You'd have a more persuasive argument if you simply threatened to hold your breath until everyone agreed.
You'd have a more persuasive argument if you simply threatened to hold your breath until everyone agreed.I can't help that you make statements about statements that can't be proven by citing said statements in any detail. I'm just using your own words against you; ha, you act as if you never said S&P was crystal clear about a clean debt ceiling bill. You're strawman this, imply that, but always fail to nut up on the details. Not a single ratings agency said delaying the debt deal (which would have had to have gotten done if Repubs wanted to be re-elected in 2012) a few months would cause them to downgrade U.S. debt. Not one.
P.S. 1T over 10 years? We're overspending $2T a year.
Total revenue $2.627 trillion (estimated)
Total expenditures $3.729 trillion (estimated)
Deficit $1.101 trillion (estimated)
You overshot by 90%. That is a pretty large error on your part.
From that post, a direct quote of what you said: "You must be a retard of the very highest order to think people need to be trained to any real degree to pick up trash."
So there's a degree to which people need to be trained to pick up trash. Glad we agree. lmao.
Your tired platitudes throughout ATPN is sadly the best you can do and is why you're consistently laughed at. FYI.
Hey, a lot of those people are progressives, so they'll also need to be trained how to stay out of traffic. That could take years, particularly since you'll have to clearly explain that not walking out into the street also applies to ten feet further down the street.F you're dumb, Gezus...it's breathtaking. The degree to which they need to be trained is handed a bag, a pickup stick, and told to pick up trash. There you go...training complete. If you call that 'a degree of training' and somehow equate that to making your point, good for you. About everyone else not a Bleeding Heart/Progressive on here, and this is just my opinion of course, can understand the simple point I was making...you don't it looks like, good for you.
See my post above. Good going.
That's not me they're laughing at training boy...keep taking that class to learn how to pick up trash off the ground, I'm sure you'll get it one day... :thumbsup:
Chuck
Hey, a lot of those people are progressives, so they'll also need to be trained how to stay out of traffic. That could take years, particularly since you'll have to clearly explain that not walking out into the street also applies to ten feet further down the street.
You'd have a more persuasive argument if you simply threatened to hold your breath until everyone agreed.
First said:When you fail to find this quote don't be angry when I point and laugh at you for wimping out.
F you're dumb, Gezus...it's breathtaking. The degree to which they need to be trained is handed a bag, a pickup stick, and told to pick up trash. There you go...training complete. If you call that 'a degree of training' and somehow equate that to making your point, good for you. About everyone else not a Bleeding Heart/Progressive on here, and this is just my opinion of course, can understand the simple point I was making...you don't it looks like, good for you.
See my post above. Good going.
That's not me they're laughing at training boy...keep taking that class to learn how to pick up trash off the ground, I'm sure you'll get it one day... :thumbsup:
Chuck
Haha, exactly! Funny thing though:
If you took the Unemployed told to show up on x day for y hours to perform their Unemployment Labor, gave them bags, put them out in a field with 50k $1 bills thrown on the ground, I have this really just, hmmmm, sneaky suspicion that they, wowzers, they'd need not one bit of training at all when told to pick them up. And, even more surprisingly, when told to come back in 2 days for another 4 hours to do the same thing, they'd be there again, and, more amazingly, they'd somehow figure out yet again how to pick up those dollar bills.
And, freakishly, more amazingly, someone here on P&N would still be stating that those people can't possibly get there to pick up the dollar bills, can't possibly have the mental power to pickup those dollar bills, couldn't possibly physically pick those dollar bills up...that they'd need massive supervision (so costly it'd not make it worthwhile), that they'd need days long, weeks long, months long training classes on how to pick up those dollar bills (such overhead it'd not make it worthwhile), etc. etc.
Such a funny guy that person...
How embarrassing! You misspelled "idiot".What a sage I am.
How embarrassing! You misspelled "idiot".
EDIT: Gotta love you First, with your insistence that concern about our growing debt can be assuaged by growing it more quickly and once again promising to slow down later. Like watching a dog that repeatedly chases parked cars, I gotta chuckle and shake my head.
That's actually not a bad plan. Start them out on dollar bills, then gradually wean them onto trash in return for a check.Haha, exactly! Funny thing though:
If you took the Unemployed told to show up on x day for y hours to perform their Unemployment Labor, gave them bags, put them out in a field with 50k $1 bills thrown on the ground, I have this really just, hmmmm, sneaky suspicion that they, wowzers, they'd need not one bit of training at all when told to pick them up. And, even more surprisingly, when told to come back in 2 days for another 4 hours to do the same thing, they'd be there again, and, more amazingly, they'd somehow figure out yet again how to pick up those dollar bills.
And, freakishly, more amazingly, someone here on P&N would still be stating that those people can't possibly get there to pick up the dollar bills, can't possibly have the mental power to pickup those dollar bills, couldn't possibly physically pick those dollar bills up...that they'd need massive supervision (so costly it'd not make it worthwhile), that they'd need days long, weeks long, months long training classes on how to pick up those dollar bills (such overhead it'd not make it worthwhile), etc. etc.
Such a funny guy that person...
you always attack PJ post but i never see you refute anything he says.
Are you really this much of an idiot or do you just play one on the forum??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).
Another sourceQ: 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."
But $4 trillion would be a good down payment. We thought that..if policy makers could deliver the goods on that, then that would be a strong sign on our political scores and eventually on our projections on the fiscal side.
They have been clear since April that they wanted $4 trillion! Not a clean debt bill.On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his Administration's
medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative
unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component
of the Administration's strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over
the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this
target. The President's proposals envision reducing the deficit via both
spending cuts and revenue increases.
Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated
fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming
10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan's plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting
non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope
of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax
rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
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.
If U.S. policymakers do agree on a fiscal consolidation strategy, we
believe the experience of other countries highlights that implementation could
take time. It could also generate significant political controversy, not just
within Congress or between Congress and the Administration, but throughout the
country. We therefore think that, assuming an agreement between Congress and
the President, there is a reasonable chance that it would still take a number
of years before the government reaches a fiscal position that stabilizes its
debt burden. In addition, even if such measures are eventually put in place,
the initiating policymakers or subsequently elected ones could decide to at
least partially reverse fiscal consolidation.
That statement means that if we didn't have a deal in place now then we won't have a deal until 2013 and by then we will no longer be worth of a AAA rating.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.""
Are you really this much of an idiot or do you just play one on the forum??
July 28th interview with John Chambers the guy who is in charge of making the decision for S&P.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/28/sp-4-trillion-is-only-start/
Another source
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/201...ticks-by-4-trillion-deficit-reduction-number/
S&P Rating Chief More or Less Sticks by $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Number
Yet another
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/4-trillion-in-cuts-a-good-downpayment_n_912414.html
S&P: U.S. Deficit Reduction Of $4 Trillion Would Be 'Good Downpayment'
Another
http://news.yahoo.com/p-u-deficit-cuts-4-trillion-good-downpayment-174600124.html
S&P: Deficit cuts of $4 trillion a good start
I can find a dozens more if you want them.
The point is that it was very clear that they wanted a $4 trillion debt deal NOT a clean deal. There is NOTHING anywhere that suggests that passing a clean bill would have prevented a downgrade. NOTHING!
And here is what S&P said back in April!
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245302886884
They have been clear since April that they wanted $4 trillion! Not a clean debt bill.
That statement means that if we didn't have a deal in place now then we won't have a deal until 2013 and by then we will no longer be worth of a AAA rating.
Sad that you fail to understand such a simple thing.
They put us on negative outlook in April.
"Our negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign signals that
we believe there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our
long-term rating on the U.S. within two years,"
In July they put us on 'CreditWatch"
"As a consequence, we now believe that we could lower our ratings on the
U.S. within three months. "
"We may lower the long-term rating on the U.S. by one or more notches into
the 'AA' category in the next three months, if we conclude that Congress
and the Administration have not achieved a credible solution to the
rising U.S. government debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in
the foreseeable future. "
"We expect the debt trajectory to continue increasing in the medium term if a
medium-term fiscal consolidation plan of $4 trillion is not agreed upon. If
Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and
if we to conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained
throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the 'AAA'
long-term rating and A-1+ short-term ratings on the U.S. "
"If such an agreement is reached, but we
do not believe that it likely will stabilize the U.S.' debt dynamics, we,
again all other things unchanged, would expect to lower the long-term 'AAA'
rating, affirm the 'A-1+' short-term rating, and assign a negative outlook on
the long-term rating. "
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245315237257
They did everything by write the damn bill for us. They wanted $4 trillion and anything less was a downgrade.
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."
-- John Boehner