Frankly if any of the rating agencies had any credibility they would have downgraded us before now but that is another topic altogether.
And yes there are some entitlement reductions in the current bill but there is a reason why I used the word "meaningful". Contrary to what is usually debated the most, Social Security isn't the biggest issue concerning entitlements. It is Medicare spending that we must get some sort of serious handle on. The problem is that even the minor cuts you are speaking of caused an uproar. Hell, let one of them suggest that we freeze entitlement spending and it will be called draconian even though we are looking at economic stagnation.
I also highly doubt you will see $1T of new revenue even if you use the rosy economic predictions. I just don't see them raising taxes on anyone but the rich at this point in time (or the near future). I hope I am wrong because we do have a severe revenue problem to go along with our sever spending problem but I just don't see it happening.
You also spoke about long term debt problems which was not what S&P was worried about. They specifically stated mid-term, not long term and the problem is worse then what you would get from reading their reports. We must remove 12% of GDP that the Fed is providing with deficit spending from the economy. Naturally that means that GDP will contract by at least 12% which also means that revenue declines and unemployment goes up and that is if we do it right now. The longer we draw it out the worse it gets, in fact the majority of this pain is from us papering over the .com bubble because we didn't want to take our pain then. It would have hurt but it wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad as what we are looking at now and it would have been over long ago. Instead we are looking at far more pain for far longer today and it just keeps getting worse the longer we kick the can.
In short, we be fucked.
I give up. This is like arguing with an eight year old off his Riddlin. No one can honestly make your argument, so there is no point in attempting to refute it.
lmao link?
It's good YLYAO...I did too when I read your absurdity:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30103475&postcount=230
P.S. 1T over 10 years? We're overspending $2T a year.
Do you understand anytime Politicians have to break costs out by 10 year increments they're basically full of shit and know it? Else, they'd be screaming from the rooftops about the actual numbers they're going to produce in the nearterm, given if/when it comes true they'll be able to pimp that info for their re-election campaign.
Gezus...just stop posting...