It seems no matter what , our rating is

[deziloooooo]

going to drop, from AAA to AA.

Remember , it is not us who rate our selves but outside interests who see how viable and healthy a entity, whether individual , city, town or even a country is, financially.

If they see a problem as far as safety and financial well ness they rate accordingly.

If our rating drops, it will affect us ..in the pocket book.

This is a interesting thought and possibility and one I am thinking the POTUS should consider, though I am not that familiar with it and am not sure what he can do and not do. I take it he could not raise revenues..example close loop holes he thought were needed or do away with Bush's tax cuts..in other words raise revenues..bu it seems he could raise the debt ceiling, through 2013, after the election and as far as expenditures, either don't fund them, cut the revenue to hose programs unilaterally, thus gaining credit for cuts to expenditures, which the pubs want, how can they object beyond the screaming that they were not involved, and cut where HE feels it is necessary yet keep programs where HE feel they are necessary.

Then he goes before the populace and trys to sell his doings..They accept or do not accept his doings, so be it.

While some here disagree I feel he has to realized the opposition is not interested in ANT dialog, they are the enemy, and their one desire is to see he is NOT reelected and will do ANYTHING , anything to keep him from being elected so he owes them NOTHING.

The American populace will have their say, either agree that the other side did nothing to help the man the past four years or that the POTUS was out of touch..and should not have another four years in power..and that is fine with me.

I am with Clinton on this one, use the option and see how it plays out.
-----------------------------------------------

"Still on the table is the 14th Amendment option, a route where Obama would essentially raise the debt ceiling by executive order, thus bypassing Congress entirely, and at whatever limit he desired to get beyond the next election. The amendment, which states "The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned," hasn’t been tested. Earlier this month, President Bill Clinton urged Obama to go that route and let Republicans take up issues of legality with the courts. Obama, however, has batted down the prospect several times, noting on Monday "that's not how our democracy functions."
-------------------------------------------------
news.yahoo.com/u-credit-downgrade-inevitable-032700785.html
-------------------------------------------
[Click on the link to read the whole article]
----------------------------------------------
Analysis: U.S. credit downgrade 'inevitable'


Congress deadlocked over debt as default looms
Reuters - 34 mins ago

Only seven days stand between the U.S. and the effects of a credit default. But a downgrade of the nation’s stellar AAA credit rating seems a lot more likely, and a lot sooner.

"The White House had been alerted repeatedly over the past month by rating agencies that without a strong, long-term plan to restructure the country’s debt, they would lower America’s credit rating as soon as this Friday, according to two officials familiar with the process. The White House was warned that the deal would have to be significant—and not a short-term fix over the next few days to avoid a credit drop.

Analysts with Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, the nation’s top two rating agencies, declined to be quoted on the record, indicating that even benign statements about timing and ratings decisions can rattle markets and startle investors. But earlier this month, both agencies placed the U.S. government on notice of a downgrade of at least one notch, if not more, to a AA rating. In a written statement, S&P analysts said they believed "there is an increasing risk of a substantial policy stalemate enduring beyond any near-term agreement to raise the debt ceiling."

[Deleted]

It seems no matter what , our rating is going to drop, from AAA to AA.

A while back someone here compared the national debt to their own debt saying that percentage wise it wasn't that bad. Well sadly like in personal loans, the debtor doesn't get to rate themselves nor do they get to name what percentage of interest they will pay. Our credit rating is going to drop & should drop because spending is out of control & it seems unstoppable.

Now deziloooooo, you & I look at both the problems & solutions exactly opposite.
You say Republicans aren't willing to compromise. I say if the democrats were really interested in getting us out of the hole we are in they 1. Would be scrambling trying to compromise - they not only aren't but have made one of the conditions reversal of the tax cuts which they know Republican's won't compromise on. 2. wouldn't keep spending. 3. would have come up with a budget 4. wouldn't have done that horrendous stimulus package that brought us (with current spending) to the debt ceiling in the first place.

As for the tax cuts that democrats want to revoke. They are a liberal buzzword right now & have been for a while. Do any "normal" democrats actually know how much money is involved? I kind of doubt it because (for instance) we are talking about a 3% cut on the rich. That's 3%! As stated before (& it's verifiable, you can find the numbers on your own) if you took every cent the rich made (total earnings in a year) it wouldn't run our government for 6 months so how f****** important could 3% more of their earning actually be? On the other hand 3% more invested in companies that produce jobs just might save a few families. (We already know that the government will spend that money just as ineffectively as they normally do).

I am for government shutdown because we have to FORCE spending cuts. Raising the ceiling will just delay the inevitable because the democrats now have control & they have shown that they aren't interested in addressing the issue at all. Now both parties are responsible for this problem, & probably both party stances on this issue are the result of their best guess as to what will get (or keep) them in power. Neither parties motivation really matters though, what matters is one party wants to cut spending & that's what's best for the country.

[deziloooooo]

From what I have seen the POTUS has offered cuts..big ones..and wants to get this temporary battle for after the election..let the American populace decide how they want the government to go, naturally cut spending and entitlements but at what pace.

All these cuts are going to affect millions and I believe if they pubs won the election in 2012 and then looked at the cuts some in their party wanted, whoever was the leader would realized they are to drastic for a short term policy and would have to much pain for to many people..unless you feel , "tough nuggies"..there own fault, if they go down, they go down, better for the country and you could live with those results..also , you just might find your self , through no fault of your self In the same position of these unfortunates, one never knows and when you looked for help, it just wasn't there any more, and the POTUS in office would find to cut as his party wants, just not acceptable , and then what.
[ And if not you personally, possible some very close relations,, neighbors , close friends, even parents and grand parents if still alive]

[Deleted]

From what I have seen the POTUS has offered cuts..big ones..

As a matter of fact I just saw a story on those "BIG" cuts President Obama offered. They are only BIG to the common man (like you & me). The amount of money that he proposed to cut from spending equaled what the government spends in 2 & 6 hours. He wasn't trying to cut anything, he was playing politics to get re-elected.

[humok]

LIFE as "we" know it is about to drastically change whether "we" believe it or not....as one use to say "guns and plenty of ammo"....

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...and why raise the debt ceiling to last until after the next presidential election? what's the mathematical reason to pinpoint 2013 as the next deadline?

[handyman2]

People hear about down grades if a debt ceiling is not raised. Well one rating agency has said that we will be down graded anyway if we do not lower the debt regardless whether we pass an increase or not. So to me it appears it is a case of danged if we do and danged if we don't What is really correct?

[Deleted]

People hear about down grades if a debt ceiling is not raised. Well one rating agency has said that we will be down graded anyway if we do not lower the debt regardless whether we pass an increase or not. So to me it appears it is a case of danged if we do and danged if we don't What is really correct?

My guess it that if we default our credit rating will go lower than if we just keep spending (at least right off). We as a country deserve that because we can't stop spending. We as a people deserve that because we have let this go on for so long without addressing the issue in elections. Now is the time to pull up our sleeves & start working on paying this money back.

This is not our children's or grand children's problem, it's ours to solve & we can do that. We can't solve them when 40% of the country doesn't pay federal taxes. We can't solve them when 20% of the whole welfare program has been on the program for 5 or more years. We can't solve them with expanded social programs. And we can't solve them by heaping more regulations & taxes on businesses. To solve them we need a robust economy where people are working & paying taxes. We need to cut spending but more than that we need to cut foolish spending completely.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jul 26, 2011 22:47:52 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

People hear about down grades if a debt ceiling is not raised. Well one rating agency has said that we will be down graded anyway if we do not lower the debt regardless whether we pass an increase or not. So to me it appears it is a case of danged if we do and danged if we don't What is really correct?

I think the best thing would be raise the debt ceiling to carry us through the fiscal year (Sept 30th 2011). This would included some meaningful cuts and streamlining of tax code.

Then let the fight begin all over again.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 27, 2011 11:27:32 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jul 26, 2011 22:47:52 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

People hear about down grades if a debt ceiling is not raised. Well one rating agency has said that we will be down graded anyway if we do not lower the debt regardless whether we pass an increase or not. So to me it appears it is a case of danged if we do and danged if we don't What is really correct?

I think the best thing would be raise the debt ceiling to carry us through the fiscal year (Sept 30th 2011). This would included some meaningful cuts and streamlining of tax code.

Then let the fight begin all over again.

I agree and it has been what I have been suggesting...let the debt ceiling rise enough to cover through the 2012 election..have the parties, Obama for the DEM'S, unless someone feels there would be another who got the party's nod to run, I don't, and whoever the Pubs put up, the congressionals who would be running, go before the constituents, plead their cases , present their ideas and let them , electorate, decide , who will be the next in charge.

To have a six month deal, and have to go through this all over again,. purposely IMHO from the pubs side to take the wind out of the POTUS sails to deal with this again, is not the way to go
I am so tired of this political BS from all sides, aren't you?

Let the American electorate make the call, and who ever wins..so be it but to side line the election just for political reasons..it is BS, and it is falling completely on the pubs heads if this is what is to be done.[IMHO of course]

I would rather the POTUS use executive Privilege if he had to, and get a increase to cover us through the election.

He could then say to the electorate, this is what I was forced to do, now you make the call..and let the pubs use that as a cry for poor leadership..but still , the electorate will be the ones who decide who was at fault for the POTUS to make such a decision.

Some here will feel it will be the POTUS who suffers, I don't.

I believe the other side will bear the brunt of the decision, IMHO of course. ;D

[verrip1]

The brunt will be felt at the place the buck stops. Harry Truman never would have let this happen.

What we have here is abject lack of leadership. And when that happens, it all falls on the main leader, and that would be Barack Obama. So far, he has miserably failed to find common ground with the opposition Party, and he's getting even less cooperation from his own Party.

Lack of leadership won't be ignored by those who elect the President, independents. Obama's got a few days left to act. His teleprompter won't get him out of this one; neither will his 'senior advisors' who are telling him not to back down.

I'm still confident in an 11th hour reprieve, but unfortunately it looks more and more that the reprieve will be to kick the can down the road again. That's going to hurt Obama the Ineffectual and hurt him badly.

I bet Hillary is laughing her ass off ...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...why raise the debt ceiling to carry us through the next presidential election? what is the mathematical reason for doing so?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> To have a six month deal, and have to go through this all over again,. purposely IMHO from the pubs side to take the wind out of the POTUS sails to deal with this again, is not the way to go
I am so tired of this political BS from all sides, aren't you? <<<

...Congress was okay with this 6mos ago... why not now?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> Let the American electorate make the call, and who ever wins..so be it but to side line the election just for political reasons..it is BS, and it is falling completely on the pubs heads if this is what is to be done.[IMHO of course] <<<

...and I still wonder, why focus on the POTUS or the next POTUS or even the next one? we have a national wallet that needs attention... like yesterday...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> I bet Hillary is laughing her "butt" off ... <<<

...wouldn't be surprised...



...edited quote to make it PG...;D

[cme1201]

What I find funny is POTUS this and POTUS that, it is the Elected members of Congress who have issues. On both sides of the Aisle, but for some it will always be the fault of the other party and never their own parties influence that causes bad things to happen.

[verrip1]

Jul 27, 2011 12:40:45 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

What I find funny is POTUS this and POTUS that, it is the Elected members of Congress who have issues. On both sides of the Aisle, but for some it will always be the fault of the other party and never their own parties influence that causes bad things to happen.

I never have to worry about that. I haven't been a member of either major party for more than three decades.

However, the President must be a leader in difficult times. This one isn't, and nobody with a lick of sense will give him a pass on his inept lack of leadership on this issue.

[cme1201]

Jul 27, 2011 13:29:32 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Jul 27, 2011 12:40:45 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

What I find funny is POTUS this and POTUS that, it is the Elected members of Congress who have issues. On both sides of the Aisle, but for some it will always be the fault of the other party and never their own parties influence that causes bad things to happen.

I never have to worry about that. I haven't been a member of either major party for more than three decades.

However, the President must be a leader in difficult times. This one isn't, and nobody with a lick of sense will give him a pass on his inept lack of leadership on this issue.

No actually I believe that he did lead, he offered a budget to the Senate that was rejected 0-93 (I believe was the vote). The Senate has made this a game, they shoot down anything that is offered to them and never offer anything back, at least nothing they put down on paper.

[Deleted]

I agree and it has been what I have been suggesting...let the debt ceiling rise enough to cover through the 2012 election..

Deziloooooo that's a great political solution for the democrats, but what about the country? The government (congress) spends between 2 & 3 million dollars per hour. So an 8 hour day for 5 days per week is 80 million dollars (if you take the lower number). Four weeks in a month would equal 320 million dollars & we have almost 2 years to the next election? Seems like one hell of a compromise that the American people are paying for that would mostly give the democratic party a better chance of staying in office. After all the democrats know that their best chance is to stimulate the economy & the main way to do that (since the POTUS has no clue how to do it) is to throw trucks of money at it.

If the government needs money the best way to get it is suspend some of the spending that they have already done. Get part of that stimulus package back (it didn't work anyway), cut funding for stupid stuff (God knows there's enough of it out there), & most of all QUIT SPENDING!

[deziloooooo]

It's not almost two years till the next election..actually a bit over 16 months..and as far as spending a day, of course we are spending..we have a military, a war being fought , a wind down of a war, SS, Medicare, medicaid, many Government programs, government employees, pensions, normal expendatures, hell , bathroom tissue in the Government rest rooms for example, not all are unnecessary , unless you expect employees to supply their own, cost of a business..doing business and Government is a business.

They are not going to solve this , make a major change right now, at most a compromise and to revisit it in six months, why?

Just so one side can make it a political point? You might like that, actually it might very well turn around and bite that side who feels it would be a good thing for them on their butts as as a negative , I think so, so put it off till AFTER the election, and who ever wins..then go from there.

[cme1201]

doing busines and Government is a business

No if the government were a business it would have shut down a long time ago, or been forced into bankruptcy.

[djAdvocate]

the OP is not true. at least one rating service said that if we managed to do the $4T deal, it would preserve our rating.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 27, 2011 14:16:02 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

doing busines and Government is a business

No if the government were a business it would have shut down a long time ago, or been forced into bankruptcy.

i don't think this is true either. but it is good to think about.

there are lots of companies that have never made a nickle, but have existed for decades on the largesse of investors.

[Deleted]

Just so one side can make it a political point? You might like that, actually it might very well turn around and bite that side who feels it would be a good thing for them on their butts as as a negative , I think so, so put it off till AFTER the election, and who ever wins..then go from there.

So the political points you want to make is to keep spending at the present rate & throw another billion dollars on the debt pile & maybe the democrats can get re-elected? That's exactly why I think we need to shut down the government, because of ideas like that.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 27, 2011 14:44:51 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Just so one side can make it a political point? You might like that, actually it might very well turn around and bite that side who feels it would be a good thing for them on their butts as as a negative , I think so, so put it off till AFTER the election, and who ever wins..then go from there.

So the political points you want to make is to keep spending at the present rate & throw another billion dollars on the debt pile & maybe the democrats can get re-elected? That's exactly why I think we need to shut down the government, because of ideas like that.

this showdown is likely going to cost us at least 1000x that.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 27, 2011 14:44:51 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Just so one side can make it a political point? You might like that, actually it might very well turn around and bite that side who feels it would be a good thing for them on their butts as as a negative , I think so, so put it off till AFTER the election, and who ever wins..then go from there.

So the political points you want to make is to keep spending at the present rate & throw another billion dollars on the debt pile & maybe the democrats can get re-elected? That's exactly why I think we need to shut down the government, because of ideas like that.

Come on now old, a Billion dollars..that is pocket change, chump change in regard to this problem..like 10/12 F-35's, the new Jet, like seven F-22's..the one we stopped making.

I suggest you reread my post..I am simple saying , to do a six month deal and have to revisit this before the election does not compute, is not logical.

If he has to, no deal done, then just use the 14th amendment, take care of the ceiling problem till after the election. Depending on the results, what ever happens happens in my view. For you I take it you will contemplate sepuku if a certain result happens? Not me, I like living to well, and we will just go on.

I believe many from the right think that if the POTUS does take that step, Presidential decree that is allowed by the 14th amendment that it will be a negative against him , the POTUS.

I am just suggesting it might just be the opposite, biting those who would like to see him do so, those from the right, see that it will back fire on THEM, not he and bite them in the butt as the American Populace decide he, POTUS was forced to do so by the non cooperation of the right, the party of no, that they , the right, were more interested in a new POTUS then the welfare of the country and the welfare of the average citizen.

I could be wrong don't think so, but could and if so, then what will be will be..no biggie. The will of the people.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I still do not see the mathematical reasons behind upping the debt ceiling to last until 2013...

[verrip1]

Jul 27, 2011 16:25:25 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I still do not see the mathematical reasons behind upping the debt ceiling to last until 2013...

Perhaps the reason has nothing to do with mathematics and everything to do with hoping to keep the President from making a tough decision before the election.

I'm sure the old guard Repos and Demos would love to keep from doing anything - it's familiar ground for them. They can always hope that everybody stops thinking about the debt limit and focuses on something like Dancing With The Stars. It's worked in the past, so why not?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 27, 2011 16:57:54 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Jul 27, 2011 16:25:25 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I still do not see the mathematical reasons behind upping the debt ceiling to last until 2013...

Perhaps the reason has nothing to do with mathematics and everything to do with hoping to keep the President from making a tough decision before the election.

i think the GOP is reading too much into this idea. he has already stated that he doesn't care about winning, and he is certainly governing that way.

no, i think he wants to avoid another two months wasted with this

ABSOLUTE
BULLSHIT

and who could blame him?

[humok]

time to adjust is now not 2013 so Obama can look good for the election and bury us even further in debt. I remember the 70's quite well and it would do the younger people good to have to discipline themselves. Too much easy credit for too long allowing everyone to live above their means.