Liberal free for all coming to an end

[GRH]

And notice how the part about the Boehner proposal leading to a credit downgrade-- that didn't warrant a response.

[GRH]

S&P even spelled out what it thought would be necessary to maintain the AAA. ?If Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and if we conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the ?AAA? long-term rating on the U.S.?

One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.

Ok, well this isn't what I was talking about before. I was talking about just raising the debt ceiling enough to pay the interest payments for the next 6 months. What S&P is saying here is that they want more than that. They want to see us actually bring down the debt at least $4 trillion in 10 years. I would like to see that as well. I've always been a big proponent of seriously cutting spending and bringing down the debt. Basically they want the debt rolled back to where it was before Obama took office LOL. That's certainly something they can do, I only hope congress and BO are listening.

[randolph]

Tracy

Basically they want the debt rolled back to where it was before Obama took office LOL. That's certainly something they can do, I only hope congress and BO are listening.

Do you actually believe the money spent, by Congress, to save the countries financial institutions during the meltdown was unnecessary?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy

Do you actually believe the money spent, by Congress, to save the countries financial institutions during the meltdown was unnecessary?

I think at most it only bought us time, and in the meanwhile, it left us with a larger debt. The ramifications of that are not over. I think as Ron Paul says, we were left worse off in the long run than if we bit the bullet and took the hit.

[TracyCoxx]

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

[franalexes]

He ( Carney) is not lying. It's part of the Obamesiah stratagy. It's to create a hate war between groups.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

More disingenuous text from Tracy Coxx. The legislation that creates each subsequent debt limit gives the Treasury Department "borrowing authority" up to that limit. The issue of having a downgraded credit rating is not as Tracy Coxx would have you believe -- simply a matter of paying more to borrow. Any reading of debt ceiling legislation over history will make this clear.

[parr]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

TRACY, I KNOW I AM MISSING SOMETHING HERE BUT ARN'T WE TAKING
IN ENOUGH REVENUES TO COVER ALL THE EXPENSES, IF SO WHY ARE
WE BORROWING MONEY. JUST ASKING.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

[randolph]

This would solve the debate pronto.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

This would solve the debate pronto.

Is the building in the cartoon is the wrong one for what is supposedly going on inside? I'm pretty sure that the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US do not hold legislative sessions in the White House.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

Is the building in the cartoon is the wrong one for what is supposedly going on inside? I'm pretty sure that the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US do not hold legislative sessions in the White House.

It looks like the back of the Whitehouse. Anything goes in a cartoon.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

Of course, "fuck you" to everyone but the rich should come as no surprise.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

I guarantee you that Cut Capt and Balance does nothing like this:

What happens if the US credit rating is officially downgraded from AAA status?

Standard and Poor?s warning, combined with long-term bond holder recent sentiment, clearly indicates the highest level of risk to the Treasury market since the great depression. The world knows that if we lose our AAA credit rating, America?s ability to run its government on borrowed money will be compromised. As the Fed found out, bond yields didn?t behave as expected with the implementation of QE2. Instead of falling because of QE2, bond yields rose. If we lose our AAA credit rating, bond yields will rise dramatically as prices continue to fall. In short, we will have to pay through the nose to keep borrowing money from the Chinese. Consequently, taxes would then have to be dramatically increased and draconian budget cuts would filter down to the municipal level. The Fed would also have to print money like never before, which would further devalue the dollar and probably end its reserve status. If that happens, oil will no longer be priced in dollars and the price of gas would skyrocket to current levels in Europe; around the $8 per gallon. Local governments would also be in serious trouble. For example: Many may consider raising occupational license fees for small businesses from $125.00 to over $500.00. States many have to implement new and higher highway tolls, and increase the price for an automobile tag by several hundred dollars. In short, the burden of the ensuing budget shortfalls will be passed along to the public. Prices for everything would increase dramatically across the board; food energy, you name it. Finally, all of the associated increased austerity will abort the current hyper-anemic economic recovery and usher the United States into a second Great Depression.

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok. Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

p.s. you know that the necessity to raise the debt ceiling has been known since at least before last November right? And did you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could have easily raised it back then before the newly elected GOP took office? They chose not to because they wanted the GOP to share the blame of raising the debt ceiling. Not that that would have kept us from losing our credit rating, we still need to cut all that debt that the dems added in the last 3 years.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok.

More lies from Tracy Coxx. The budget for the first year of the Obama administration was Bush's budget. That's how it works. But Tracy Coxx wants to pin those trillions on Obama, so Tracy Coxx tries to make it sound as if it's Obama's fault. Of course, Tracy Coxx will say Tracy Coxx never specifically wrote that. Fortunately, most everyone reading here is brighter than Tracy Coxx wishes you were.

To repeat, as I wrote earlier: Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion of the deficit, not the amount Tracy Coxx writes. Obama inherited unfunded wars and a budget. No matter how much lying Tracy Coxx does, it doesn't make the facts go away.

As for "doing relatively ok" ... well, that just negates 30 or so years of economic truth in the United States. But when you're trying to paint a picture for ideological reasons, why should facts get in the way?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

I am no Democrat, but this is another crock of shit from Tracy Coxx. The implication is that "fiscal responsibility is, by contrast, a trait of Republicans. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- all of which reversed the U.S. surplus and made it a deficit -- now there are great examples of "fiscal responsibility." Oh, by the way, Bush was a Republican.

Tracy Coxx is an ideologue without conscience, which means that facts are fungible or downright ignorable if they get in the way of making the ridiculous arguments that are the Tracy Coxx hallmark.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by transjen

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government! Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government! Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

I do agree that a flat tax would be hard to figure a correct percentage. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale, starting at 5% for the lowest income bracket and increasing by 2-5% from there.

I would assume that the statistics come from the number of people who filed their taxes.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

...

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

What do you think about the fair tax?

[TracyCoxx]

7/30/11

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

8/6/11

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday lowered the nation's AAA rating for the first time since granting it in 1917. The move came less than a week after a gridlocked Congress finally agreed to spending cuts that would reduce the debt by more than $2 trillion -- a tumultuous process that contributed to convulsions in financial markets. The promised cuts were not enough to satisfy S&P.

And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

S&P is being completely irresponsible with this rating. It will just make the financial situation worse.
Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy.
It makes one wonder who runs S&P, are they part of the group determined to make the economy look terrible before the next election in order to get Obama out of office?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

...Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy...

The situation would probably be better if you had a president with some backbone and principles. You don't need a leader who sways in the wind like a reed in a hurricane and who doesn't really have a vision of what your country should be and do.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

7/30/11


8/6/11


And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

Why should we listen to S&P, when they along with Moodys completely fucked up the analysis of the derivitives market, leading to the financial meltdown?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Why should we listen to S&P, when they along with Moodys completely fucked up the analysis of the derivitives market, leading to the financial meltdown?

There are a great many more reasons for the financial mess that your country has caused to the rest of world than what S&P or Moody's had done or not done. One can start with social engineering and end with financial greed as the complete range of reasons.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

And notice how the part about the Boehner proposal leading to a credit downgrade-- that didn't warrant a response.

As Thomas Gray wrote in Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College:

... where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

Of course, deliberately ignoring something of import is downright irresponsible, not to mention dangerous.

[randolph]

Kick the can???