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

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
All facts. Sorry they don't mesh with your own warped reality.

Removing Glass Steagull was the direct cause of the economic collapse, pushed heavily and passed by republicans.

Bush's budget resulted in Obama's first year's expenditures.

Holding the credit hostage caused the downgrade, which not only was obvious to anyone paying attention, but confirmed by the rating agencies.
The repeal of Glass Steagull (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999 - That's called Bi-Partisan.

2009 Was a Bush budget but it was signed by Obama.

The first downgrade was because of bickering between parties over the budget and for not having a clear plan to reduce future debt.

S&P was direct in its criticism of the governance and policy-making process, which took the U.S. to the brink of default as part of the 2011 U.S. debt-ceiling crisis that same week:
"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. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us 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."
"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. 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. 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."
What was that you said about facts? Maybe you should just stop making shit up as you go.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Dont trust charts with future spending and revenue on it. More likely than not the spending is lower and they are over estimating the incoming or increase in revenues. This economy is a depression, not a recession.

If Our debt keeps getting downgraded then the cost of borrowing will increase and we will have to pay more on our bonds.

Under O'Bammah the debt is like a time bomb too many downgrades and everything costs more. It is like a giant snowball rolling down an hill.

Dont forget Turkey or Spain???
 
Last edited:

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
The repeal of Glass Steagull (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999 - That's called Bi-Partisan.

2009 Was a Bush budget but it was signed by Obama.

The first downgrade was because of bickering between parties over the budget and for not having a clear plan to reduce future debt.



What was that you said about facts? Maybe you should just stop making shit up as you go.
Both the house and senate were controlled by Republicans, who brought up the legislation. This gives them the blame. Clinton also shares the blame, but like most legislation, repealing G-S was only a small part of the overall bill, leading Clinton to hold his nose and sign it due to needing everything else in the bill.

A Bush budget shouldn't be blamed on Obama. It just wouldn't make any sense.

It wasn't because of random bickering.. it was because the Republicans wanted to keep the most bloated military in the world untouched, keep tax cuts for the rich, and gut social spending programs. If you think that that is A-ok, then of course you could try to claim "both parties did it." That would be false equivalence and would ignore reality though. Creating your own fantasy reality would be easier for you over at freeperville.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
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 didn't have a damn thing to do with Obama's spending.



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
Republicans controlled Congress at the time and in typical fashion, added it into a bill with a ton of other things. Clinton holds some blame, but it was a small part of a bigger bill that he wanted signed. The Republicans are the one that added it into such a bill in the first place.

If you think Obama caused the downgrade, then you simply weren't paying attention or are a hack. The Republicans wouldn't raise taxes, wouldn't let tax cuts for the rich expire, or to touch the most insanely bloated military spending in the world. Let go of the crazy please.

Umm, yeah, Bush's budget and Bush's stimulus and Bush's foreign occupations that were previously left OFF THE BOOKS are ALWAYS added into Obama's numbers when people cry about it... so it absolutely has everything to do with it.

Being disingenuous doesn't help your case... only makes you look more like a hack.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
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 be the first.

Fern
A compromise doesn't mean giving the Republicans everything they want. The best thing that happened was to require REAL cuts in the future if the Republicans refuse to play ball, which they continue to do. THAT was leadership.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
Both the house and senate were controlled by Republicans, who brought up the legislation. This gives them the blame. Clinton also shares the blame, but like most legislation, repealing G-S was only a small part of the overall bill, leading Clinton to hold his nose and sign it due to needing everything else in the bill.

A Bush budget shouldn't be blamed on Obama. It just wouldn't make any sense.

It wasn't because of random bickering.. it was because the Republicans wanted to keep the most bloated military in the world untouched, keep tax cuts for the rich, and gut social spending programs. If you think that that is A-ok, then of course you could try to claim "both parties did it." That would be false equivalence and would ignore reality though. Creating your own fantasy reality would be easier for you over at freeperville.
I see you are just going to continue to make shit up or just repeat what you heard on MSNBC rather than acknowledge any facts. I showed to that the majority of Democrats voted for the Galss-Steagall repeal, yet you still only blame the republicans for it. I also quoted you why our credit rating got downgraded and you still blame republicans for that. At least do what most other here do and once you are totally proven wrong just ignore the thread.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
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.
Lmao, I do not do partisan hackery because I despise both piece of shit parties but please go on with your ignorant assumptions.

I simply asked a very straight forward question and I didn't get a straight forward answer.

The fact remains that the tax cuts for the rich are a very small portion of what the Bush tax cuts actually cost us and continue to cost us. To remove that cost going forward you would have to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, so I will ask again, is that what you are advocating your side do? Or are you going to claim that adding 30ish billion in revenue is going to fix a damn thing? Hell, lets call it 50 billion, how does that affect the chart that (I believe) you posted?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Both the house and senate were controlled by Republicans, who brought up the legislation. This gives them the blame. Clinton also shares the blame, but like most legislation, repealing G-S was only a small part of the overall bill, leading Clinton to hold his nose and sign it due to needing everything else in the bill.
Lol. I posted the actual breakdown of the house and senate. The Republicans had a very small minority and the bill could have easily been blocked by the Dems. Instead it had huge bipartisan support but hey, its still the other guys fault right?

Gotta love how you give Clinton a pass for signing a bill that single handedly allowed 90% of this mess to happen but at least, according to you, he got some good stuff right? Please see the next post to see exactly how wrong you are on Clinton "holding his nose".


A Bush budget shouldn't be blamed on Obama. It just wouldn't make any sense.
Wait, a minute ago you were blaming Congress for passing a bill and now you are blaming a president who didn't even sign it?

It wasn't because of random bickering.. it was because the Republicans wanted to keep the most bloated military in the world untouched, keep tax cuts for the rich, and gut social spending programs. If you think that that is A-ok, then of course you could try to claim "both parties did it." That would be false equivalence and would ignore reality though. Creating your own fantasy reality would be easier for you over at freeperville.
Couldn't Obama have simply vetoed it? I admit that I haven't read up on this particular issue but didn't Obama have a huge Dem majority by the time he would have signed the "Bush" budget meaning he could veto it and his Dem House could write a bill much more to his liking?
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Republicans controlled Congress at the time and in typical fashion, added it into a bill with a ton of other things. Clinton holds some blame, but it was a small part of a bigger bill that he wanted signed. The Republicans are the one that added it into such a bill in the first place.
Do you have any proof of the above? I would really really like to see it because I have proof to the contrary.



Rob Rubin, who was Clintons Secretary of Treasury for both of his terms is credited just about everywhere I have read for getting the repeal of Glass-Stegall pushed through. That would mean that the Clinton administration not only wanted the repeal but actively sought it which is quite contrary to what you keep claiming. I would truly love to see whatever facts you have to show that it was really the Republican congress and Clinton held his nose while signing it, despite his own Treasury Secretary being instrumental to its passing.

From Rob Rubin's wiki:

Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers also steered through the 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act (1933), which had separated investment banking from the retail side. It allowed the banks to develop and sell the mortgage-backed instruments that became a principal factor in the financial collapse. In September 2011, the UK Independent Commission on Banking released a report in which it recommended a separation of investment and retail banking to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis.
I do hope you respond with actual sources instead of what appears to be stuff you are just making up as you go.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,495
436
126
I simply asked a very straight forward question and I didn't get a straight forward answer.
I gave you the asnwer. Extending the tax cuts for people under a certain income was discussed and proposed that's how the $200k-250k sum became a number referenced in the political consciousness.

I love how idiots say "well it's such a small portion of the Bush Tax cuts" when they ignore the fact that people who make under a certain amount will when they get a tax cut will much more likely spend that money on material things that will echo throughout the economy

E.I. they're get a newer car with better gas mileage, or improve the insulation on their house, or if they're really on the lower end of the wage spectrum buy more food and better clothes.

The wealthy when they get a tax cut are much more likely to either park it off shore or pay for lobbyists to get even more tax loopholes or cuts in capital gains taxes because they have all of their material "needs" met.

If they don't do either of the above they look for the next big bubble to invest in.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
I gave you the asnwer. Extending the tax cuts for people under a certain income was discussed and proposed that's how the $200k-250k sum became a number referenced in the political consciousness.

I love how idiots say "well it's such a small portion of the Bush Tax cuts" when they ignore the fact that people who make under a certain amount will when they get a tax cut will much more likely spend that money on material things that will echo throughout the economy

E.I. they're get a newer car with better gas mileage, or improve the insulation on their house, or if they're really on the lower end of the wage spectrum buy more food and better clothes.

The wealthy when they get a tax cut are much more likely to either park it off shore or pay for lobbyists to get even more tax loopholes or cuts in capital gains taxes because they have all of their material "needs" met.

If they don't do either of the above they look for the next big bubble to invest in.
I love how, when talking specifically about the deficit and debt, idiots will start talking about something completely different to back up their to back up their ignorant views.

So, with that said, do you concede that the Bush tax cuts do not have nearly the impact that you say they do since you agree with the vast majority of them and do not think those portions should be repealed or allowed to expire? Or would you please show me how your chart is accurate if you consider ONLY the tax cuts for the rich since you agree with the other tax cuts? Or you can just admit that you are full of shit and/or don't understand the simple math we are using.

BTW, I actually agree with most of your post but its completely irrelevant in the scope of our current debate.

PS: I would really love to see the chart yall love to use with ONLY the small portion of the Bush tax cuts for the rich included since the left agrees with the rest. I bet I won't though because it doesn't exactly convey the point you are trying to make.

Edit: Been a while since I looked up the numbers but what you are calling for would get us an additional $366 Billion over the next 10 years or $36.6B a year which is less than 4% of this years deficit alone. Hardly the reason that we are running such a huge deficit/racked up such a huge amount of debt as you originally claimed.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
Umm, yeah, Bush's budget and Bush's stimulus and Bush's foreign occupations that were previously left OFF THE BOOKS are ALWAYS added into Obama's numbers when people cry about it... so it absolutely has everything to do with it.
They were not "off the books". They were in a separate spending measure and the cost has always been 'on the books'.

Fern
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
lol.

For one, Obama's going to win, so try and get over it, quickly.

Two, his agenda will largely get passed in a 2nd term, specifically immigration, energy & environment/global warming, merely building on the success with healthcare & financial reform that already and despite all the obstructionism in the world will in fact take effect.

Third and quite importantly, Americans simply give Obama a good deal of credit for the good and not the bad, by and large, because they acknowledge by a large majority that Bush is still to blame.

Sleep tight, troll. lol.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
lol.

For one, Obama's going to win, so try and get over it, quickly.

Two, his agenda will largely get passed in a 2nd term, specifically immigration, energy & environment/global warming, merely building on the success with healthcare & financial reform that already and despite all the obstructionism in the world will in fact take effect.

Third and quite importantly, Americans simply give Obama a good deal of credit for the good and not the bad, by and large, because they acknowledge by a large majority that Bush is still to blame.

Sleep tight, troll. lol.
Isn't it a shame that in all those 2,300+ pages they couldn't fit the very simple and straightforward 37 page law that was repealed and allowed the "great recession" to happen?

Even more of a shame is it really doesn't matter who wins, we will get virtually the same exact thing with very few and even less significant differences.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
6
81
People need to stop being so stupidly partisan.

BOTH SIDES are at fault for the mess we are in. "Savior" Obama and his hack job of economics has not and will not fix anything. Bush spent money like nobody's business. Politicians from both sides have their pet programs that they don't want to defund, regardless of how absolutely worthless those programs really are. And the general populous acts like everybody owes them everything.

You guys (and all of America) seriously need to stop with the ridiculousness. Stop harboring such hatred toward others as that will only serve to divide more and not solve anything. If we don't find a way to work together toward the good of the nation instead of focusing so much energy on just making the other guy look bad we'll all suffer more. And no, working together doesn't mean one side giving into the whims of the other side as some might want or suggest.

I am really, truly sick of this crap.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
Why are people voting for Obama again?
Perhaps because they realize that voting for Romney/Ryan is not a magic wand for the economy that will result in sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows... and that the devil they know is better than the devil they don't.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
The credit rating downgrade twice in one year, our embassies is being overrun, $6 Trillion Debt in 4 years, 8% Unemployment, list of lies a mile long. Why are people voting for Obama again?
Because he has successfully been easing one of the worst recessions in history. Why do you attribute everything negative to him, seems very irrational. Did he overrun the embassies? Did he fire everyone? Did he stop the credit limit from raising to make a political point?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Because he has successfully been easing one of the worst recessions in history. Why do you attribute everything negative to him, seems very irrational. Did he overrun the embassies? Did he fire everyone? Did he stop the credit limit from raising to make a political point?
He did not keep his promises to the people.

He took the job without blinders on and either deceived himself or the people that he could do the job.

A multitude of promises built on transparency and hope/change have failed. And he feel he DESERVES another chance to get nothing accomplished.

He has failed on leadership
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY