Hello:

Raising the debt ceiling is a utilitarian task that really shouldn't be subject to a vote, but it is. It's like taking out the trash. You either NEED to take out the trash, or you don't. It ISN'T subjective...

So, that's where we found ourselves a few weeks ago. We had a pile of trash that needed to be taken out. Now, it wasn't anybody's particular trash. Everybody contributed to the pile. But, we have this stupid law that says we have to VOTE in order to take out the trash.. I don't know why.

But, there were some who thought they could use the trash to leverage their position. They said they're NOT going to vote to take out the trash UNLESS we agreed to their terms.. Others said we can talk about it LATER because the trash is STINKING, and we got to get it out NOW...

It appears, however, the hoarders in congress thought having trash around was just hunky dory. According to them, we NEVER need to take it out. So, they said they're NOT going to vote to discard it EVER - EVEN IF their demands were met...

Now, the health department got to smelling the trash, and they warned us that they'll DOWNGRADE us, if we don't get rid of it pretty soon. The place was stinking pretty good about this time, and right before the Health Department was going to step in, we caved in to the demands of the interlopers, and voted to take the trash out.

End of story - everybody lived happily ever after...

Or not. The Health Department was all bummed out about the stink and got worried that the NEXT time, we actually might NOT take out the trash, so they DOWNGRADED us anyway. It cost us TRILLIONS.

The interlopers are saying that we got DOWNGRADED because we let the trash build up. It had NOTHING to do with the vote to take it out, or not... Besides, it wasn't THEIR trash anyway. Others are saying we got DOWNGRADED because we were held hostage to the stink..

Who is right?

excon

Raising the debt ceiling is a utilitarian task that really shouldn't be subject to a vote, but it is. It's like taking out the trash. You either NEED to take out the trash, or you don't. It ISN'T subjective...


Wrong... if you have too much on the credit card ;you stop making purchases or at least prioritize them. You don't say... well let's just take on more debt.

There is nothing on the S&P downgrade that says they are happy that we increased the debt. They are concerned that our leaders can't agree on ways to reduced the debt.

Further ;these ratings agencies are full of bull excrement . They let Fannie and Freddie ride over the cliff and never once gave so much as a warning .

Wrong ...if you have too much on the credit card ;you stop making purchases or at least prioritize them. You don't say .... well let's just take on more debt. Hello again, tom:

Actually, it's YOU who are wrong...

This had NOTHING to do with "making purchases", and EVERYTHING to do with PAYING for the purchases we ALREADY made.

Plus, you DO know that Obama just can't make purchases, as you intimate... He has NO authority to do that. CONGRESS makes purchases - Obama writes the checks. If there are more purchases, it's YOUR Republican House of Representatives that's making them.

Additionally, you appear to mirror the Tea Party when you suggest that, instead of raising the debt limit, Obama could just "prioritize" the payments...

I suppose what you're saying is, it's not really default if we only STIFF the LEAST important of our creditors... That makes NO sense at all. In the real world, default is DEFAULT.

excon

Guess you didn't read the S&P decision then.


We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. 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. 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.

I say that if any of the plans the House passed were signed there would not have been a downgrade.

Once again Ex you demonstrate your obscession with TRASH whether it is throwing trash in the air or taking out the trash of political policy makers you are right in there digging the dirt, oh sorry mixed methphor there. It is no good lamenting after the event the actions of a few would be presidential candidates for whom personal standing is more important than country, just send them the message at the appropriate time. From their performances in recent showings they are not serious candidates anyway. The S&P downgrading was a moment of reality in a storm of rhetoric, it is a shame that the ripple affected more than the pockets of some who would not pay more tax

If I wanted to pay more tax I'd live in a land Red Julia presides over .

If I wanted to pay more tax I'd live in a land Red Julia presides over .

Indeed Tom your contributions would be welcomed, but remember the taxes are paid by those who can afford it in contrast to the place where you live, so let's examine economic policy here, there must be some falacies in it somewhere;

Your government taxes less, provides less and has greater unemployment, lower interest rates and lacklustre performance. Our government taxes some more, provides much, has full employment once primitives are removed from statistics, higher interest rates and strong fiscal performance (some would dispute this). We pay our workers more, find work for them digging holes of one sort or another, and don't winge too much about helping the less fortunate. Something must be working.

Strangely they seem to be of similar political persuasion, perhaps that is an illusion.

Could I suggest you reverse your disastrous policies and give utopia a try. By the way we don't suggest for an instant that the little red fox has anything to do with anything other than taxing corporations and polluters. Surely you are for that?

you are a net exporter of energy resources(for now until your government regulates that to death too).Trust me... what plagues my country has been installed in your government .Electing a Gillard government guaranteed that you're nation is not immune to the economic malaise.

I'm content with less tax=less services. I ask not what my country can do for me.

you are a net exporter of energy resources(for now until your government regulates that to death too).Trust me... what plagues my country has been installed in your government .Electing a Gillard government guaranteed that you're nation is not immune to the economic malaise.

I'm content with less tax=less services. I ask not what my country can do for me.

Two things Tom;

We did not elect the Gillard government actually she presided over the greatest demise in support any political party has known. No, the Greens and independents have shown their true red colouring and allowed her to run a puppet government. If there is an economic malaise we know who caused it

You ask not what you country can do for you and... it does nothing, so therefore you are left with no alternative you must make the ultimate sacrifice

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

Who owns the downgrade?

The hit squad for the grand obstruction party, the TEA PARTY, who run the whole show from the low information, knee jerk right wing.

Any body notice how the debate went? They asked the panel if they would turn down a 10 to one deal spending to revenues. They said YES! Case closed.

"Resistance is futile" the Borg to the Federation/Star Trek The Next Generation.

Our government taxes some more, provides much, has full employment once primitives are removed from statistics, higher interest rates and strong fiscal performance

Take away our primitives, we look pretty good too, in the USA.

or on reaching an
Agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
Will remain a contentious and fitful process

Correct... S&P didn't care how we reduced our debt .They just wanted the debt reduced substantially . Tell me how raising the ceiling helped that ?

Take away our primitives, we look pretty good too, in the USA.

Which primitives are they tal? The tea party?

. Tell me how raising the ceiling helped that ?

Rhetorical questions Tom? We have too distinct arguments here Tom you know that. On the one hand we have some sort of primitive mechanism aimed at reducing government spending and on the other hand we have some sort of primitive mechanism aimed at reducing government spending or at least containing it to revenue raised. The first is pure B/S the second well we will give it the benefit of the doubt and suggest fiscal responsibility from an unbiased point of view

The BS was the idea that increasing the debt to levels above 100% of GDP moves the country towards fiscal soundness .

Obama has unleashed the dogs of SEC against S&P ,and I think he has a point.

S&P gave it's clients a heads up about the downgrade before it happened. It could explain some of the market reaction before the announcement .

Then Treasury informed S&P they had made a math error to the total of $2 trillion . But S&P had already told their clients of the pending move so they couldn't back out.

But it needed a new rationale for making the move... so they concocted the garbage about acrimony in government (as if that's something new).Despite the fact that we are seemingly dogs at each other's throat , business always gets done ,and a deal was struck.
It's hard to believe that France retains a triple A but the US is downgraded .

I think that is what the Obots believe .Their investigation by the SEC indicates that . Their attacks on the TP then are even more cynical therefore .They know the truth behind the downgrade.

S&P is full of it. As I already said;they let the economy drive off the cliff in 2008 with nary a warning. In fact ;most of their ratings during that period were for all intents fraudulent . So why do people take them seriously now when they know the whole rating business is a racket ?

How do I know that the President is probably right ? Well when investors took flight they parked their money into Treasuries . How could that be if the US debt was as bad as S&P says it is ?

The BS was the idea that increasing the debt to levels above 100% of GDP moves the country towards fiscal soundness .

Obama has unleashed the dogs of SEC against S&P ,and I think he has a point.

S&P gave it's clients a heads up about the downgrade before it happened. It could explain some of the market reaction before the announcement .

Then Treasury informed S&P they had made a math error to the total of $2 trillion . But S&P had already told their clients of the pending move so they couldn't back out.

But it needed a new rationale for making the move ....so they concocted the garbage about acrimony in government (as if that's something new).Despite the fact that we are seemingly dogs at each other's throat , business always gets done ,and a deal was struck.
It's hard to believe that France retains a triple A but the US is downgraded .

I think that is what the Obots believe .Their investigation by the SEC indicates that . Their attacks on the TP then are even more cynical therefore .They know the truth behind the downgrade.

S&P is full of it. As I already said;they let the economy drive off the cliff in 2008 with nary a warning. In fact ;most of their ratings during that period were for all intents fraudulent . So why do people take them seriously now when they know the whole rating business is a racket ?

How do I know that the President is probably right ? Well when investors took flight they parked their money into Treasuries . How could that be if the US debt was as bad as S&P says it is ?

Oh please now you are defending BO? You know Treasuries were the only game in town, you couldn't park your money in a bank. France might not keep its AAA long but they haven't been exhibiting unstable political tendencies. Would you be happy to hear that your government could make a 2 trillion dollar error and pass it off as mistake. B/S. Sure instills confidence. S&P don't exist to give economic warnings that is what your Treasury Dept is for but obviously they are doing a Bush and are asleep at the wheel

Oh please now you are defending BO?
A stopped clock is right twice a day.

So if I understand what you are saying BO is only right when he is standing still. How do you tell the difference?

which primatives are they tal? the tea party?

Probably the same as yours. Except they are ours. Actually, we all are primitives, it just that some won't admit it.

And S&P is full of crap. Always have been. How much does Australia need Clete, we seem to be rather flush at the moment. What you thought we were broke? Naw, next time someone tells you that, just change the channels, that's what we do.

Be aware though they run scary stuff on all the channels. Except Fox, that's where all the clown shows are.

Probably the same as yours. Except they are ours. Actually, we all are primitives, it just that some won't admit it.

And S&P is full of crap. Always have been. How much does Australia need Clete, we seem to be rather flush at the moment. What you thought we were broke? Naw, next time someone tells you that, just change the channels, thats what we do.

Be aware though they run scary stuff on all the channels. Except Fox, thats where all the clown shows are.

No Tal our primitives exist at a much lower political level they are a bottomless pit..

Tal we don't need anything, our opposition is searching for $70 billion to cut, perhaps if you contacted them... I have no idea what they will do with it if they find it, smaller government I expect or put it on a very fast train, or a very fast horse, on the other hand they could just throw out the new Great Big Tax On Everything Mark I (Mining Tax) and Mark II (Carbon Tax). Personally I'm hoping they throw out the little red fox.

I'm glad we don't get Fox here we have enough of the red one we see every day

A bit off topic... it looks like FOX DECIDED... they like Mitt.

I base that on the comparative tone and content of their Qs to the
Republican candidates during Thurs night's debate . You would think that Mitt was a contestant at a home run derby . One groved pitch after another .

a bit off topic ....it looks like FOX DECIDED ....they like Mitt. Hello again, tom:

So, fair and balanced went out the window... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Others are saying we got DOWNGRADED because we were held hostage to the stink..

Who is right?Hello again,

Didja SEE that every single one of the Republican candidates for president would REJECT a deal that included $1 in revenue for every $10 in CUTS??

That's a deal TWO POINT FIVE times better than the grand bargain Boehner was about to accept... S&P said that if the grand bargain had been reached, the downgrade WOULDN'T have happened...

Can you imagine how bad our credit rating will be if we elect ANY of these jokers?

excon

We already know the ruse... immediate tax increases for the promise of future spending reductions... the Wimpy plan

http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wimpy.jpg

we already know the ruse ....immediate tax increases for the promise of future spending reductions ......the Wimpy planHello again, tom:

And, your side can be trusted to DO what it says, because you elected... let's see, that wonderful fiscal conservative, George W. Bush??

Bwa, ha ha ha ha, IN SPADES!

excon

PS> Oh, that's right. He loved Jesus, so to hell with what he thinks about money..

PPS> Perry loves Jesus MORE!

The Tea Party owns the downgrade, and will take all the credit for destroy the government, the economy, and throwing grandma over the cliff, with the poor, the unemployed, and ship more jobs overseas.

That's not me judging, that's what they said they would do. I believe them. Got to go listen to Slick Rick give his state of the union in South Carolina.

PS> Oh, that's right. He loved Jesus, so to hell with what he thinks about money..



Now I know why you object to Jesus ex he paid his taxes

The last thing we need is a Republican governor who thinks McDonald's is a great job, and the rich should have all the money, and the poor should be even poorer, and the sick should just die, and be done with it.

I don't even count the rest of the field as credible, especially the crazy looking one. (take your pick if you are confused).

I don't even count the rest of the field as credible, especially the crazy looking one. (take your pick if you are confused).


http://i.imgur.com/7JbIu.jpg


BTW... the crazy one was the one who said it doesn't matter if Iran gets nukes . His groupies were out if force yesterday and gave him credibility he doesn't deserve.

Didja SEE that every single one of the Republican candidates for president would REJECT a deal that included $1 in revenue for every $10 in CUTS???

Can you imagine how bad our credit rating will be if we elect ANY of these jokers?
Hello again, tom:

Point fingers all you like..

However, after due consideration, the question Brett Baier of Fox News, asked of the Republican candidates is a GIFT to Obama that's going to KEEP on giving...

Their extremism WILL be exploited, and in my view, successfully so... Obama is weak. He HAD nothing to run on. His base doesn't like him any more... He OWNS a 747, but is riding on a BUS, for crying out loud. It LOOKED like a Republican actually HAD a chance...

Then the "GIFT" happened...

Now, I'm not thrilled about a second term... But, as discussed previously, the Supreme Court appointments he's going to make will shape the 21st Century LONG after you, me and Obama are gone.

excon

Now I know why you object to Jesus ex he paid his taxesHello again, clete:

I don't object to Jesus.. He was a NICE Jewish boy. My objection is about the organized way in which his teachings have been misconstrued, misapplied, and mishandled.

excon

after due consideration, the question Brett Baier of Fox News, asked of the Republican candidates is a GIFT to Obama that's going to KEEP on giving...


A show of hands is silly and undignified and has no place in a serious debate. Fred Thompson refused to participate in that charade in 2008 and he was right to refuse.

Obviously none of them were asked to explain their position . Best guess is that some of the "moderate " candidates raised them for political expediency (the equivilence of GHW Bush breaking his 'no new taxes' pledge ;and for the obvious... that you don't give away your best bargaining tool .

When FOX hosts a Dem debate (hopefully)... or sits down with the President ;I hope Baier asks the Dems if THEY would accept a 10:1 cut /tax increase deal . I wonder how many hands would be raised ? I wonder if the President would go on record today and say he'd support such a deal.
Let's deal in reality please !

Reality?? A democratic debate on FOX!!

Yeah ,gave the dems too much credit for guts... btw... 3 times in 2008 MSNBC hosted the Republicans. Not once did the Dems go on Fox.

Did Fox invite the Dems and they said no?

Yes Fox was turned down twice by the Dems... one in Nevada ;and one sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus... and lost out on a bid to ask questions during the VP debate.

Obama owns it... he is now to always be known as President Downgrade.

Obama owns it.......Hello smoothy:

Nahhh... Bush does, or maybe even Reagan. But, my saying it, doesn't make it so, any more than YOU saying it makes it so.

If you want to offer an argument to support your claim, I'll argue with you...

excon

Hello smoothy:

Nahhh... Bush does, or maybe even Reagan. But, my saying it, doesn't make it so, any more than YOU saying it makes it so.

If you want to offer an argument to support your claim, I'll argue with you...

exconObamas the one in office... he's been in office for over 2.5 years now... since he's the president... it makes it HIS downgrade.

I just have to let the editors of National Review answer this question (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273907/obama-makes-history-our-aaa-credit-editors?page=1):


Obama Makes History (of Our AAA Credit)

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are betting their political futures on the hope that the American electorate is ignorant and forgetful, and hence the memo has gone out to functionaries hither and yon, from David Axelrod to John Kerry: This is to be called the “tea-party downgrade.” That this is said with straight faces bespeaks either an unshakable contempt for the mind of the American voter or an as-yet unplumbed capacity for Democratic self-delusion.

Let us revisit the facts. The original debt-ceiling deal put forward by the Democrats totaled $0.00 in debt reduction. This would have fallen approximately $4 trillion short of the $4 trillion in debt reduction the credit-rating agencies suggested would constitute a “credible” step toward maintaining our AAA rating and avoiding a downgrade. This $0.00 program was the so-called “clean” debt-ceiling bill — the one that contained not a farthing of debt reduction. Bad as it was, Republicans agreed to give Democrats a vote on it. Some 82 Democrats and every Republican voted against it, and for good reason: Doing nothing at all is hardly a “credible” program.

The Democrats have suggested that Republicans’ refusal to accede to tax hikes is the main reason Standard & Poor’s felt it necessary to issue a downgrade, the first in American history, last Friday evening. In their assessment of Standard & Poor’s reasoning, the Democrats are acutely at odds with Standard & Poor’s. The credit-rating agency did not call for tax hikes in its assessment: “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 U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.” No position on tax hikes. But S&P, along with the other credit-rating agencies, has long taken a position on one aspect of our fiscal troubles: entitlement reform. From S&P again: “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.”

As anybody who has looked at our long-term deficit projections knows, entitlement spending is the major driver of our future deficits. With unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare already running into trillions of dollars — many multiples of our GDP — it is implausible that taxes would be raised sufficiently to meet those obligations. Sustaining present spending levels over coming decades while maintaining current levels of debt would mean nearly doubling every federal tax: income, payroll, inheritance, excises, etc. To repeat: That’s to maintain current debt levels, not to reduce them. Even if the political will existed to inflict such tax increases on the American people, doing so would prove economically ruinous. Entitlement reform, then — not taxes, not President Obama’s fictitious “balanced approach” — is rightly understood, as S&P argues, as the “key to long-term fiscal sustainability.” Tea-party leaders, far from being a barrier to entitlement reform, have demanded it.

The main obstacle to reform is the gentleman who lives at at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his legislative enablers down the street. Recall: Though Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives from 2008–10, and therefore could have forced through any budget they saw fit, they left the nation with no budget at all — much less a reformed or balanced one — never bothering to pass one in the year before they lost their House majority. Though congressional Democrats could not be bothered, President Obama did submit a 2011 budget. It contained $0.00 toward entitlement reform. He soon disavowed his own budget proposal. The president later gave a speech in which he said he’d like to see $4 trillion in deficit-reduction, but submitted no budget or other legislation to accompany that rhetoric. The head of the Congressional Budget Office, a Democrat, was moved to observe dryly that his agency “does not score speeches.”

But the CBO does score legislative proposals, and gave good marks to a bipartisan proposal offered by the president’s own hand-picked deficit-reduction panel. The presidential commission offered a credible plan, one that even included the tax increases so beloved of this administration. Naturally, the president disavowed his own commission’s proposal, just as he would disavow his own budget proposal. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi declared it “dead on arrival” in the House. The plan was angrily rejected by congressional Democrats precisely and specifically because it contained modest entitlement-reform proposals. Likewise, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which would have brought health-care entitlement spending down to sustainable levels while making key reforms to improve the performance of those programs, passed the House only to be rejected out of hand by Sen. Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues, precisely because it contained entitlement reforms. It would have cut some $4.4 trillion off of the deficits over a decade, well beyond the $4 trillion mark suggested by the credit-rating agencies. But Democrats would have none of it.

The deal that finally did pass would have contained significantly more in deficit-reduction, except for the fact that Democrats categorically refused to consider — is this sounding familiar? — entitlement reform, the most important issue.

Content to offer blind opposition, the Obama administration never put forward a detailed plan of its own, though it insisted it had one, a fact that resulted in a moment of unintentional comedy when White House press secretary Jay Carney irritatedly asked unconvinced reporters: “You need it written down?” When it comes to the Obama administration and spending restraint, the American people have every reason to demand that the president put it in writing.

And so we are led to this sorry pass. We are sympathetic to protests that S&P may have reacted more strongly to the political drama surrounding the debt-ceiling debate than was justified by the underlying economics: Despite the troubles in the eurozone, which are quite severe, Germany and France currently boast of higher credit ratings than that of the United States, a nation that accounts for nearly a quarter of the world’s economic output. But even those who believe S&P has overreacted must concede that the finances of the United States have been considerably weakened since 2008. Obama’s deficits have been unprecedented in peacetime, and this downgrade is unprecedented for our nation, at war or at peace. Its effects remain unknown at this time, but its causes do not: S&P spelled out its reasoning quite clearly.

Entitlement reform is the “key issue.” The Tea Party is not standing in the way of entitlement reform. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are. Democrats believe that they have discovered a cartoon villain in the Tea Party, and they are hoping that American voters are gullible enough to be distracted by the political theatrics. Come November 2012, Americans should keep in mind both the insult and the injury — to the nation and its credit. President Obama has indeed “made history,” as he promised, but not the sort that we might have hoped for.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and every other Democrat own the downgrade. Unfortunately, they will continue to lie and place the blame on the Tea Party and most likely the media will do all they can to allow them to get away with it.

Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which would have brought health-care entitlement spending down to sustainable levels while making key reforms to improve the performance of those programs,

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and every other Democrat own the downgrade. Unfortunately, they will continue to lie and place the blame on the Tea PartyHello again, Steve:

You forget. I was in Vietnam. I already HEARD the BS that we had to DESTROY the village in order to save it...

I KNOW what a voucher is. It means if your bills are MORE than the voucher, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN. That ain't Medicare. It ain't CLOSE. Medicare would be DESTROYED under the Ryan plan. But, in the TWISTED logic of the right wing, they SAVE it... Would you pass that joint this way??

Beyond that, I suppose I'm lying in my OP when I blame the Tea Party. My argument means NOTHING. I'm just LYING. Uhhh, no I'm not, and my argument MUST be pretty convincing, because all you and smoothy can do is call me a liar.

excon

Typical Democrat argument... Bush owns everything... including Obama's own actions... but Obama owns nothing. Not even responsibility for knocking up his wife.

THere is really a shadow government operating out of Crawford TX, and those mean old republicans just won't let Obama do what he wants without question. Because we all really know Obama is the light, and he has all the answers...

That's why the Economy is booming so robustly at the moment... after all Obama inherited a 5.7% unemployment rate and turned it into a 9.3% unemployment rate and Quadrupled the national debt.

After all, why should reckless spending be a reason for a downgraded credit rating... its not like they do that to private individuals that overtly live beyond their means... but OH! They do that, don't they.

After all, why should reckless spending be a reason for a downgraded credit rating...Hello again, smoothy:

Yeah, I heard Michelle Bachmann saying she was right to vote against raising the debt ceiling.. She's deluded too.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I let someone else answer the OP (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/who-owns-downgrade-592391-4.html#post2873428) so apparently it is you calling the National Review editors the liars. Feel free to refute the facts they presented.

reckless spending
Definitely! Seven trillion dollars for two wars (one totally unnecessary), a faulty and unwanted Medicare Part D, and a dramatic government intervention to bail out damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy. Plus the debt ceiling raised seven times in eight years! Totally irresponsible!

unwanted Medicare Part D,

Thank you Teddy Kennedy !


a dramatic government intervention to bail out damaged financial institutions

Another huge mistake. You forgot stimulus .

Hello again, smoothy:

Yeah, I heard Michelle Bachmann saying she was right to vote against raising the debt ceiling.. She's deluded too.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Deluded... the people that think you can recklessly spend your way out of a financial crisis that was brought on by reckless spending in the first place are who are truly deluded.

If anyone else does that... your credit score goes in the tank. And see what happens then. Obama isn't a real deity as much as some people might believe... just because he says make it so... doesn't make it so.

Funny how S&P missed the recession, and even funnier, how everybody and his mama started buying treasury bonds after the downgrade, and Fitch, the other rating service just affirmed the AAA rating of the US. Hmmmm, maybe you wingers have your facts confused, especially when you listen to a financial institution, talk about economic policy, and low information partisan, opinion, that doesn't crunch the numbers.

That's why the downgrade is owned by the TEA party. They are the one who tied the raising of the debt ceiling, to the debt. That's like trying to tell the mortgage company, unless they lower their rates, you won't pay.

Try it, let me know how that works out for you.

Separate the apples from the oranges, and you will know how much fruit you have.

Funny how S&P missed the recession, and even funnier, how everybody and his mama started buying treasury bonds after the downgrade, and Fitch, the other rating service just affirmed the AAA rating of the US. Hmmmm, maybe you wingers have your facts confused, especially when you listen to a financial institution, talk about economic policy, and low information partisan, opinion, that doesn't crunch the numbers.

Thats why the downgrade is owned by the TEA party. They are the one who tied the raising of the debt ceiling, to the debt. Thats like trying to tell the mortgage company, unless they lower their rates, you won't pay.

Try it, let me know how that works out for ya.

Separate the apples from the oranges, and you will know how much fruit you have.

Gee Only a Democrat would blame a group that has NOTHING to do with the current situation that they themselves cause and are responsible for.

The Tea Party didn't waste that money... Democrats did. The Tea Party didn't block the only legislation that would have worked towards correcting the current situation... Democrats did.

The Tea Party didn't control both the house and the Senate the last 4.5 years, and they didn't have the White house the last 2.5 years... Democrats did.

Democrats OWN this mess... THEY created it... denying it only indicates a psychological break with reality. Which would require treatment and/or medication.

They made it worse for everybody, and that's their plan, that's the republican plan, block, destroy, and obstruct. Hey they said so, I didn't make that up.

And to think the far right has the only plan, is crazy. There are many, its just the Ryan plan is the ONLY one YOU want. The far right will never listen to anyone but another far right winger, so what's the point of talking to you?

They made it worse for everybody, and thats their plan, thats the republican plan, block, destroy, and obstruct. hey they said so, I didn't make that up.

And to think the far right has the only plan, is crazy. There are many, its just the Ryan plan is the ONLY one YOU want. The far right will never listen to anyone but another far right winger, so whats the point of talking to you?

Really... the Concept of limiting your spending to what you bring in is crazy?

SO... are you crazy for not maxing out your credit cards... and taking loans you can't pay back? Or are you smart for living within your means... which is EXACTLY what the Tea Party demands the government do.

Obstruct... boy.. you have a set of balls to even make that stupid claim...

Obama isn't God... and you want to talk obstruction... Look at your lesser god Harry Reid... who refused to even allow a vote on legislation passed by a majority of the House... THAT is obstruction. The Democrats are obstructing... the Republicans are doing exactly what they have the right to do.

You do understand the concept of co-equal branches of government... you do understand the Office of President isn't a God... a King... or an Emperor.

taking loans you can't pay back?
Bush did it.

Bush did it.
Obama borrowed 4 times more in his first year in office than Bush had as a national deficit after 8 years.. In fact Obama has borrowed not only more than Bush did... he borrowed more than EVERY president since George Washington including Bush did... COMBINED.

But then the man has never had a real job in his life... the concept of living within a budget is beyond his ability to comprehend. So much for being the "smartest President we ever had" People with Downs Syndrome (at least those trained to be self sufficient) can do it... yet Obama can't.

But then... if he was a real man... he'd take ownership of his mistakes and shortcomings and stop the finger pointing. Its clear he's not enough of an adult or a man to do that.

Obama borrowed 4 times more in his first year in office than Bush did in 8 years. In fact Obama has borrows not only more than Bush did...he boroowed more than EVERY president since George Washington including Bush did....COMBINED.
SOMEone has to pay Bush's huge debts.

People do have to live within there means, and by all accounts we do, despite what the low information voters (Tea Party) says. But during a recession, somebody has to fill the void, during an emergency man made or natural, somebody has to fill the void. We have a void to be filled, who fills it? And by your logic about affording stuff, why are their still loop holes you wingers refuse to close? How come a billionaire can deduct all kinds of crap, and NOT create one job except in a third world country, and bring it back for you to buy?

How can states like TEXAS create so many jobs without raising the per capita income for the state, while having the poorest population, and the worse schools?

Who does your right wing plan work for? Not government, Not the people the government is supposed to serve, not the states and the people in it. WHO?

But blame everyone but yourself, because in truth, we all own some of the mess. Not just Nancy, and Harry, Or Barrack. But it gets you guys excited when those people are mentioned right? Someone to throw rocks at.

If aliens did invade the EARTH, whose side would you be on then?? Don't answer, you probably would blame that on Obama too!

You can't even debate a winger, because he has his own facts, and EVERYBODY else is wrong.

SOMEone has to pay Bush's huge debts.

Ok, so how much are Obama's huge debts?

Obama borrowed 4 times more in his first year in office than Bush had as a national deficit after 8 years.. Nope, he unhid debt figures that Bush hid: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html)

Also to refute your following point:
Has Obama Spent More Than Bush? Lets look at real numbers. | Cafetax (http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/)

SOMEone has to pay Bush's huge debts.

Bushes debt was a drop in the Bucket comapred to Obamas...


Obama not only DIDN'T make an any atempt to pay ANY of those... but he made them 4 times worse than the EVER were under Bush.

People with Downs Syndrome (at least those trained to be self sufficient) can do it....yet Obama can't.There is nobody on this website that sinks lower than you. Congratulations.

Nope, he unhid debt figures that Bush hid: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html)

Also to refute your following point:
Has Obama Spent More Than Bush? Lets look at real numbers. | Cafetax (http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/)

Really... those are BS and not at all factual... why don['t you just post the White house propaganda. Oh... those ARE the Whitehouse Propaganda. Not credible unbiased sources.

The New York times... you can't BE more biased than they are.


I suppose Obamas 9.3% unemployment is far better than the 5.7% unemployment Bush left office with.

Explain that to the Millions of people that had jobs under Bush that haven't under Obama... or is that their imagination too?

Really...those are BS and not at all factual...why don['t you just post the White house propaganda.Hehe, coming from a guy who never posts facts but speaks solely in hyperbole. :p

Hehe, coming from a guy who never posts facts but speaks solely in hyperbole. :p

Really... you haven't quoted facts... you quoted propaganda from highly biased sources.

Really...you haven't quoted facts.....you quoted propaganda from highly biased sources.They quote their sources, fell free to check them. Let's see your facts from an unbiased source then.

They quote their sources, fell free to check them. Let's see your facts from an unbiased source then.

NOTHING the New York Times prints is accurate or unbiased. The National Enquirer has a better reputation these days.

They systematically avoided everything negative about Obama since he started his campaign... and in fact push propaganda at the expense of real stories.

No wonder their circulation numbers are crap and falling. Who wants to pay to read propaganda... people want to see the news.

So you can't furnish any facts whatsoever for your outlandish claims? This doesn't surprise me. It's all hyperbole no facts.

I will give you a fact. Since the down grade, the yield on treasury bonds has gone in the negative. We can create a million jobs tomorrow, borrowing for infrasturucture projects that needs to be done. Got a bridge in your state that needs replacing? Or SCHOOL.

Bet a million jobs would shrink the deficit the right is so afraid of. Without selling Grandma a pill cutter.

Nope, he unhid debt figures that Bush hid: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html)

Refusing to pass a budget is one hell of a gimmick. It's also unconstitutional on the House side and unlawful on the Senate side to fail to propose a budget.


Also to refute your following point:
Has Obama Spent More Than Bush? Lets look at real numbers. | Cafetax (http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/)

So Obama's spending through 2009 as analyzed by this guy, whoever he or she is, is proof positive that Obama hasn't drastically worsened our debt problems?

So you can't furnish any facts whatsoever for your outlandish claims? This doesn't surprise me. It's all hyperbole no facts.

Really... The New York Times the biggest political partisans in the business... those are not facts... those are bold faced lies.

But then... some people believe in Alien abductions too... doesn't make it so either any more than just because the Times posts something doesn't make it fact either.

The Democrats answer to not having any plan at all is call people names...

What a bunch of children... and Mental Midgets we have in the white house.


Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists - Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html)

The jobless problem worsened the debt problem, fix that you go along way toward fixing the debt.

He submitted a budget, but it was voted down remember. The result of the debt ceiling crisis IS the new budget. Minus a few trillion, and a few more to follow. Now the nature of cuts is all that is left to be realized.

Refusing to pass a budget is one hell of a gimmick. It's also unconstitutional on the House side and unlawful on the Senate side to fail to propose a budget.Wow, the republicans must be scared and a bunch of >Removed< if they can't even act on that. Is that who you want governing the country??

Wow, the republicans must be scared and a bunch of >Removed< if they can't even act on that. Is that who you want governing the country???

You do realize Republicans only control the House? You think they can get enough Democrats in the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to punish Democrats? Good logic there, NK.

You do realize Republicans only control the House? You think they can get enough Democrats in the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to punish Democrats?
If they did it right they could.

You do realize Republicans only control the House? You think they can get enough Democrats in the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to punish Democrats? Good logic there, NK.But they haven't even brought it up. Of course one of the options is that you're wrong about the unlawfulness and unconstitutional part as well.

If they did it right they could.

Feel free to explain.

But they haven't even brought it up.

Wrong.


Republicans step up calls for Democrats to offer budget proposal (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/19/republicans-step-up-calls-for-democrats-to-offer-budget-proposal/#ixzz1VIGVh9OM)
12:16 AM 05/19/2011


As the bipartisan “Gang of 6″ talks appear to have stalled indefinitely, Senate Republicans are stepping up the pressure on the Democratic majority to produce a budget plan.

Thursday marks the 750th day since the Senate last passed a budget. After weeks of expecting a proposal to be put forward only to have nothing materialize, one Republican staffer speculated to The Daily Caller that Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad may skip the committee markup process altogether.

Conrad himself has said he has no immediate plans to bring a budget proposal to the committee. And according to the staffer, while Democrats have been working around the clock on a proposal, there was no activity over the weekend.

“It doesn’t look good for a committee process,” the staffer said.

“The Democrats campaigned for control of this chamber,” said Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions of Alabama. “They asked for the job. Let’s see their budget.”

Texas Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn took to Twitter to ask, “What? Still no budget?”

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota also tweeted Wednesday “749 days have passed since @senatedems passed a budget. With the #national debt over $14 trillion, what’s the rush?”

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman also joined in on Twitter, saying “We’re in a fiscal crisis, yet the #Democrat led Senate has not passed a #budget in 748 days.”

But while calling on the Democrats to produce a budget is nothing new, Republicans took it a step further Wednesday by accusing the majority of wasting time in what has been an uncharacteristically slow session.

That was clear when the Senate Republican Conference, chaired by Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, sent out a press release with a bold headline reading “Democrats’ spending marches on while their budget is MIA…but delay hasn’t been because the Democrats haven’t had the time.”

The release went on to highlight recent reports about the Senate’s lack of productivity of late. As of last week, the Senate has only held 70 roll call votes – the lowest level at this point of the year the chamber has seen since 1997.

Five whole weeks were also devoted to getting a small business bill to pass the Senate. It ended up failing anyway on a disagreement over process.

“The fact that President Obama and the Democrats who control the Senate have not put forward a responsible budget is not only disappointing — it’s alarming,” said Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

“We are ready for a robust debate on the future of our country, but, as the majority, Senate Democrats must show some leadership first,” Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee said.

Conrad’s office at the Budget Committee did not respond to TheDC requests for comment.


Of course one of the options is that you're wrong about the unlawfulness and unconstitutional part as well.

I may have overstepped on the unconstitutional part although the House is the House of revenue according to Section 7. I'm not too big to admit when I'm mistaken. But, they are required by law:

THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS (http://infousa.state.gov/economy/finance/budgetprocess.html)

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_o f_1974)

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree about the legal requirement for a budget... But, complaining about it, as though it's a reason for the problems we have, is simple partisanship and a deflection from the real problems...

The Democrats do it too. It's THEIR intention to use ANY advantage they can to SLAM the other guy and gain POWER for themselves.. I think I mentioned that in another post...

The two sides are still talking PAST each other. I know, I know. You're going to say YOUR side is sincere, but the other guys aren't... Nahh. They ALL suck.

Vote for Ron Paul.

excon

Feel free to explain.
Congress would be "doing it right" if they put politics aside and their own greed too and thought honestly about the American public needs and how Congress can address those needs.

These speak volumes...

Amusing, but hardly speaking volumes.

Amusing, but hardly speaking volumes.
It shows what a bunch of twits the democrats voted into office.