A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

TP gets its wish--Thanks to Bush's tax cuts.

Posted: Aug 5, 2011

Quote from S&P on downgrade: Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.;

Yet almost 1500 millionaires pay no tax at all - and corporations are subsidized

[ In Reply To ..]
You can thank the Republicans and Grover's no taxes for the rich pledge.

Maybe they wont mind too much if we break into their - kitchens and steal their food..... (n/m)

[ In Reply To ..]

Probably get something better than the cupboard full of Ramen Noodles - I have here. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

You've got me beat! I ate my last package of Ramen - 3 days ago, & 7 days to go til payday...

[ In Reply To ..]
My Fridge Contains:

3 rather elderly flour tortillas.
4 slices of Swiss cheese.
1/3 can of black olives.
1/2 can of cat food.
About 2 cups of milk that I can expect to "turn" any day now.
Some ancient, inedible lettuce.
1 stick of butter.
2 sodas.
1 frozen burrito.
1 Swanson chicken pot pie.
1 tray of ice cubes.

PS: Last pay period, I had nothing to eat for 2-1/2 - days before getting paid. That sucked! nm

[ In Reply To ..]

We're quickly becoming a third world country. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Have you been in my refrigerator???? - Are we roommates? NM

[ In Reply To ..]

LOL! Maybe we are....... - MT Fridge!

[ In Reply To ..]
;D

I think it's terrible that someone who is a hard-working - American has to live (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
in such poverty that they can't even afford to buy food.

The world is laughing at us as we continue to bang on our chests in our superior complex. We're becoming a third world nation, with the end result being only the existence of the very wealthy and the very poor.

I've been saying this for years now. Unfortunately, it's shown itself to be true, and how anyone who is in a similar situation can defend the Republicans/Tea Partiers is beyond me.

I know who is looking out for people living in poverty and the working poor, and it's definitely NOT the Republican party.

And with the recent downturn of the Dow in just one day, I don't understand how anyone could possibly want to privatize Social Security and turn it into a big gamble, instead of something that is solid and a sure thing, which it can be if they just stop stealing from the SS fund.

It's the democrats who wanted it and now they got it - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
They didn't care whether or not our country was downgraded. They showed it every day. They didn't want to work together with other politicians if they didn't belong to the democrat party. It's was (and always has been) "my way or the highway". They don't (and never have been) willing to compromise. Just bicker and poke fun of the other party (i.e. Schumer's little oh so not funny or necessary comment about republican's cannot tie their shoes). No, they don't work with other American's. They do the same things they accuse the other party of doing. They so freely use the "filibuster" word, but just ignore it when they do it. Filibuster is not just something the republicans do. The democrats do it too. They just think that somehow if they ignore it that it will magically disappear. I've never been so disgusted with politics. And reading posts on this board are no better than the politicians in office. Poke fun and insult another American if they don't belong to your party. But it still boils down to the same thing. EVERYONE is an American first. I never once through this entire deal ever see the democrats compromise. It was always the republicans who had to.

Just sick of it all. Oh yeah people...get over your hatred of the tea party. They are not to blame for what has happened to our country. They are not the ones who got us here. And sorry the blame does not ALL go to Bush. He left the office 3 years ago and nothing has been even started to try and fix the mess we are in. We are now in Bush 3rd term (i.e. Bush on steroids). But hey, it's the democrats so that's okay. Nobody said they ever expected things to get fixed overnight, but three years later is not overnight, and sorry, but after three years if the average American can't do their job I don't think a company would keep them employed. So the tea party did not do this to our country. The democrats and republicans did. I really don't even know why there is a tea party. We don't need another party, and it's really pretty silly if you ask me. People should be voted on based on the good things they've done in their career, not what party they belong to. We don't need another party, we need good leaders.

But what I have seen through this ordeal is the democrats didn't care if the country was down graded. They were warned it would happen and they still didn't care. If they did they would have worked with other politicians not affiliated with their party. But they would rather the country be ruined so they can blame it on the tea party and the republican party. Kind of fuels that hate thing they have going.

Okay, that's my rant. I feel better now.

You, too, can be an expert at revisionist history!! - GOP Public Edukayshun at its best.

[ In Reply To ..]
You, too, can learn to that the founding fathers fought slavery, that the revolutionary war started in New Hampshire, Revere ringing his bell and warning the British.

You keep re-writing history, hon. With the crew you've got to work with, it's the only chance you've got of getting it right.

Hey "hon" you have NO idea about me and what I believe - You have just proved my post correct

[ In Reply To ..]
Makes ya feel good to insult someone not belonging to your beloved democrat party with your Lord Obama leading don't it.

I have no idea what you are talking about a revolutionary war in New Hampshire? Revere ringing his bell? And founding fathers fighting slavery. Ya kind of all over the board aint ya. Yup, Democrat Public Edukayshun at it's best.

I don't re-write anything "hon". I assumed you are referring to the tea party maybe because that's the kind of nasty comment I'd expect directed towards them. But then who knows, the hatred for anyone in the republican party shines through loud and clear too.

And since I don't belong to any party and don't vote when I don't like any candidate not sure what "crew" you are talking about.

Guess you just can't take it that there are people in this country without a party because ALL parties have failed the people. If you feel you're beloved democrat operatives really care about you I'd say you need a new crew to work with because with that attitude there is NO chance of getting it right.

People who make no sense whatsoever and "assume" should really not forget to take their meds.

You really need to read more - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If you honestly didn't know what the revolutionary war in New Hampshire, Revere's bell, and the founding fathers fighting slavery was about, you are pretty much proving the point. To not know them shows a failure to pay attention to what politicians are saying and doing, which eliminates your ability to make any judgment calls on them.

So in what reference were you using them? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
So in what context were you referring to (and I'll quote).

"You, too, can learn to that the founding fathers fought slavery, that the revolutionary war started in New Hampshire, Revere ringing his bell and warning the British.

You keep re-writing history, hon."

Please do explain yourself. Of course I know our history, but evidently you were not trying to give a history lesson. Exactly just what context were you referring to when you wrote that. You surely must have had a point.

I believe that was meant as a slam on Sarah Palin - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
for her comments earlier this year, 'cause you know all us 'pubs love her, hang on every word she says, and can't think for ourselves!

Palin & Bachman, although they're for the most part interchabgeable - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
One sees Russia out her front door and the other sees attacking gays, but essentially the pair that all Dems hope get nominated.

Ahhh...well since I don't listen to either of them - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I had no idea what she was talking about. Kind of figured it was a slam against someone in the tea party. I don't even know if Palin is part of tea party or republican. Bachman I just don't care for an don't listen to.

I find it funny how so many haters try to insult you with their assumptions and they make themselves looks stupid because they really have no idea what someone's view points are. Guess the poster I replied to falls in that category. And she commented to me about "Edukayshun"??? LOL

Can't say that I blame you much for - not

[ In Reply To ..]
wanting to identify as a TP. Maybe you don't realize what you are, but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us. At least it can be said with certainty that your slant and buzz-laden rhetoric tells where you are coming from, but if it makes you feel somehow special to deny party affiliation, go for it.

Clearly, you are one of the haters, HON. No doubt about that. Get a clue. Haters have NO chance of getting it right either. All they can do is stay on the furtherst margins criticizing, complaining and screaming bloody murder, never once adding anything of substance of value to the national dialog. What a crashing bore THAT is, highly dismissable in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, by the way, there is NOTHING in your OP that anyone could possibly "prove correct." You couldn't be further off base if you tried. I agree with the other poster who advised you regarding your need to read more, that is if you can get over your resentment of blaring truths that are staring you straight in the face. I would suggest you begin with reading S&Ps statement on the downgrade.

Ok, "hon" - time for a lesson - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You don't know me. You don't know what or if I belong to any party. Your not even clear on which party you are assuming I belong to. I don't need strangers that don't know me to continue to make their assumptions, because it does really prove true with a HUGE "A". Nothing is obvious, and no where in my post was there any "buzz-laden rhetoric" (the DNC must be so proud of you for using their usual fear buzzwords. You must get paid each time you repeat the same words used by them over and over.

Believe it or not (know that's hard for you to understand), but in this country there are many people who have lost their faith (for lack of better words) in all parties. Tired of the politicians that get in and promise you the world, but once elected ignore the promises they made. Actually the only decent politician I'm learning more and more about is Kucinich, and if he runs next election he gets my vote. I don't know what party he is in. I think independent, but that is another reason why I will vote for him. He is one of the few honest politicians - at least in my opinion. He votes based on what he feels is right, not whatever party he belongs to is voting on and tells him to. So it's not in just one party. It's in all of them. If you can't handle that and hate the people who don't think like the "special" kids in the democrat party, well, don't know what to tell you. If being disappointed in the current government is what you consider "hater" then you need to get educated. I'll bet you didn't call me a hater when I voted for Obama or Clinton or Carter. And when I showed the same disapointment in the last administration you wouldn't call me a hater - you would say "right on". So please spare us with your vast knowledge about what viewpoints every poster on this board has. And unless you have a crystal ball you don't know what parties or if people belong to any parties.

As for the rest of the boring post (at least it must be boring cos the first part was too), I didn't read any further. The post was filled with enough garbage. Have better things to do with my time than to read the incoherent ramblings.

“Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind” - John Tillotson

You are riot. Kucinich is a left-of-liberal progressive DEM, - big on redistribution of wealth

[ In Reply To ..]
Looks like you are the one who needs a lesson or two. Evidently reading the S&P statement before commenting on it does not appeal to you, so why not start with an article about Dennis at the debt debate?

Kucinich: Debt Political Theater Diverts Attention While Americans’ Wealth Is Stolen

http://www.truth-out.org/debt-political-theater-diverts-attention-while-americans-wealth-stolen/1310741026

I met Mr. Kucinich on several occasions when he spoke at anti-war rallies during Ws regime. You are right about his being honest and voting his mind, but trust me, HON, he's not your cup of T. If you get too bored with that article halfway through, check out the horse poop post. It tells it like it is.

The rest of your tirade is too trite to merit further comment.

My reply - please read this - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
First, enough with the "hon" stuff. I was not the one that began the insult. Now continuing to say it is just childish.

Second, I like Kucinich and I don't care what you say. I find him honest and I have always enjoyed, and to the most part, agreed with what he has to say. If that makes me a leftist then I guess I am. Thank you for the link you posted. After I finish here I will read it. I will be following him more closely. Wished he had made it further last election. I can't tell you why I like him, but I just do. I don't agree with his idea of redistribution of wealth, but I do like other issues he's talked about. Yes, maybe I do need to read more about him, but I do agree with him on a lot of issues. Right now there is nobody in the republican party I like and nobody in the democrat party, and unless we get a good candidate I once again will not vote.

Third, please stop labeling me and posting as though you know what I would like or not like or what party I belong to. Posters here keep wanting to insult me and say they "know" I'm a tea party person or republican and then they write a reference as an insult to Palin or Bachman as though I'm suppose to know what that means. I don't like either of them or listen to them, so how in the world would people expect that I would know what reference their insults are directed towards. So, once again I don't have any party I'm affiliated with, and I don't need posters to come back with "Can't say I blame you much for not wanting to identify as a TP. Maybe you don't realize what you are, but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us". Guess what, guess it's not that obvious to you and the "rest of us". I don't like any party and they should all be abolished and people should be voted for on what experience they have and what they have done in their political field to help the people. All I want from politicians is someone who will help create jobs for Americans, keep taxes down, good education system for our kids, reasonable health care, be able to buy a decent house without getting ripped off, an end to an endless war, and other things like that. I think that's what a lot of people want whether no matter what party they belong to. But I think you would get upset if posters who don't know you or now how you voted presume to tell you they know you and then insult you. In my life I have voted for 4 democrats, 3 republicans and 3 times I didn't vote. I don't think you would like to be called a communist or socialist (and I'm not calling you that, I'm just saying you wouldn't like to be called one) just as I don't like being called a neo-con or tea party person. I have some conservative view points and I have some liberal view points. That is possible you know, don't you?

Maybe I don't read every single article ever written regarding politics, but I read enough to understand. I read the laws that are being passed and understand what they mean for me and people in my family. I watched the news about the Debt ceiling. No, I didn't watch 24 hours a day, but I heard different politicians speak on why they were for or against it. I saw who was compromising and who was not.

So you want to go ahead and insult me some more and make more assumptions go ahead. As far as I'm concerned it's dead air since you don't know me and don't know how I vote or if I vote at all.

If being a democrat/liberal means you feel you have free reign to insult people just because they don't believe the same political ideas that you do, I will never belong to that party. So go ahead and insult. I've done my fair share of replying back to an insult with an insult, but now it's time to get past that. Enough for the "GOP Public Edukayshun" insult or being called a "hater" insult just because I don't tow the party line and agree with everything the democrats do or have the audacity to question something. Time to just say I will have to respectfully disagree.

The responses you got from your first post - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
are totally justified and not at all unexpected. If you do not want to be insulted, called out for being uninformed, and talked down to, the solution is simple. Nix the myopic insults and partisan bashing, preaching, misinformation, talking down and telling others what they are. You got back what you threw out there, nothing more.

The responses I got from posters - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Were not warranted. Did you read my OP? I didn't attack anyone specific here. I told it like it is. The democrats wanted and and they got it. That's the way it is. They don't work with and have never worked with other Americans who don't belong to their party. I said in general for people to get over their hatred of the tea party (which is clearly evident). I said the tea party did not get us to the point of where we are. They didn't bankrupt this country. They didn't do the sleezy deals behind closed doors. I said people should be voted for based on the good things they've done in their careers. I said that the democrats knew (so did the republicans)that the downgrade was coming but they did nothing so they could blame it on the tea party. Sorry if the truth hurts, but that's the way it is. I told it like I've been watching it happen. I blamed BOTH parties. I saw that the democrats were not compromising and they were not. Not everything was perfect, but I watched day after day of democrats not compromising and acusing the other parties of what they were doing. I watched Shumer and his filthy ignorant comment about people who don't belong to the democrat party. I listened to Harry Reid's speech and many others that I don't know their names. I listened to them do the blame game and how the republicans were not compromising, but they failed to admit they were not compromising either.

So what do I get back because I don't agree with the liberals is attacks and name calling. Snide remarks, "hon" and a whole slew of nasties including "we know what you are". So that is what America has come to? That if you belong to one party you have free reign to insult other Americans because they have a difference of opinion political wise? And then not take responsibility for starting it and blame them? Really?

What you consider being "uninformed" I consider being well informed. Because since I don't belong to any party I can sit back and see a situation. When I see the democrats not compromising I call it like it is. When I see the republicans not doing their job I call it like it is. I guess if I was a democrat like a lot of posters who replied I too would defend my party even though I knew they were doing wrong, but I just can't do that. I prefer to take an outside look and call it like it is.

Oh yeah, if people don't want to be talked down to then it's pretty simple really. Don't start it. If you start in with the "hon" and "GOP Public Edukayshun" and the "You keep re-writing history, hon. With the crew you've got to work with, it's the only chance you've got of getting it right". So if you can't take it then don't start it.

So, go back and read all the posts (which I know you won't cos you'll never admit your wrong), but if you read all the replies, I did not start it. I simply posted a reply to a message that was incorrect about the tea party getting what they wanted, and I still stand by that. The tea party didn't want it. The democrats AND republicans knew a long time ago this would happen and they did nothing. You can't pin their mistake on the tea party no matter how much you hate them.

Then even in the end when I say I will have to respectfully disagree you can't even leave it at that. Just another attack post.

Well good luck with that.

Your first post - says it all.

[ In Reply To ..]
Not interested in addressing all the back pedaling, but will take the time to state the obvious which I realize you are determined to ignore. The responsibility for this is not shared between the two parties, and should not be, regardless of how hard you try to argue otherwise. We have the GOP and their TP puppetmasters to thank for the downgrade and crashing stock market. They have graduated from destructive obstructionists to a full-blown national embarrassment.

No kidding- the democrats are - maggie

[ In Reply To ..]
the ones downgrading this country?? Who is it that wants to cut assistance to Americans by cutting medicaid, mental health programs, etc. rather than let the rich fat cats pay fair taxes? If you ask me that was disgusting, it reminded me of a hostage taking situation- give us what we want or we will make everyone in this country miserable. Lovely. And it cracks me up how they tiptoe around things in order to make sure that they are not connected with the deficit, they want that all on Obama, but they forget who created this insane deficit in the first place, and anyone who thought that could be solved by ANYONE in one term is crazy, or just jumping on a chance to criticize Obama. I think he is doing the best he can with a very stubborn, recalcitrant congress who is doing their best to make his life a living hell and who are shaming themselves in the process.

Wonderful post. Couldn't agree more. Thanks. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Horse poop, every last word. S&P was very clear on their reasons - and left no room for doubt

[ In Reply To ..]
who they held responsible for the intransigence. They sure weren't talking about Obama or the dems when expressing doubts that the Bush tax cuts would ever be allowed to expire. I believe their exact words were, "because the majority of REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues." This would imply that they find the half-baked spending-cuts-only approach to be the joke we all know it is.

The debt plan was deemed inadequate. Specifically, they said the downgrade reflects their view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American POLICYMAKING and political institutions have weakened and that the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, makes them pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to LEVERAGE their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

In other words, compromise is not a one-sided coin and we all know who bent over backwards and who did not. The blame first and foremost goes to tea party juveniles who continually insisted that default was no biggie and had the utter gall to assert that we could simply "service the debt" by paying the interest (!) AS IF. THAT, is blatent disregard for paying off the debt, pure and simple. Then there is Boehner, who couldn't referee a bingo game, let alone legislative process. Lest we forget Cantor bringing up the rear and making it all about him and his political ambition to replace the impotent speaker. Spectacular, bumbling failure all 'round.

The dems, on the other hand, constantly expressed angst and deep concern over impending default, to such an extent that the RINOs and tpots accused them of fear mongering, as I recall. After all, it was only last week, so this revision of yours is nothing if not insulting to the intelligence of those who watched the debaucle unfold day by day. No amount of spin can change what happened and how S&P explains ITS OWN Basis for the downgrade. Straight from the horse's mouth.

That is the reality for which the tea party most definitely will be HELD ACCOUNTABLE, despite your admonishment that we can't blame the tea party. Don't look for this one to simply melt away before November 2012, and the tpots have nobody to blame but themselves for that, seeing as how they were so staunchly opposed to crafting a plan that would take us to 2013 and instead decided on making it a campaign issue with their phase one/phase two crud, a worn-out trick they have used repeatedly in their efforts to destroy the economy and bring Obama down. Looks like that one is going to backfire on them bigtime. They have cooked their own goose and there is nothing left for them to do except to stewin their own juices.

You hit the nail on the head. I wonder what - else they have up their (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
sleeves to harm this country further.

It's disappointing that such a minority of idiots can yield that kind of power. They do NOT represent the majority of American citizens, and all they want to do is drive this country over a cliff.

They're nothing more than a bunch of toddlers throwing temper tantrums, and I believe they are purposely out to destroy this country.

You were absolutely right; S&P laid out their reasoning, and they were right. The TP has destabilized America with their antics.

"angst and deep concern"... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
Thank you for posting that - it's been a long day and I really needed the laugh :)

That would be why the TP/Republicans claimed - they won with 90% of concessions?

[ In Reply To ..]
Focus your anger to where it belongs, puleeze.

Boehner says 98% - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Happy camper got what he wanted....crashing stock market and - credit downgrade.

[ In Reply To ..]
Speaks volumes.

He has known since at least March about the threat to downgrade - Stop blaming everyone else

[ In Reply To ..]
He has known since at least March about the threat to downgrade the bond rating (of course so did Congress). They waited until the last minute in order to achieve exactly what they achieved, the next debt ceiling increase is not until after the election, increased debt beyond what was needed, minor if any cuts in spending. And on, and on. A stimulus that dramatically increased the debt, more people on food stamps, increase in numbers of people on welfare, unemployment increasing with extension of unemployment benefits paid by the taxpayers, a health care system that can't possibly work which means more and more people on Medicaid

Hey, his words, not mine. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Try hawking this snake oil spin to the S&P, who made their case clear as a bell. They do not seem to share your perspective on the debt ceiling being extended beyond what was needed. Quite the contrary. They were looking for the $4 trillion Obama proposed and the GOP rejected. They repeatedly expressed the need for added reenues, or did you miss that part?

BTW, that dramatic increase in the debt you are trying to hang on the stimulus pales in comparison to what happened in the 8 years prior that created the need for that measure in the first place. S&P was very specific about that too, and called out Ws tax cuts more than once. Their words, not mine.

OMG..seriously...this is totally Bush's fault? - You gotta be joking!

[ In Reply To ..]
How long has Obama been president now? How much money has HE spent? I'll admit Bush didn't help our situation out, but Obama isn't either. I just don't understand some of you people. Besides, if you wanna blame the Bush tax cuts....who continued the Bush tax cuts....uh...Obama. Who continued the wars and added another one....uh....Obama. Wake up people! Who passed a stimulus package that didn't stimulate much at all....uh...Obama. More wasted money and yet it is all Bush's fault. Sheesh.

Evidently you didn't bother to read S&P statement, instead just - fired off another knee jerk battle cry.

[ In Reply To ..]
No, they did not say Bush tax cuts were the ONLY reason. They also said they had no faith that the REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS would ever allow them to expire on account of their stupid NO REVEUES pledge. They are implying here that, in their view, expiration of the job-killing, economy-decimating cuts is an ESSENTIAL component of debt resolution. This is probably based on the fact that W decided to give all the surplus money Clinton left behind (which was basically equal to the amount of public debt) plus mountains of additional tax revenues to the wealthy INSTEAD OF paying down the debt. We have already discussed this at length in previous posts, which you must have ignored.

They also implicitly discussed GOP intransigence and utter refusal to compromise, upon which they base the "negative outlook" for the future. Thus, downgrade was decided upon. Congrats to all those who hail the ridiculous conclusion to a completely self-infliced phoney crisis as some sort of political accomplishment. Winning the battle but losing the war is NOT an effective campaign strategy for 2012, and do not kid yourself into believing that voters didn't notice. Just check out the recent opinion polls, which are remarkably consistent on how this episode is viewed. Even some of the more sane among the GOP recognize this boondoggle as a national embarrassment.

Evidently you didn't read it either! - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
You can try to blame this all on the GOP (who only controls one-half of one-third of the government and only for the past seven months), but you're totally missing the mark. S&P didn't single out the GOP, they blamed ALL the lawmakers in Congress and in the administration. This is on BOTH parties for a decade or more in spending, spending, and more spending without any thought as to where the money was coming from.

There will be more cuts eventually and if you're on Social Security, don't think you'll be safe in the future. There will also be higher taxes eventually, but don't think that because you make less than $200,000 a year you won't have to pay more. Making a few million dollars in cuts and taxing the "rich" is only going to go so far, and it won't be near far enough.

So blame the GOP all you want to if that makes you feel better. I also heard yesterday some congressman speculating that we could be entering a "tea party recession," so apparently you can blame the tea partiers, too. Too many years of too many people not paying thier "fair share" and too many people living off of the government has led us to this day. That's not only on both parties in government, that's on us.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SP-officials-defend-US-credit-apf-685948715.html?x=0

The S&P "didn't single out" the GOP? - Then what do you call this....

[ In Reply To ..]

I see not one single direct quote from the S&P statement in your Yahoo citation. Here's are a few for you to try on for size:

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011." I find the the time period (after April 18) they specifically stated when they observed a weakening (decline) in effectiveness, stability and predictability to be particularly interesting. April was the month the TP-controlled GOP turned its attention away from reading the Constitution out loud, conducting symbolic votes and introducing their dead-end social engineering measures and started directing their focus onto the budget appropriations. You my recall the hostage drama THAT month was a GOP-scripted threat to shut down the government rather than fund it. I know I do, and I am sure it didn't escape S&P either.

"We lowered our long-term rating on the US because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." Now, as I recall, Obama went out on a limb politically and put entitlements on the table on more than one occasion, each time resulting in resounding rejections by the fit-throwing freshmen. On the other hand, just how many times did the TP-controlled GOP and their pledge-signing ranks offer to consider raising revenues? It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

" We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade." They were looking for $4 trillion. Who was it who had the $4 trillion plan (containing a balanced cuts/revenues scheme (which S&P obviously favors), AKA the Big Plan? Again, who did the rejecting?

"We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the August 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived IMMEDIATE THREAT of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling." Now let's see here. Who bent over backwards, conceded his 2013 long-term coverage proposal, received not one dime in revenues and signed the watered-down version PRECISELY for the sake of removing the immediate threat of default? Which party did not heed the warnings (or simply didn't care about the consequences of default)? Which party promoted the default-is-no-big-deal schtick, suggested we smply "pay the interest" (!) and insisted instead that we should all become deadbeats?

"Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, NEW REVENUES have dropped down on the menu of policy options." Fairly obvious S&P is looking for a much more balanced approach to the debt. In fact, they made it clear they EXPECT it, though will not suggest any specific remedy: "Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the US's finances on a sustainable footing." Again, who exactly REFUSED to consider revenues?

"The outlook on the long-term rating is negative...On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'."

As you can see, Ws handiwork gets multiple mentions, and by my read, the S&P is pretty much putting the GOP on notice, that the expiration of the tax cuts is already a foregone conclusion. McConnell must be so disappointed. No more dictatorial decrees suspending all legislative progress (last time it was UI benefits set for imminent expiration) until we coddle the wealthy an protect them from shouldering fair share burdens.

I call this... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
one mention of the GOP about tax cuts based solely on an assumption and the rest is just your interpretation of what's being said.

But that's okay - I wouldn't expect anything less.

Excuse me, but anyone who is paying attention - has seen firsthand (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
how the Tea Partiers failed to budge an inch. A couple of them even said they want to shut down the government.

In addition, the Republicans have said from the very beginning that they want to ruin Obama. They don't even hide it. They promise to make him a one-term President.

They're solely responsible for this drop in our credit rating, and they did it all out in the public.

Would you please post that quote - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
Can you please post for us that quote on the republican congress person who said "I want to ruin Obama". I'd be interested to find out who said it and what exactly were the words.

The people who are responsible for dropping the credit rating is both the republicans AND democrats INCLUDING yours truly. They have ALL known about this since March and they did nothing to fix it. They are ALL to blame. You don't get to pin this just on the political party you don't like. I didn't see ANY democrats compromising. Nobody did and now look where it got us. Everyone involved should be fired and a whole new election to vote in new people. When a person fails at a job a company usually does not keep them employed. It should work the same way. Not the "oh no, they are ruining our country, well in 2 years we can vote them out". By that time it will be too late. No matter what political party someone belongs to if they failed at their job then they should be treated like every other American who fails at their job.

One-term president quote - Piece of cake

[ In Reply To ..]
Even with the country on the brink of default, the Senate's highest ranking Republican says his "single most important" goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal's Major Garrett in October.

Fox News' Bret Baier asked McConnell Sunday if that was still his major objective.

"Well, that is true," McConnell replied. "That's my single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/10/mcconnell-stopping-obamas-re-election-still-single-most-important-goal/

In case you missed it, SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL. Not jobs (guess they were just a campaign slogan). Not the economy. Not the budget, debt, default. GOP power, #1 priority.

Now, about that blindness attack. The compromising was reported on daily, so if you did not see it, its probably because you keep your eyes glued to Fox. Otherwise, you would know about the Big Plan, Gang of Six, Medicare and SS on and off and on the table, etc., and the countless times the GOP rejected one new proposal after another.

The singlemost memorable chapter in the debt debate will be the TP infants' refusal to consider revenues, attached at the hip to Grover's mindless pledge. Boehner's inability to get a grip comes in as a close second, followed by Cantor's ongoing power grap in his efforts to undermine the immasculated speaker. The adults in the room, who were ultimately drowned out by fit-pitching freshmen, were probably not discussed much on Fox either, but back here in the real world, the rest of us witnessed the spectacle firsthand for weeks on end.

That's not the same thing and you know it - No piece of cake - nice try...NOT

[ In Reply To ..]
You said that a republican said "I want to ruin Obama". Saying they want the President to be a one term president is not the same thing.

When a person has done a lousy job, yeah people want him to be a one term president. It is the job of republicans to have a one term democrat president AND it is the job of democrats to have a one term republican president. Always has been always will be.

So...now we get down to the truth. No politician ever said and I'll quote what you said "I want to ruin Obama". But then again you already knew that.

Looks like you are the one who needs to get a grip. And if you want to talk about spectacle's we can start with Wiener.

Stop trying to be coy. Leaders said what they said, - followers took the cue and

[ In Reply To ..]
ran with it, all over chat room forums, radio call-in talk shows, the blogsphere, and social medial outlets. Their feedback then cycled back and forth between them and their local leaders, got ratcheted up every step of the way, spread far and wide, and before we knew it, we had a runaway train. Just take look at where it has taken us.

McConnell did not start this, he just had a moment of clarity when he reaffirmed what we already knew we had been witnessing the previous two years. It has been going on ever since the moment Obama was sworn in. Here, there and yonder, we saw the hateful rhetorical patchwork emerge from one mouth, then another, never failing to reach national audiences, thanks to our sensation-driven media culture. The GOP have always been notorious sore losers, but in my 60-plus decades, never have I seen it taken to such a destructive extreme. Denial only adds fuel to the fire, but apparently some folks get more of a personal kick out of stoking rather than extinguishing. That choice is their right, sadly enough, but shifting the responsibility for the scorched earth they leave behind them onto others is not, your post being a prime example.

BTW, I am not the other poster, but her statement is entirely accurate. McConnell's words were actually his typical understatement MO, designed to be subject to broad interpretation, and misinterpretation. Pols are are particularly adept at this skill. They know how to push buttons

If that's the road you're gonna take... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
then the other side could be that the dems failed to budge on making any more cuts in spending because they wanted the republicans to look bad and therefore they could keep the WH and win back the House next year - AND, they did it all out in the public.

Imagine for a minute that you and I are both right - that means they were ALL playing politics and were ALL responsible for the out-of-control spending and now the drop in our credit rating. Just consider that possibility for a moment.

Another attempted revision, even before the ink has dried. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
For the dems, it was all about the revenues. Obama's plan contained generous cuts that included Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, more than anything the GOP came up with, but they rejected it, ostensibly because he had the nerve to suggest that revenues be addressed, but more likely because they did not want Obama to garner any credit. Blatent pandering to 2012 electorate. Childish and shot-sighted come to mind as well.

The majority of the post came straight from S&P. - Careful, Zville,

[ In Reply To ..]
your denial is showing. The personal snip was our first clue. As for the "interpretations," they are full of facts and a mouthful of inconvenient truths.

We just got downgraded because Obama spends like - a drunken sailor.. not taxpayers fault.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Another brilliant insight from .nm's bag of nonsequitors. - Taxpyers? Where do you get this stuff? nmx2

[ In Reply To ..]

YOU CANNOT PUT DEBT ON TAXPAYERS - OBAMA TRIPLED IT>> SO

[ In Reply To ..]
He needs to make cuts. Dems just want to spend into oblivion instead of facing reality that we spend too much and cannot pay back. It really is that simple. Common sense would do you some good. There are not enough RICH people to pay the debt. Get real.

You are a bit confused on who created the debt. - W tied one on for 8 years

[ In Reply To ..]
and had no problem whatsoever putting debt on taxpayers, so let's be clear about that. Obama had no choice but to come in and start the clean up. We learned from W what robbing from the poor to give to the rich does to the economy. It contracts, jobs disappear, credit bubbles form and burst, financial institutions go belly up and major industries go bankrupt. The stimulus was a byproduct of W's disastrous policies that Congress was forced to pass to save" those same sectors, but unfortunately it did not go far enough. It is like giving CPR to a man who has been run over by a train, then leaving him to heal all wounds by second intention.

You lie about Obama's "tripling" the debt flies in the face of any credibility to suggest you have the slightest clue about common sense, so spare the sermon.

You are a bit confused on who is president - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
President Obama is the president of the United States and has been for three years. Your continued blame it on Bush has long gone. Even the media is starting to realize this. Even Juan Williams said this (and to pick my jaw up off the floor on that one). The current crowd is responsible for their share of it. Get over it.

I am not confused about where the bulk of this debt - came from

[ In Reply To ..]
The Bush legacy lives on, not only in the pages of history, but in realtime middle class suffering and misery.

You are referring to the wrong drunken sailor, I'm afraid nm - maggie

[ In Reply To ..]
xx

Obama is the biggest drunken sailor we have seen. - He needs to sober up. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Personally I agree with Daniel Gross - maggie

[ In Reply To ..]
in that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabatoged by Congressional Republicans. And its true- it was their refusal to budge that caused this, and they have been wanting to find a way to pin all the country's financial woes on Obama without them taking any responsibility. So I hope they are happy and satisfied with themselves, and sadly I am sure that they are.

Wrong!. Dems need to cut spending to help debt!!!!nm - Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Similar Messages:

Aug 21, 2012
If you don't think they should be encoded for all future American generations, ad infinitum, then don't vote for Romney. ...

Aug 02, 2010
If the deficit hawks are truly sincere, maybe they should listen to their own financial guru--Alan Greenspan. www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html ...

Jul 22, 2010
Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear getting crushed in November’s election. It could mean a big reprieve for families earning $250,000 and above annually. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to delay their sunset. Some Democrats are now arguing forcefully that a delay is a win-win plan that would help the federal ...

Aug 03, 2010
While I won't post the whole thing here, I will post some of it, as I don't know how long it would be on this board. Oh, and by the way, 12 dems voted for it, so it wasn't just a pub deal. So, were the tax cuts so bad? Tell me these were just for rich people as so many believe. This is the problem with people nowadays. They hear one side of the story and believe and judge without finding out for themselves what is really going on in this country. Those titles that I only posted ...

May 04, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/small-business-owners-bush-tax-cuts-rich-repeal_n_857204.html I've always felt this way. Glad to see more people are coming to the conclusion that those tax cuts didn't help us as small business owners. My own business started down as customers had less money, and I got the tax cuts. Something just never seemed right about that. ...

Aug 05, 2010
Shahien Nasiripour Shahien Nasiripour – Wed Aug 4, 6:09 pm ET The country is less equal today than it was just a decade ago thanks in part to the Bush tax cuts, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday. "[T]he policies put in place by the previous administration, prior to this great recession, have left us with a terrible legacy of challenges," Geithner said during a discussion on fiscal policy at the Washington-based Center for American Progress. "And A ...

Dec 10, 2014
. ...

Apr 13, 2011
Salary of the US President...$400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents...$180,000. Salary of House/Senate...$174,000. Salary of Speaker of House...$223,500....Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders...$193,400..........Average US Salary...$33,000 to $77,000. HELLO! I think we found where some cuts should be made! ...

Dec 07, 2010
Talk Box: Tax Cut Extension Would Lead to More Borrowing From China 12/7/10 at 01:50 AM // MSNBC's Chuck Todd reported that the framework deal President Obama seems to have reached with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts will result in a loss of revenue totaling nearly $450 billion in 2011, more than the cost of the 2009 stimulus while Countdown guest host Sam Seder investigated the huge amounts the U.S. will have to borrow from countries like China, Russia and th ...

Dec 13, 2010
At 3:40 p.m., the vote was 54-6 in favor. They need 6 votes to pass. We shall see. Voting against it so far is Birgaman (D), Feingold (D), Leahy (D), Udal (D)l, Sanders(I) , and Gillibrand (D). ...

Dec 06, 2010
Extending the Bush tax cuts: Human nature? Of all the coverage of the debate over whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts, and there is plenty today, given that the White House appears to be quietly giving ground to Republicans on extending the tax cuts temporarily, today's money quote comes via Howard Kurtz over at The Daily Beast. He quotes former President George W. Bush communications director Dan Bartlett as saying, "We knew that, politically, once you get [a tax cut] into la ...

Dec 03, 2010
"here’s what the public said about the Bush tax cuts, according to the exit polls last month: 40 percent said to continue ALL of the cuts, 36 percent said to continue them for families who earn less than $250,000 a year, and an additional 15 percent said to expire them for all. So a majority -- 51 percent -- backed either the Democratic position or wants all the cuts to expire." ...

Dec 02, 2010
So far, 211 yea, 173 nay. Mostly partisan votes. 13 dems Nay, 2 pubs yea. ...

Jul 26, 2010
Tax hikes for the rich: Can the economy afford them? By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerJuly 26, 2010: 3:15 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Would making the rich pay higher taxes next year hurt the economy? That question underlines one of the trickiest fiscal questions facing Washington policymakers: What to do about the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year. President Obama wants to let the cuts lapse for joint tax filers who make at leas ...

Apr 26, 2017
Who cares about pollution as long as those businesses can make bigger profits and CEOs can get bigger bonuses. ...

Jun 25, 2017
Under the Senate health care plan, employers will no longer be required to offer health insurance. I am guessing the big transcription companies are already planning to use this to layoff employees--you know, "minimum wage is too high in your state, employee benefits too good in your state, now you want health insurance too?" Given the choice of not being required to provide health insurance, "not being able to find MTs willing to work for a pittance," and offshoring to some foreig ...

Oct 21, 2009
x ...

Mar 08, 2011
The first links is the House Appropriations document showing spending cuts and most show the reasons for the cuts. http://www.majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/FY2011_SUMMARY.pdf The second link shows the comparison from 2010 and the President's cuts. Note the differences on that. http://www.majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/FY2011CR_SUBCOM.pdf The third link shows the cuts inacted in 2010 and those requested for 2011. http://www.majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/FY2011_CUTS ...

Dec 17, 2010
They worked late into the night to pass it. It will cost $858 billion but it gives everyone a "breather" for a while. Reid pulled the Omnibus bill off the table; i.e., just died. John McCain, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint were the reason because they wanted the bill read page per page. Guess Reid didn't want the people to know what was really in the bill. I had forgotten some of the crap in there but thankfully, the John Murtha Foundation (biggest crook in PA) will not be funded, n ...

Dec 06, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/alan-grayson-fox-news-tax-cuts_n_791533.html Here's an excerpt: They want tax cuts for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves. What do I mean by that? Let's take a look at the people who are really in charge, the ones who actually run the Republican party. Let's start with this gentleman here, the man with the cigar, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn't he look happy? According according to Newsweek, he makes $58.7 million a year, an ...

Mar 08, 2011
This is one article: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is promising an up-or-down vote on the $61 billion in budget cuts passed by House Republicans — just to show that version of the spending bill is “dead” – even if the upper chamber has to debate until 1 a.m. to prove the point. “I hope we have a vote on this today,” said Reid to reporters. “If not, we’re going to go through all this procedural process. They cannot stop us from having a vote o ...

Oct 30, 2012
See pages 94-96 of Obama's sequestration budget plan. Yes, Romney believes that FEMA has been over-funded for the results that we've actually gotten from the agency (which are perfectly miserable) - but the difference is, Romney plans to redistribute the money to the states and it isn't therefore a cut to emergency funding. Under Obama's plan, the money would be used to fund OBAMACARE. Got knowledge? ...

Nov 18, 2012
On election night, Republican strategist and Fox News contributor Karl Rove was unwilling to believe that President Obama had won Ohio, arguing with anchor Megyn Kelly that Ohio was too close to call. Eventually, Kelly asked Rove if his calculations were "just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?" This televised moment on Election Day was one small victory for statistics. Another was thatFiveThirtyEight blogger Nate Silver accurately pred ...

Jun 23, 2013
said the cuts to physicians will be 40% by 2016. Not 2014. So all the young "folks" can have baby after baby every year by different baby daddies and get the wanna be future hooligans on Medicaid. This really stinks. ...

Jun 24, 2017
On Friday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC panelist Donny Deutsch pushed the typical liberal “tax cuts for the rich” narrative as he slammed the Republican health care reform bill: "The other side of the aisle will call this as a redistribution of wealth. Obviously, parties are given to hyperbole, but the reality according to the Center [for] Tax Policy is that 90 percent of the benefits in this plan go to families making $700,000 a year or more, the one percent. That is a fiscal reality." He demanded ...

Sep 20, 2011
Totally disgusting they want to cut benefits from those who pay the ultimate price. The government needs to honor its contract with the troops. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-issues-open-letter-to-president-obama-concerning-cuts-to-veterans-benefits-2011-09-20 ...

Mar 02, 2011
Rep. Betty McCollum is out to get rid of the Pentagon's sponsorships for NASCAR teams says she won't back away from her efforts and, despite GOP resistance, will broaden her fight to repeal tax breaks for track owners, too. In an interview, McCollum said it doesn't make sense to keep the benefits for NASCAR teams and track owners when other cuts are being made to community health care, programs for homeless veterans and Head Start. "I started to look at what is in this large def ...

Nov 29, 2010
See link ...

Apr 03, 2011
Just FYI: I know some of you don't like Fox News, but try to tune in at 2 p.m. today for Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday). Paul Ryan is on and he gives very detailed information about budget cuts for 2012. This budget will be released Tuesday, so this is kind of a sneak peak for anyone that's interested. ...

Sep 15, 2012
Isn't that what we've been trying to tell you ? Read it and weep. ...