BREAKING: S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA to AA+, first time in history

[Openmind]

Can these leftist fanatics every post anything beside tired, long-debunked talking points?

Bush and the neocons (Neocon: a liberal who has joined the Republican party) spent like drunken sailors, almost from the beginning of their admin. Then Obama got elected, with Dem majorities in both Houses, and started a spending spree that put Bush to shame. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid racked up more debt in two years between them, than the first forty Presidents did in their first two hundred years.

To nobody's surprise, S&P cited this huge debt, and its size relative to the nation's GDP, as the main reason for their downgrade.

And who are the leftist fanatics now insisting is to blame? Not the big-govt liberals (in both parties) who racked it up. Nope, it's Republicans' fault, of course! And especially the TEA Party.

And why? For not stopping the liberals from running up the last six months of this huge debt!

And for not raising taxes in the middle of a recession - a move pretty much gauranteed to slow the economy (and govt revenues) even further and make things worse.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the more these leftist fanatics lose, the whackier their excuses become. At least they are consistent in that!

Talk about "fanatic!"

This is a BLIND fanatic!

 

[Openmind]

We can all thank Obama and his party for the downgrade. Their proliferate spending and refusal to accept any change in the welfare/entitlement state is the cause. Along with their constant attacks on America's business sector and wealthy. And, along with their idiotic and failed Keynesian policies. All of which amazingly they have no intention of discontinuing, when the reality is obvious to all but the most foolish partisan...

The definition of insane is???

This IS the change BO has long spoken of and endeavors to achieve...

Sure, dear! Keep your "let's go back to the Bush's administration policy" philosophy. That will help a lot!

Read the report! Actually, it is less about our debt than it is about the political climate and the fact that the "compromise" ONLY cut spending. . .which lower the chance to revive our economy by lowering demand even further, thus cutting more jobs. . .instead of agreeing to attack the debt through BOTH sides: Cuts in spending AND increase in revenues!

It is written in BLACK AND WHITE.

Just think: Now, our rating is lower than that of most "socialist" countries, and equal to the other socialist countries (like little tiny Belgium!).
And guess what. . .at least THEY still have a safety net to keep some demand going!

 

[PLC1]

We should just ignore it and go watch American Idol or go on a picnic?

might as well. Congress isn't going to address this issue until after the election anyway.

We could start a movement to oust all of the incumbents, but that wouldn't work very well due to gerrymandering and partisanship.

 

[PLC1]

More on the downgrade:

The unprecedented move came after several hours of high-stakes drama. It began in the morning, when word leaked that a downgrade was imminent and stocks tumbled. Around 1:30 p.m., S&P officials notified the Treasury Department that they planned to downgrade U.S. debt and presented the government with their findings. Treasury officials noticed a $2 trillion error in S&P's math that delayed an announcement for several hours. S&P officials decided to move ahead, and after 8 p.m. they made their downgrade official.

and still more:

A study by JPMorgan Chase found that there has been a slight rise in rates when countries lost an AAA rating. In 1998, S&P lowered ratings for Belgium, Italy and Spain. A week later, their 10-year rates had barely moved.

The downgrade is likely to have little to no impact on how the United States finances its borrowing, through the sale of Treasury bonds, bills and notes. This week's buying proves that.

One analyst suggested the downgrade might move Congress to take concrete steps to fix the nation's budget problems.

"It's a downgrade and it's bad, but if it spurs more conversation about bringing down spending and maybe more intelligent tax policy, it could be a good thing in the long run," said Frank Barbera, a portfolio manager of the Sierra Core Retirement Fund.

Note that neither Moody's, nor Fitch has been heard from as yet on this issue.

So, now is not the time to panic.

Wait until after the election, when the Congress still hasn't faced this issue in any realistic way, and the debt keeps soaring.

Then panic.

 

[dogtowner]

it prevented a default...thats it...
and it had more reductions in spending then any Debt ceiling increase Under Bush Bush Clinton Reagan........

There wouldn't have been a default, even the prez backed off that and pivoted to credit rating. And its smoke and mirrors as it does not reduce the budget it only decreases the planned increases.

That's the same as them saying 'we will cut spending a million dollars because we will NOT buy the Maseratti we were going to buy and get a Mercedes instead. They should stick with he serviceable Ford they already have.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We can all thank Obama and his party for the downgrade. Their proliferate spending and refusal to accept any change in the welfare/entitlement state is the cause. Along with their constant attacks on America's business sector and wealthy. And, along with their idiotic and failed Keynesian policies. All of which amazingly they have no intention of discontinuing, when the reality is obvious to all but the most foolish partisan...

The definition of insane is???

This IS the change BO has long spoken of and endeavors to achieve...

I love how people like you completely can blank out all spending and debt under W, Bush, Reagan...and act like it was only under Obama...also ignoring how much of the spending under Obama...was put in place by policy of W.

You cry about how they would not Reform Medicare and SS ( SS of course is not the cause of the debt)...You Completely ignore that one of the biggest Debt contributers is the Bush tax Cuts ( that you would not negotiate to end , or even close loopholes) Fact is Obama did put Entitlements on the table...Republicans ran away from the table because they would have had to close tax loopholes...Because your not willing to negotiate...does not mean the other side did not offer it.

 

[Gipper]

I love how people like you completely can blank out all spending and debt under W, Bush, Reagan...and act like it was only under Obama...also ignoring how much of the spending under Obama...was put in place by policy of W.

You cry about how they would not Reform Medicare and SS ( SS of course is not the cause of the debt)...You Completely ignore that one of the biggest Debt contributers is the Bush tax Cuts ( that you would not negotiate to end , or even close loopholes) Fact is Obama did put Entitlements on the table...Republicans ran away from the table because they would have had to close tax loopholes...Because your not willing to negotiate...does not mean the other side did not offer it.

I did not ignore the debt caused by other presidents. You chose to ignore the debt caused by the fool in the WH now, when he is the one who has precipitated this problem. Had he cut spending and allowed the free market to work, we would not be at this point. So, logically he is the one to blame.

The W tax cuts generated huge revenues. This has been proven over and over, but you being the partisan liberal, can't accept the truth.

Please prove BO put entitlements on the table and the Rs would not accept it. Did you get that from MSLSD? Do you really believe this foolishness? If we are not going to deal with reality, then we can't ever come to agreement on anything.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I did not ignore the debt caused by other presidents. You chose to ignore the debt caused by the fool in the WH now, when he is the one who has precipitated this problem. Had he cut spending and allowed the free market to work, we would not be at this point. So, logically he is the one to blame.

The W tax cuts generated huge revenues. This has been proven over and over, but you being the partisan liberal, can't accept the truth.

Please prove BO put entitlements on the table and the Rs would not accept it. Did you get that from MSLSD? Do you really believe this foolishness? If we are not going to deal with reality, then we can't ever come to agreement on anything.

when did Bush Cut spending? when Did Regan?

 

[Gipper]

when did Bush Cut spending? when Did Regan?

Bush spent like a progressive fool, which you being a progressive must have appreciated. Why are you complaining now?

I do not know anyone named Regan. But, if you are referring to the Great Ronald Reagan...only George Washington was greater...he had to deal with the Cold War...remember that?...no doubt you think he had nothing to do with ending the USSR...And, he had to deal with a bunch of commie Dems who controlled both houses of Congress for nearly his entire wonderful 8 years in the WH. So, he had to give those commies their spending to take out the commies in the USSR. He would be shocked to learn that the commies now run this country.

Your Messiah (Big Ears) had total and complete control of both houses for his first two horrendous tyrannical years.

See the difference? I would guess not.

You should blame Bush and Reagan for the current problems. You just keep telling yourself that.

 

[clarkatticus]

The GOP should have taken the "Grand Bargain" Obama offered, it was fair. They may never see the like again. As for S&P giving us a bad rating, isn't that like Michell Bachman giving history lessons? Aren't these the guys who gave Enron, Worldcom, BofA, Citi, Countrywide, AIG and all those securities AAA ratings? Who the hell are they to say anything that affects us. I say prosecute the SOB's.

 

[ProudLefty]

Ah yes. Republicans taking responsibility for their actions again. Not.

Go ahead, blame everyone else. Tell us how perfect Republican polices are. Tell us all about how Hoover and GW are two of America's greatest presidents.

Go ahead. Make the case. I need the groan. It helps my bowels.

 

[PLC1]

It is not the president who busts the budget, but the Congress. Blaming Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Obama for spending the country into bankruptcy ignores the reality that it is Congress that holds the national purse strings. Moreover, the partisan "it's the Republicans, no the Democrats" argument seems to me to disregard an important fact:

Neither party has a history of fiscal conservatism.

 

[BigRob]

It is not the president who busts the budget, but the Congress. Blaming Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Obama for spending the country into bankruptcy ignores the reality that it is Congress that holds the national purse strings. Moreover, the partisan "it's the Republicans, no the Democrats" argument seems to me to disregard an important fact:

Neither party has a history of fiscal conservatism.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit a budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year...and in that request includes funding requests for all federal executive departments and independent agencies.

So while the President cannot vote on the budget, he can be very involved in the process, and can impact greatly how much is spent on certain programs.

 

[PLC1]

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit a budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year...and in that request includes funding requests for all federal executive departments and independent agencies.

So while the President cannot vote on the budget, he can be very involved in the process, and can impact greatly how much is spent on certain programs.

Yes, with the advice and consent of Congress. Unfortunately, most presidents have gotten at least as much as they asked for, if not more.

The one exception was the man who is revered as a conservative icon above anyone else. His "Strategic Defense Initiative" would have added billions to an already inflated budget, had the Congress approved of it. The difference between that conservative icon and his Democratic Congress was not so much the amount of spending, as it was the direction of spending.

And the identity of that great conservative icon, who wasn't nearly as conservative as we remember him being was... anyone? anyone?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Bush spent like a progressive fool, which you being a progressive must have appreciated. Why are you complaining now?

I do not know anyone named Regan. But, if you are referring to the Great Ronald Reagan...only George Washington was greater...he had to deal with the Cold War...remember that?...no doubt you think he had nothing to do with ending the USSR...And, he had to deal with a bunch of commie Dems who controlled both houses of Congress for nearly his entire wonderful 8 years in the WH. So, he had to give those commies their spending to take out the commies in the USSR. He would be shocked to learn that the commies now run this country.

Your Messiah (Big Ears) had total and complete control of both houses for his first two horrendous tyrannical years.

See the difference? I would guess not.

You should blame Bush and Reagan for the current problems. You just keep telling yourself that.

yes the cold war. Obama is fighting quite a few real wars ...you may have forgot...And actually yes I did complain about Bush...you must have missed it...in fact I actually very much hated him...and even talked about his overspending...But as per normal...you take the good and what ever you don't like you blame on the Democrats even when Republicans do it.

But yes you just fall back on the Reagan did everything good...but anything bad you just blame on a Dem Congress because god knows Reagan had no power over them..Just that little veto thing...but he is a god and can do no wrong.