• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

US Credit Rating Downgraded again

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Agreed the President was more than willing to negotiate last debt ceiling, I know he offered $3 in cuts for $1 in new tax revenue then all the losers who signed Grover norquests no tax pledge were afraid they'd lose their seat. Personally I prefer my representatives to fear me, not some uber wealthy guy who gave tons of cash for a promise to never raise taxes.
Disgusting
That's not exactly the story that Woodward tells in his book. I have not read the book yet but apparently Boehner was willing to accept some tax increases. The reviews say that Woodward blames both sides, but blames Obama more due to lack of leadership.
 
Feb 4, 2009
30,517
11,021
136
I'll have to look at that but come on lets be honest it really was the tea party nuts. I remember Bachmann or maybe Palin implying it was un-American to raise the ceiling. When did not paying tour debts back become the American way?
During that entire fiasco it really seemed like the lunatics really were telling Boehner not to negociate
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
That's not exactly the story that Woodward tells in his book. I have not read the book yet but apparently Boehner was willing to accept some tax increases. The reviews say that Woodward blames both sides, but blames Obama more due to lack of leadership.
One person's opinion, that just so happens to go against what everyone else saw during the hostage situation...

We should have cut the military by half to 2/3, yet the republicans wouldn't let the military be touched. They wouldn't let the tax cuts for the rich expire. They only wanted to gut social programs that hurt the majority of americans.

Plus, this all ignores the fact that republicans have been fine with raising the ceiling every single time prior to this.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
I wonder if after ultimately blaming Obama's lack of leadership Mr. Woodward provides specifics on how exactly you're supposed to lead people who won't follow, cooperate, or compromise in his book.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Print more money, pay debt, problem solved.
We would have to print a metric shitton of money to both cover the deficit and pay down even a tiny fraction of our debt. Much more than any reasonably knowledgeable person would suggest.

Raise taxes, pay debt, problem solved.
We can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover our current spending much less have money left over to pay down the debt.

End wars, divert war budget to pay debt, problem solved.
Again, nowhere close to enough to even cover the deficit.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
When the Republicans in Congress Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as they should have a couple of years ago then the damage they are causing to the National Debt can be forgotten

You mean expire for everyone and not the relatively small portion that benefit those making $250k+, right?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
Removing Glass Steagull was the direct cause of the economic collapse, pushed heavily and passed by republicans.
hahaha

The repeal of Glass Steagal was orchestrated by Bob Rubin (another long time Goldman Sachs banker infesting the Dem party despite their public denunciation of Wall Street bankers) and signed into law by Bill Clinton.


Bush's budget resulted in Obama's first year's expenditures.
Bush's budget didn't have a damn thing to do with Obama's spending.

Holding the credit hostage caused the downgrade, which not only was obvious to anyone paying attention, but confirmed by the rating agencies.
Bullshit.

For one thing the credit down grade is a result of our Debt:GDP ratio. Another is a lack of a plan or agreement on how to stop the hemorrhaging and eventually bring the debt ratio back in line.

It was Obama who held our credit hostage for his own political purposes according to Bob Woodward. Reid and Boehner had an agreement and it was Obama who held things hostage. See the article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-president-sidelined/2012/09/08/a463793c-f6db-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I wonder if after ultimately blaming Obama's lack of leadership Mr. Woodward provides specifics on how exactly you're supposed to lead people who won't follow, cooperate, or compromise in his book.
Utter bullshit.

Read the article I linked above.

According to Woodward, Reid and Boehner had already agreed/compromised and were to pass the increase, it was Obama who balked and held things hostage for political tactics.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
We would have to print a metric shitton of money to both cover the deficit and pay down even a tiny fraction of our debt. Much more than any reasonably knowledgeable person would suggest.



We can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover our current spending much less have money left over to pay down the debt.



Again, nowhere close to enough to even cover the deficit.
100% correct on all points

Fern
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
Utter bullshit.

Read the article I linked above.

According to Woodward, Reid and Boehner had already agreed/compromised and were to pass the increase, it was Obama who balked and held things hostage for political tactics.

Fern
I did read it.
“So,” the president said, “if we give $1.2 trillion now in spending cuts” — the amount in the House bill to get the first increase in the debt ceiling for about six to nine months — “what happens next time?” The Republicans would then come back next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign, and impose more conditions on the next debt ceiling increase. He could not give the Republicans that kind of leverage, that kind of weapon. It was hostage taking. It was blackmail. “This will forever change the relationship between the presidency and the Congress.

“Imagine if, when Nancy Pelosi had become speaker, she had said to George W. Bush, ‘End the Iraq war, or I’m going to cause a global financial crisis.’ ”

So, Obama said, they had to break the Republicans on this. Otherwise, they would be back whenever it suited them politically.
And he was 100% right.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I did read it.

And he was 100% right.
Nice cherry picking.

Obama was the one who held it hostage.

According to the article Obama's primary concern was that the agreement stretch beyond the election, and the Reid/Boehner agreement didn't, but you probably already know that since you looked through the article enough to cherry pick.

Fern
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
Nice cherry picking.

Obama was the one who held it hostage.

According to the article Obama's primary concern was that the agreement stretch beyond the election, and the Reid/Boehner agreement didn't, but you probably already know that since you looked through the article enough to cherry pick.

Fern
Yes, because if Obama had not stepped in and pushed for the longer extension we wouldn't be playing out another debt ceiling debacle, umm, right about now. He made the right call, and showed leadership when he made it.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Right, like Romney would fix the fiscal situation :rolleyes:

Nobody has the guys to say that getting the US budget in order will require cuts to entitlement spending AND higher taxes.
Bingo. Getting the US budget in order requires actions that simply aren't politically feasible for BOTH parties. One is willing to do half and the other might be willing to sort of do the other half but neither are willing to do what is really necessary and that is both.

Medicare and Medicaid have been and will continue to increase at about 9% a year. Throw that into excel or google docs spreadsheet and see what it will cost in a decade and then go out to two decades.

Neither side is willing to do anything nearly significant enough to solve the problem between now and then though because it might cost them their next election.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Yes, because if Obama had not stepped in and pushed for the longer extension we wouldn't be playing out another debt ceiling debacle, umm, right about now. He made the right call, and showed leadership when he made it.
If Obama had gone along with the compromise reached by Reid/Boehner there wouldn't be "another debt ceiling debacle, umm, right about now," because we wouldn't have that one in the first place. At most, the hypothetical one you speak of would be the first.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Bingo. Getting the US budget in order requires actions that simply aren't politically feasible for BOTH parties. One is willing to do half and the other might be willing to sort of do the other half but neither are willing to do what is really necessary and that is both.

Medicare and Medicaid have been and will continue to increase at about 9% a year. Throw that into excel or google docs spreadsheet and see what it will cost in a decade and then go out to two decades.

Neither side is willing to do anything nearly significant enough to solve the problem between now and then though because it might cost them their next election.
100% correct again.

We've been through this at length here previously. There is no way either party will be able to fix this.

You could implement 100% of both parties suggestions (raise taxes and cut spending) and we'd still be running a big deficit.

The 'math' just isn't there.

Fern
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
If Obama had gone along with the compromise reached by Reid/Boehner there wouldn't be "another debt ceiling debacle, umm, right about now," because we wouldn't have that one in the first place. At most, the hypothetical one you speak of would have the first.

Fern
No, it would have been something totally different.
“So,” the president said, “if we give $1.2 trillion now in spending cuts” — the amount in the House bill to get the first increase in the debt ceiling for about six to nine months — “what happens next time?”
This would have been that next time, with even further demands and more brinkmanship given the election season.
 

MarkLuvsCS

Senior member
Jun 13, 2004
740
0
76
career politicians at their finest. Our system is pretty FUBARed because people are separating themselves into their own classes demanding their class comes out ahead. Do you think today's politicians could be locked down in one location for a few weeks (let alone months) to actually hash things out? It seems clear who will continue winning while everyone suffers, the politicians.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
hahaha

The repeal of Glass Steagal was orchestrated by Bob Rubin (another long time Goldman Sachs banker infesting the Dem party despite their public denunciation of Wall Street bankers) and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
Now both sides do this all the time so I am not picking on anyones favorite club but isn't it amusing how most people blame the sitting president for just about everything, including legislation. That is until your side controls the executive and then they blame Congress (assuming it is controlled by the other party, assuming it is controlled by the other party otherwise they just don't bring it up).

If a Democrat Congress had passed the repeal of Glass-Stegall and Bush signed it then it would obviously be Bush's fault that it was repealed. Since a Democrat signed it into law it is obviously the fault of the Republican.

Even better is the makeup of the Congress that passed it. The Senate had a 54(R)-46(D) split or 54%-46%. The House had an even smaller majority at 222(R)-210(D) with one independent for a 51.2%-48.5% split. The bill passed the senate with a 90-8 vote and the House with a 362-57 vote. Most of the nay votes in both houses were from Democrats but the vast majority of Dems in both houses voted to pass the bill. This is about as bipartisan of a vote as you can get.

Not trying to pick on the Dems here, both sides do this every single chance they get, I am simply using the example already posted.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
100% correct again.

We've been through this at length here previously. There is no way either party will be able to fix this.

You could implement 100% of both parties suggestions (raise taxes and cut spending) and we'd still be running a big deficit.

The 'math' just isn't there.

Fern
Exactly. Even if you use DC funny money math (like perpetual growth at 5% without a single miss which is just flat out impossible) the math doesn't work. They have to get absurdly creative just to show the measly "savings" that they love to pat themselves on the back over as it is.

I have even seen projections that assume medicare and medicaid will only increase at the rate of inflation despite having decades of roughly 9% y/o/y cost increases.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Utter bullshit.

Read the article I linked above.

According to Woodward, Reid and Boehner had already agreed/compromised and were to pass the increase, it was Obama who balked and held things hostage for political tactics.

Fern
I don't see why we should expect Obama (or any President) to unconditionally accept something just because Congress put it forward. Agreeing on a a debt ceiling bill, or any bill for that matter, requires more than just Reid and Boehner agreeing on it and Obama shutting up and liking it. Now if your argument was that Obama's objections were totally unreasonable, that would be a different story, but that doesn't sound like what you're saying to me.

And I could be misremembering the whole situation, but I seem to recall the vast majority of the rhetoric about not raising the debt ceiling coming from Republicans. I think the lack of an agreement probably has enough blame to go around to all parties, but bringing up the idea of defaulting on our debt obligations was clearly a Republican idea and, IMHO, a logical contributing factor to the lowering of our credit rating. You can't publicly state your intention to not pay back your debt and then expect your credit rating to stay high.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
Can all you partisan hacks stop pretending that it matters who we put in office?

Every politician has paid for their position with their soul through special interest groups who they have to pay back once they're into office. Once the ball's rolling there, then they go back to focusing on getting re-elected by spewing more garbage that they can't or won't back up.

 
Last edited:

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Now both sides do this all the time so I am not picking on anyones favorite club but isn't it amusing how most people blame the sitting president for just about everything, including legislation. That is until your side controls the executive and then they blame Congress (assuming it is controlled by the other party, assuming it is controlled by the other party otherwise they just don't bring it up).

If a Democrat Congress had passed the repeal of Glass-Stegall and Bush signed it then it would obviously be Bush's fault that it was repealed. Since a Democrat signed it into law it is obviously the fault of the Republican.

Even better is the makeup of the Congress that passed it. The Senate had a 54(R)-46(D) split or 54%-46%. The House had an even smaller majority at 222(R)-210(D) with one independent for a 51.2%-48.5% split. The bill passed the senate with a 90-8 vote and the House with a 362-57 vote. Most of the nay votes in both houses were from Democrats but the vast majority of Dems in both houses voted to pass the bill. This is about as bipartisan of a vote as you can get.

Not trying to pick on the Dems here, both sides do this every single chance they get, I am simply using the example already posted.
And it works the other way around too. Credit NEVER goes to the President or Congress if they're not your party. It's pretty clear to me that people are way less interested in figuring out credit/blame than making sure their side ultimately benefits.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,497
436
126
You mean expire for everyone and not the relatively small portion that benefit those making $250k+, right?
Funny how the republicans are against tax cuts for people making less than that unless the very wealthy get their too.

Not to mention the fact that you just don't address the damage that the Bush Tax cuts have done to the U.S. debt situation because you're only answer is a Republican talking point about feigned concern for people who don't make over $250k...

But go on with your partisan hackery.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY