• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Democrat downgrade...

ProfJohn

ProfJohn

Lifer
Just some facts...

On May 30th 97 Democrats voted for a CLEAN debt ceiling bill.
http://www.businessinsider.com/clean-debt-ceiling-vote-just-fails-2011-5

On July 31 95 Democrats voted for the final debt ceiling bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us/politics/02fiscal.html?pagewanted=all

So there it is. More Democrats wanted a clean bill than a bill with cuts included. aka Democrats didn't want ANY cuts at all.

And keep in mind that we were downgraded due to the fact that our cuts weren't large enough.

So had the Democrats gotten their way we still would have had a downgrade.

Meanwhile, if the Republicans had gotten what they wanted for and what the passed in the house TWO times then we wouldn't have gotten a downgrade.


So who do you blame? The party that wanted the cuts, or the party that didn't?
 
LOL PJ... your desperation is showing.

Grab these for a sec.
straws.jpg
 
Pretty picture... thanks 🙂

Care to address the facts...

Democrats wanted a clean bill, Republicans wanted cuts.

Got a downgrade because we didn't cut enough.

Who gets the blame?
 
ProfJohn said:
Pretty picture... thanks 🙂

Care to address the facts...

Democrats wanted a clean bill, Republicans wanted cuts.

Got a downgrade because we didn't cut enough.

Who gets the blame?
Click to expand...

You are citing ONE of the reasons we were downgraded. You conveniently left out the part where S&P said:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.
Click to expand...
 
ProfJohn said:
Pretty picture... thanks 🙂

Care to address the facts...

Democrats wanted a clean bill, Republicans wanted cuts.

Got a downgrade because we didn't cut enough.

Who gets the blame?
Click to expand...
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

-- John Boehner
 
her209 said:
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

-- John Boehner
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Why is Boehner so happy if it had to be 4T in cuts/revenue? He didn't come out blasting the plan he had to beg to be pushed through for being insufficient.
 
Yip, that party that caused all this. THEY'RE the ones to blame. That damn party. They're out to get us all.

Which one is the bad one again?
 
There would have been no downgrade if we had a clean and prompt debt ceiling increase. The debt ceiling fight was the catalyst for the downgrade.
 
Balt said:
You are citing ONE of the reasons we were downgraded. You conveniently left out the part where S&P said:
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

The part you didn't bold
Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.
Click to expand...
They wanted MORE cuts.

Doesn't matter if we had 100% of congress vote on the plan or it barely passed, either way the plan was a failure.
 
OutHouse said:
you always attack PJ post but i never see you refute anything he says.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. I've rebutted PJ arguments multiple times. He just runs off and continues spouting the same bullshit again.

I could say the same thing of you and Craig.
 
ProfJohn said:
Irrelevant.

The part you didn't bold

They wanted MORE cuts.

Doesn't matter if we had 100% of congress vote on the plan or it barely passed, either way the plan was a failure.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant only because it doesn't agree with what you've already cemented in your mind.

Read it again. Using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip increased the expectations that we would default. Increasing those expectations is one of the prime reasons we were downgraded. Remember, they are grading our DEBT. If we refuse to pay it, we aren't a very safe place to invest, are we?

Seriously, irrelevant? They put it right in their statement. I really can't take you seriously anymore.
 
Last edited:
Several things:

Any reasonable individual can see that the debt downgrade, while bad for investor confidence, is not the sole reason for the weak economy. Sovereign debt in Europe, weak US economic recovery, the Japanese earthquake, and a weak housing market are all contributing to the economic downturn.

The debt downgrade has not increased the cost of the US borrowing. Yields on ten-year Treasury bonds actually dropped today, indicating that the market still views US debt as safe.

The cut, cap and balance bill sounds great ("let's get our house in order", "no more tax and spend") and makes a great soundbite, but no rational economist would advocate capping government spending during a recession. The government has two methods of dealing with the current economic crisis; fiscal and monetary policy. We've pretty much exhausted our options with respect to monetary policy (Fed rate at around zero, quantitative easing of questionable effectiveness). Therefore, not being able to stimulate the economy in the short term using government spending would be an exceptionally poor idea. There's actually some historical precedent for this. During the Great Depression, Hoover and Roosevelt both eschewed government stimulus in favor of balancing the budget. This did not pull us out of the recession. Only the massive increase in government spending that came with WWII pulled the US out of recession.

Not to minimize the issue of high US debt, but the current recession takes precedence over long-term concerns over debt. The government can stimulate the economy while still dealing with debt over the medium term (as evidenced by the low cost of borrowing). However, the political will to make these decisions needs to be there.
 
Standard & Poor's said:
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.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
 
ProfJohn said:
They wanted MORE cuts.
Click to expand...

Another outright lie. They wanted to close the gap to the tune of $4T, even offered that rescinding the Bush taxcuts would help get there. They don't care how much money the govt spends, they just want to see better balance between revenues & spending.
 
Republican's voted for Medicare Part D, 2 Wars, and the Bush tax cuts which has added way more to the debt in the last 40 years than anything else.

Not saying Dems are great just not as bad.
 
Raising the debt ceiling was one issue, controlling spending was another. Combining the two was not necessary. The Republicans decided that tying the two together would give them leverage to push their social agenda. Then the teabagger idiots started to declare that they would not care if the country defaulted, that it did not matter. This at the very least suggested that there was a block in Congress who could support the country not paying its debts. Carrying it to the brink only magnified the idea that the country might not make good on what it owes, if not now, perhaps the next time around. A perfect path to downgrading the country's creditworthiness.

You don't even have to be particularly bright to understand this.
 
Tangerines said:
Several things:

Any reasonable individual can see that the debt downgrade, while bad for investor confidence, is not the sole reason for the weak economy. Sovereign debt in Europe, weak US economic recovery, the Japanese earthquake, and a weak housing market are all contributing to the economic downturn.

The debt downgrade has not increased the cost of the US borrowing. Yields on ten-year Treasury bonds actually dropped today, indicating that the market still views US debt as safe.

The cut, cap and balance bill sounds great ("let's get our house in order", "no more tax and spend") and makes a great soundbite, but no rational economist would advocate capping government spending during a recession. The government has two methods of dealing with the current economic crisis; fiscal and monetary policy. We've pretty much exhausted our options with respect to monetary policy (Fed rate at around zero, quantitative easing of questionable effectiveness). Therefore, not being able to stimulate the economy in the short term using government spending would be an exceptionally poor idea. There's actually some historical precedent for this. During the Great Depression, Hoover and Roosevelt both eschewed government stimulus in favor of balancing the budget. This did not pull us out of the recession. Only the massive increase in government spending that came with WWII pulled the US out of recession.

Not to minimize the issue of high US debt, but the current recession takes precedence over long-term concerns over debt. The government can stimulate the economy while still dealing with debt over the medium term (as evidenced by the low cost of borrowing). However, the political will to make these decisions needs to be there.
Click to expand...

Maybe if the US taught Macroeconomics in grade and high schools people would not support policies that push the economy into recession....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top