Time for the big one or: Quo Vadis, America?

On the other hand, one mistake in the past doesn't justify making the same mistake in the present.
 
They failed to downgrade junk from AAA a few years ago. Now they see the error of their ways and downgrade junk from AAA and people complain?
 
Hence my remark about politicians and their astonishing ability to take away the attention from the relevant things, when they collide with their purposes.

The only thing worse than that is, when people hear or read it. say "Hmmmyeah, he has a point" and don't think further about it.
 
Last edited:
This could all have been avoided, if I were a US voter I'd be bloody livid and letter to the representative calling him/her a plonker would be the order of the day (especially true if a GOP man). Obama should have grasped the nettle too. He needs to get some balls.
 
Yes, Obama makes a surprisingly weak impression as a leader. He probably looks towards his re-election at the moment and plays for time. Maybe in his mind he thinks he can set everything straight in his second term of office.
 
On paper his plan to be the great compromiser looks like an election winning idea, but he is getting pushed around by everyone with any sort of agenda because of it.
 
[video=youtube;661pi6K-8WQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/video]
 
They failed to downgrade junk from AAA a few years ago. Now they see the error of their ways and downgrade junk from AAA and people complain?
What Bernie is saying, and what I agree with him on, is that the downgrade has politically-motivated timing... and is therefore bullshit.

There have been plenty of opportunities to "downgrade junk from AAA". Namely, you know, all of the other times we raised the debt ceiling in the past decade. Or all of the times we ran ourselves right up to said debt ceiling(s). Why did conservatives, and now S&P, feel it was okay all the times it happened back then... but now suddenly it's the biggest crisis our nation faces?
 
The crisis is not the raising of said ceiling. Raising it is quite OK, not raising it would be catastrophic.
The crisis is the way it was (almost not) raised (potentially leading to unpaid debt, just a bit more nutjobbery and you'd be there).
The crisis is the steps your baboons are taking to fix the future (potentially slashing your economy while only taking a tiny slice out of the growth of your debt).
The crisis is whackos choosing their personal nutty agenda over their nation and people.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/sp-chief-looks-at-entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/

The United States is no longer considered among the safest financial risks in the world after Standard & Poors downgraded the U.S. credit rating, but the head of the team that made the change says entitlement reform would go a long way to restoring the country's status.

David Beers, global head of sovereign and international public finance ratings at S&P, told "Fox News Sunday" that governments and Congresses come and go, but spending on entitlements persistently drags U.S. debt further into the red.

"The key thing is, yes, entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest," Beers said.

Beers said he faults both Congress and the Obama administration for "the difficulty of all sides in finding a consensus around fiscal policy choices" but any agreement must command the support from both political parties in order to be durable.

S&P lowered the U.S. outlook on Friday evening, saying that political gridlock has prevented the U.S. from reaching a plausible solution to getting its financial house in order. It remarked that the agreement last week to reduce the nation's debt by at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years "fell well short" of comprehensive reforms that some had advocated.

It added that it foresees the select congressional committee to be organized to find additional savings will likely avoid raising taxes or doing any significant entitlement reform.
"It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability," the announcement reads.

Though the announcement noted that S&P "takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing," several reports suggested that the credit ratings group had argued tax hikes may be necessary.

Beers drew no such conclusion on Sunday, though John Chambers, managing director of S&P, told ABC's "This Week" that President Obama's fiscal commission last year "had plenty of sensible recommendations" for reducing U.S. debt. Those recommendations, which included cutting spending and increasing revenues on a 3-1 ratio, were ignored.

"It was a pity that those really weren't followed through on," Chambers said.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he's not surprised by S&P's decision since even with the select committee's recommendations, the debt will continue to climb.

Ryan added that he's willing to discuss tax reforms in a way that would promote economic growth and job creation, including addressing "special interest-driven loopholes," but qualified any reforms by adding, "if you're just raising revenues to chase ever high spending, that's not good policy."

Ryan said ultimately the U.S. has to fix its entitlement system.

"The president just created two brand new health care entitlements, expanded Medicaid, a third, and then put this new rationing board in charge of Medicare," Ryan told "Fox News Sunday." "So they're unwilling to open up and restructure these entitlements, which according to S&P are the primary drivers of this debt."

Bill Miller of Legg Mason Capital Management, who appeared with Ryan, said the markets are looking to see a "reduction in uncertainty," which means both fundamental tax reform and changes to the entitlement structure.

"Discretionary spending doesn't matter at all in this thing except that it'll be a little bit of a drag on the economy. It's pro-growth policies and fundamental entitlement reform, especially on health care, that are the key things for to our long-term fiscal health and therefore the long-term confidence in the markets toward our country," Miller said.

Two things about this:

1) It shows what S&P wants to see in order to have a AAA rating again. It's reasonable, even if I still disagree with the timing.

2) It shows how zealous conservatives still are about their ideologies. You have S&P saying "cut spending and increase revenue on a 3-1 ratio, fix entitlement spending, and actually carry out tax reform"... to which Paul Ryan and Fox News say "YEAH FIX ENTITLEMENT SPENDING IF ONLY WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT THE PROBLEM WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED OBAMA GEEZ".
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;661pi6K-8WQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/video]

Funny how he cites income for Walmart and ExxonMobil combined at $34bn while it actually is more than twice that. If you take the net income he's only off by over $10bn, but that's after they paid taxes on their income. Those taxes alone would pay for a few days of running the country... too bad he ignored that.

I can't be bothered to listen to the rest, if you're going to throw around facts at least get them right.
 
The crisis is not the raising of said ceiling. Raising it is quite OK, not raising it would be catastrophic.
The crisis is the way it was (almost not) raised (potentially leading to unpaid debt, just a bit more nutjobbery and you'd be there).
The crisis is the steps your baboons are taking to fix the future (potentially slashing your economy while only taking a tiny slice out of the growth of your debt).
The crisis is whackos choosing their personal nutty agenda over their nation and people.

The key problem are the hardliners (a.k.a. Tea Party) within the Republican party. Basically they have taken their party hostage (and the whole country with it) to push their demands through.

They want it their way and no compromises. Do what they say or they will kill the hostages and they do not care, if they are killed in the process, too, because they believe they fight for a higher goal.

Wait a minute... isn't that how terrorists act and thnk...?
 
I've always wondered why they call them that. It appears to me they want representation without taxation, omitting a little "no" at the beginning?

its to do with the imagery of the Boston Tea party where the Americans stuck it to the British, except now its sticking it to the US federal government.
 
The Tea Party was originally made up of disenfranchised old style conservatives (pre Neo Cons). Palin and others jumped in and now it is full of crack pots as well.
 
Last edited:
its to do with the imagery of the Boston Tea party where the Americans stuck it to the British, except now its sticking it to the US federal government.

Yeah, back then they paid taxes to a government they did not vote for. That's not the case today.
 
I also pay taxes for a government I didn't vote for :p
 
its to do with the imagery of the Boston Tea party where the Americans stuck it to the British, except now its sticking it to the US federal government.

That is my understanding, too.

If they were that unhappy, I wonder why they didn't stick to the Bush administration, as it wasn't like he was being that careful with the US taxpayer's money. Partisan, much?
 
That is my understanding, too.

If they were that unhappy, I wonder why they didn't stick to the Bush administration, as it wasn't like he was being that careful with the US taxpayer's money. Partisan, much?

Bush wasn't a black communist marxist socialist kenyan.
 
I also pay taxes for a government I didn't vote for :p

You might have voted for a different party, but you did (have the ability to) vote for the legislative bodies of the government. Losing is part of democracy.



If they were that unhappy, I wonder why they didn't stick to the Bush administration, as it wasn't like he was being that careful with the US taxpayer's money. Partisan, much?

Nowadays they claim to have opposed Bush as well... while singing in the shower, probably.
 
Last edited:
Top