AP: USA downgraded by S&P

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What is the root cause of the debt?

[Heisenberg]

Congrats democrats you finally destroyed America

See how easy laying blam,e is instead of looking at what the root cause of it is we have to much debt

Everyone knows there is too much debt. I don't see anyone debating that point.

The rest has been discussed throughout this thread - but I do place blame on the Tea Party and the massive amount of bull**** they spew.

[Seabee1973]

Teh debt problem is not just a raising taxes issue. It's not just a cutting spending issue. We need a long term deficit solution, and it is going to involve both of those things, and everyone bears the blame.

But in this more short term case, this immediate credit downgrade case, THAT is because people dicked around with the debt ceiling last week. Nothing more. That one is all on the Tea Party.

the democrats rejected every plan and didnt even submit a plan till the last minute blaming this onthe tea party alone when SP credit said in march that any increase in the debt limit without serous cuts could lead to a downgrade Its time for teh US to get its house in order and eliminate some of these things and restore that great credit rating we had instead they will incur more debt and finger pointing will be at an all time high

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 03:58 PM ----------

I don't understand. If the Republicans didn't demand it, we would have just raised the debt limit with no action taken on the debt limit at all. How is this the Tea Party's fault?

Democrats have to blame somebody but while they are pointing the finger there are 3 fingers pointed straight back at them

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 03:59 PM ----------

Everyone knows there is too much debt. I don't see anyone debating that point.

The rest has been discussed throughout this thread - but I do place blame on the Tea Party and the massive amount of bull**** they spew.

itsd easy to lay blame the ghard part is accepting responsibility

[ABQCOWBOY]

The reality for all of us is that had this Country accepted the recommendations of Bowles Simpson, we probably would not be in this situation now. Instead, those recommendations were ignored.

Here we are.

[mardi gras skin]

“When we’re talking about Medicare, we are open to many [changes],” Pelosi said.

I read earlier that Pelosi was open to "changes" in medicare but not open to cuts in medicare. Likewise, many leading Republicans are open to "changes" in revenue (closing tax loopholes and corporate welfare) but they are not open to increases in revenue. Neither position has any bearing on the deficit because the "changes" don't result in an increase in tax revenue or decrease in entitlement spending.

From Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/pelosi-no-lines-in-the-sand-on-super-committee-deficit-cuts.php

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says her caucus will be broadly united in a fight to protect Medicare and other successful programs from cuts when the committee convenes to reduce deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. But neither she nor the people she appoints to that committee will publicly draw bright lines.

"I'm not drawing any lines in the sand because I think it plays into their hand," Pelosi told a small group of reporters invited to her office on Thursday morning. "When 12 clowns are in a ring and a sane person jumps into the ring he looks like the 13th clown.... It is part of their plan to keep the attention on this, and the debt and the who and the rest and I'm simply not going to do it."

Far from suggesting that the Democrats she appoints on the committee will keep a wide-open mind to cutting benefits for seniors, she emphasized that her caucus is broadly unified against such measures...

...In other words, even if Republicans insist loudly and repeatedly from the outset that they'll vote against a final deficit package if it has a penny in new revenue, Democrats won't play the same game. That doesn't mean they won't block benefit cuts to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but, at the very least, they won't publicly dig in against them.

[Seabee1973]

I think distinguishing between the GOP and the tea party is not trivial as the whole GOP is affected by the tea party. How many members of the GOP can't support any sort of tax increases because they are afraid of the reaction and the future support of the tea party?

Why is the answer always raising taxes why ot just cut worthless programs out and save some money then we wouldnt have to worry about adding 300 million in taxes from the richest people in america

[Larry]

What is the root cause of the debt?

Oh, I know! I know!

It's because spending is bigger than, uh, bigger than, . . . well, bigger than some other thing that I can't remember, right now.

[mardi gras skin]

Oh, I know! I know!

It's because spending is bigger than, uh, bigger than, . . . well, bigger than some other thing that I can't remember, right now.

Too much spending, too little revenue.

You totally suck at this. :nana:

[NoVaO]

Blah. This talking point that the credit rating agencies would have just gone along happily ignoring ever increasing debt loads if the Tea Party hadn't brought it to their attention is preposterous. S&P used this situation, no doubt, but they would have used a clean debt increase as well. Their issue wasn't that we wouldn't raise the debt ceiling (obviously, as this downgrade happened AFTER we raised the debt ceiling) but that we wouldn't reduce our debt load. See if you can find anything about "debt ceiling hostage" in this article from April:

S&P warning: Fix deficit or risk credit rating, April 18, 2011

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700128284/SP-warning-Fix-deficit-or-risk-credit-rating.html

Yeah, and read their statement explaining the downgrade how their view of the political system has changed since April.

Like I said, U.S. bonds are still an extremely safe investment. There has never been any question, ever, over whether the U.S. will pay its bills until now. The debt ceiling vote has never been a controversial vote even though nobody apparently liked taking it. This was all a manufactured crisis that highlighted the political dysfunction of our system.

I'm not even sure what S&P is talking about anyway. We have a long term deficit problem. But we have a short term jobs and economic growth problem. And it sounds like they're pushing for spending cuts and tax increases in the short term, which is the opposite of what we need right now.

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 08:05 PM ----------

Yes, he did say that but when asked to outline what the cuts would be and where they would come from, he never but that forward. It's easy to stand up and say anything but if you want to create an agreement between the two parties, you have to be willing to explain how your plan works.

That never happened with this President. It still hasn't.

He never came out in public and specifically said what he was going to cut. That would be politically stupid. But there were leaks over what Obama and Boehner were discussing. This article details pretty extensively over what kind of deal the two were discussing, and how tilted it was in favor of Republicans...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue

Nobody disputes that, except for the revenue part, the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else. And it was a deal that, like Obama’s previous offers, was strikingly tilted towards Republican priorities. Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official, were the following:

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny.

[aREDSKIN]

Everyone knows there is too much debt. I don't see anyone debating that point.

The rest has been discussed throughout this thread - but I do place blame on the Tea Party and the massive amount of bull**** they spew.

LOL The accumulated debt has been going on for what 50 years? The tea party has been around for what 50 months? I can see your point.

[NoVaO]

I read earlier that Pelosi was open to "changes" in medicare but not open to cuts in medicare. Likewise, many leading Republicans are open to "changes" in revenue (closing tax loopholes and corporate welfare) but they are not open to increases in revenue. Neither position has any bearing on the deficit because the "changes" don't result in an increase in tax revenue or decrease in entitlement spending.

From Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/pelosi-no-lines-in-the-sand-on-super-committee-deficit-cuts.php

Republicans would be for changes to revenue as long as there was no net increase in revenue. All of their tax reform plans are "revenue-neutral". That is a non starter.

And how do you figure the changes in Medicare don't decrease entitlement spending? You don't have to cut direct benefits to reduce Medicare spending. You can make cuts on the provider side, which is more of a backdoor cuts to benefits.

Also, look at the final deal we got. Medicare cuts are part of the trigger that will go off if the "Super Congress" doesn't come to an agreement. Revenues are nowhere to be found, however.

[mardi gras skin]

Republicans would be for changes to revenue as long as there was no net increase in revenue. All of their tax reform plans are "revenue-neutral". That is a non starter.

Yep. That's what I said.

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 08:43 PM ----------

And for the record, I agree with Greenspan's recommendation.

Greenspan: Roll back all tax cuts

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/07/Greenspan-Roll-back-all-tax-cuts/UPI-77671281214047/

Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan raised eyebrows by calling for complete repeal of tax cuts made by the Bush administration, observers say.

In contrast to the White House desire to keep tax rates steady for all but the country's wealthiest, Greenspan urges a rollback of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts he implicitly backed at the time, The New York Times reported Saturday.

In doing so he has discounted the arguments of Republicans and even a few Democrats that such a move could threaten an already shaky economic recovery.

"I'm in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," Greenspan, 84, said. "Our choices right now are not between good and better; they're between bad and worse. The problem we now face is the most extraordinary financial crisis that I have ever seen or read about."

[PeterMP]

Why is the answer always raising taxes why ot just cut worthless programs out and save some money then we wouldnt have to worry about adding 300 million in taxes from the richest people in america

The answer hasn't been raising taxes since Clinton's first term. And in my voting life time has only been the answer twice (under HW Bush and in Clinton's first term).

I don't know how that can count as always.

Now, since I have been voting, some changes to spending that were supposed to curtail, alter, or eliminate wasteful funding programs have been part of the answer EVERYTIME that I can remember, INCLUDING those times when raising taxes was also part of the answer.

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 09:03 PM ----------

I read earlier that Pelosi was open to "changes" in medicare but not open to cuts in medicare. Likewise, many leading Republicans are open to "changes" in revenue (closing tax loopholes and corporate welfare) but they are not open to increases in revenue. Neither position has any bearing on the deficit because the "changes" don't result in an increase in tax revenue or decrease in entitlement spending.

From Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/pelosi-no-lines-in-the-sand-on-super-committee-deficit-cuts.php

In the part you quoted, Pelosi specifically states she's not drawing any lines in the sand. With respect to increases in revenue via changing the tax code that's EXACTLY what ALL of the Republican leaders did.

Here's another quote:

"In other words, even if Republicans insist loudly and repeatedly from the outset that they'll vote against a final deficit package if it has a penny in new revenue, Democrats won't play the same game."

Oh what is that, the Democrats ARE NOT playing the same game as the Republicans.

Did you bother to read this?

[THEREALTOR1]

Yep. That's what I said.

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 08:43 PM ----------

And for the record, I agree with Greenspan's recommendation.

Greenspan: Roll back all tax cuts

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/07/Greenspan-Roll-back-all-tax-cuts/UPI-77671281214047/

I'm not sure if its such a smart idea to take more money away from people while the average person is being faced with a constant increase in everyday goods and services. As it is many people are already stretched thin, taking away what little bit of expendable cash they do have takes away any momentum gained towards a recovery.

EDIT: "Taxation is a way to force people to work for money."

[Thiebear]

If only we took the 1960's Nasa program and put that kind of effort into the debt.

Congress has asked us for nothing

The President asks but in obscure ways

We need plain talk with plain actions and we need to participate, but we need a mandate that is rock solid with milestones we can meet.

We gave voluntarily to the 9/11 fund

We gave voluntarily to Indonesia, Japan, Haiti

We can cut 4 trillion dollars

We can raise 4 trillion dollars

Our soldiers are doing way more than we did in the 90's. They did it and more... these children are not lazy.

During wwII the women did more in the factories than we could ever dream of doing from our xbox or ps3.

[Seabee1973]

Too much spending, too little revenue.

You totally suck at this. :nana:

we will take in around 2.5 trillion plus or minus a dollar and and spend close to 4 trillion plus or minus a dollar last time i looked could have changed by now we take in plenty of revenue

we need to reign in spending im am even for small cuts in military pay and a freeze on retirement pay for a few years

[mardi gras skin]

Did you bother to read this?

Yes, Pete. I bothered. Pelosi has said she will not draw a line in the sand. Pelosi has said she is open to "change." But I didn't see where Pelosi said, "I am open to cuts in Medicare". The article (I posted this article specifically because it was from a left-leaning source so you guys would trust it) says she's going to do everything she can to fend off the enforcement mechanism to keep the 2 percent in Medicare cuts from happening:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says her caucus will be broadly united in a fight to protect Medicare and other successful programs from cuts when the committee convenes to reduce deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. ...

...But she also said House Democrats on the committee will work toward a solution that's better than allowing an enforcement mechanism -- $500 billion in defense cuts, and domestic spending reductions, including a two percent cut to Medicare providers -- to take effect.

"Everybody in our caucus is committed to whatever comes out of that be something that will be better than going to trigger," she said.

She's backing off the rhetoric and that's a good thing. She's still going to fight against cuts in medicare and I think that's a bad thing.

Look, clearly we disagree. Somehow, you've seen everything Pelosi has said and that has led you to believe that she is open to cutting medicare. That's fine. If you find an article where she actually says she's open to cuts in Medicare, let me know.

---------- Post added August-6th-2011 at 09:27 PM ----------

we need to reign in spending im am even for small cuts in military pay and a freeze on retirement pay for a few years

That's good but revenues are too low, too. Looking at historical levels, we're taking in far less than as a percentage of GDP than we usually do. We need to raise taxes somewhere.

[PeterMP]

Yes, Pete. I bothered. Pelosi has said she will not draw a line in the sand. Pelosi has said she is open to "change." But I didn't where Pelosi said, "I am open to cuts in Medicare". The article (I posted this article specifically because it was from a left-leaning source so you guys would trust it) says she going to do everything she can to fend off the enforcement mechanism to keep the 2 percent in Medicare cuts from happening:

She's backing off the rhetoric and that's a good thing. She's still going to fight against cuts in medicare and I think that's a bad thing.

Look, clearly we disagree. Somehow, you've seen everything Pelosi has said and that has led you to believe that she is open to cutting medicare. That's fine. If you find an article where she actually says she's open to cuts in Medicare, let me know.

Actually, I don't KNOW where Peolsi stands. She's said several different things at different times (and hadn't really said anything until after a number of prominant Republicans had announced that they were against tax any real increases (to my knowledge)). I KNOW ALL of the leaders in the Republican party have said they don't support any real increases in taxes.

[DRSmith]

It looks like the tea party is the only ones that got this right. That is what they stand for right: lower the deficit. I will no longer make fun of them. What is funny is it just a couple of months ago Obama and Reid wanted another stimulas package. Can you imagine?

You mean a plan that would have demonstrateed to the rest of the world they were going to do something to imrprove the US economy and get people working which would raise some revenues and cut month over month government spending on unemployment.

[thebluefood]

What did I tell you people about political factions? Didn't I warn you idiots about it? But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO one ever listens to me.

[DRSmith]

Look here are the real facts, as much as it may hurt, the tea party did not cause this. If the Dems and GOP (Non tea party) would have been able to find common ground, the tea party would have been irrelevant. But the fact of the matter is, congress as a whole could not agree on this. Its a cop out to blame the tea party as they control nothing. There are enough votes outside of the tea party to make this happen still regardless of that they want.

Except for GOP members that were worried about being primaried.

I do not feel sorry for the GOP on this though because they were the ones who cheered on the Tea Party folks froma balconey during the health care debate.

Maybe if they had shown leadership on this matter and explained why it was in the best interest of the country and the long term debt to overhaul the health care system instead of pandering to the insurance companies you guys would be in much much better shape.

[Thiebear]

Should'nt plan A: Fire Geitner (We'll not lose our rating in Apr).

Plan B: Use Presidents Debt commission plan and Gang of 6.

[thebluefood]

So, how soon before our time as a world power comes to a complete end. We can't be too far off.

[PeterMP]

So, how soon before our time as a world power comes to a complete end. We can't be too far off.

I still don't see anybody else prepared to step in front of us. Europe is suffering essentially the same problems. China's economy isn't mature and is still tied to exports to the US and Europe and goes belly up if ours does.

I could see us remaining #1 for an extended period of time because there is nobody else.

[88Comrade2000]

So, how soon before our time as a world power comes to a complete end. We can't be too far off.

Anyone really think we are world power now? If we didn't have nukes; Russia and China would've already invaded us.