|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:05:29 GMT -5
would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans:S&P placed the blame on both parties but nice try at spinning again.. 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. Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/SPdowngrade.pdf
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Aug 5, 2011 22:18:37 GMT -5
>>>>I would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans<<<<
Excuse me, Congress is both houses, not just ONE party. Maybe if Obama had been engaged in the negotiations and not vetoed everything that was put in front of him, the deal would have been acceptable. Excuse me, off to watch the news.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Aug 5, 2011 22:21:05 GMT -5
P.I. Just ignore the blame game, if it makes them feel better. They're heavy into the kool-aid drinking it's obvious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:22:15 GMT -5
>>>>I would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans<<<< Excuse me, Congress is both houses, not just ONE party. Maybe if Obama had been engaged in the negotiations and not vetoed everything that was put in front of him, the deal would have been acceptable. Excuse me, off to watch the news. i noticed that PI and you still have not responded to this paragraph: Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:22:47 GMT -5
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP
S&P says both parties (Congress) are to blame by passing the act...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:23:02 GMT -5
P.I. Just ignore the blame game, if it makes them feel better. They're heavy into the kool-aid drinking it's obvious. there you go again- ad hominem. you don't like it when others do it to you, but it is perfectly ok when you do it to others. wow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:26:39 GMT -5
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDPS&P says both parties (Congress) are to blame by passing the act... agreed. but they also said that the GOP lead to the empasse. i don't think there is any reason to deny it PI. many have boasted of that achievement on this board. deny it?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:31:25 GMT -5
P.I. Just ignore the blame game, if it makes them feel better. They're heavy into the kool-aid drinking it's obvious. there you go again- ad hominem. you don't like it when others do it to you, but it is perfectly ok when you do it to others. wow. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key
If you want to claim S&P blames the repubs with that statement then you are wrong and it is congress that they blame...
BTW Treasury disagrees with the S&P Debt Estimates by @ $2 trillion dollars
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:32:45 GMT -5
i want to note a couple of things right now: i have no problems with diamonds6 or PI. in fact, i like them as posters. i made no secret of the fact that i wanted to see revenue increases in this compromise as a way to close the budget gap faster. S&P shares that opinion. is it wrong for me to look for support in their opinion? would you not do the same if you were in my position? diamonds- i am no koolaid drinker. i think Obama is a war criminal, and should be tried in the Hague for his crimes. i think the continuation of a number of Bush's domestic policies, especially several aspects of the PATRIOT Act, are violations of the Bill Of Rights, and he should be impeached for it. i am NO FAN OF OBAMA. however, that does not make me a fan of the Republicans, either, i am sorry to say. this hard line insanity in a fragile economy drives me nuts. i confess that i want the social conservatives to mind their own damn business when it comes to my private life, as well. now, if you want to go trying to lump me in with the socialists on this board, that is just fine. but you will lose an ally on fiscal and libertarian matters close to your heart.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:35:08 GMT -5
there you go again- ad hominem. you don't like it when others do it to you, but it is perfectly ok when you do it to others. wow. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key
If you want to claim S&P blames the repubs with that statement then you are wrong and it is congress that they blame...PI- i never said that the GOP was SOLELY to blame. i DID say that they singled out the GOP over the revenue issue, and that they did NOT single out Pelosi, or even mention her. again, are you denying that?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:38:48 GMT -5
We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key
If you want to claim S&P blames the repubs with that statement then you are wrong and it is congress that they blame... PI- i never said that the GOP was SOLELY to blame. i DID say that they singled out the GOP over the revenue issue. again, are you denying that? No I am saying I have no idea what you are talking about ..The S&P statement that I posted does NOT place the blame squarely on Republicans but rather they blame the congress for passing the act would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:41:01 GMT -5
PI- i never said that the GOP was SOLELY to blame. i DID say that they singled out the GOP over the revenue issue. again, are you denying that? No I am saying I have no idea what you are talking about .. i am talking about THIS. do you NOT see this as an admonishment of Republicans?: Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:42:29 GMT -5
No I am saying I have no idea what you are talking about .. i am talking about THIS: Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade. That statement in no way places the blame squarely on repubs and again you are just spinning again You need to read the complete statement that I posted by S&P
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:43:53 GMT -5
PI- i never said that the GOP was SOLELY to blame. i DID say that they singled out the GOP over the revenue issue. again, are you denying that? No I am saying I have no idea what you are talking about ..The S&P statement that I posted does NOT place the blame squarely on Republicans but rather they blame the congress for passing the act would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans:that's right. the report does NOT specifically mention Pelosi. it DOES, however, specifically mention Republicans. was it the word "squarely" that bothered you? i meant "specifically", not "only" when i said that.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:44:58 GMT -5
No I am saying I have no idea what you are talking about ..The S&P statement that I posted does NOT place the blame squarely on Republicans but rather they blame the congress for passing the act would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans:that's right. the report does NOT specifically mention Pelosi. it DOES, however, specifically mention Republicans. was it the word "squarely" that bothered you? i meant "specifically", not "only" when i said that. 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.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:49:46 GMT -5
i am talking about THIS: Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade. That statement in no way places the blame squarely on repubs and again you are just spinning again You need to read the complete statement that I posted by S&P i have read the entire summary, HERE, PI: www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563i read it AN HOUR AGO, before you posted on the subject. i topped the debt thread. please stop playing the same game as diamonds. i can read. and i have already said that i agree that congress is blamed for the empasse, which includes Democrats. where i took objection is when you implied that Pelosi was more responsible for this nonsense than, say, Cantor. i respectfully disagree. there was an early $4T compromise. i mentioned it about 10x. it had the support of leaders in the Senate. it would have prevented the downgrade. but it included REVENUE INCREASES that would not get by the house. so here is the syllogism: the original grand compromise was supported by the Senate and Obama. S&P stated that it would have also avoided a downgrade, both BEFORE and AFTER it was done. the House did not support it. yet, somehow, i am supposed to blame Pelosi and Obama for this? ohhhhhhkay.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:50:49 GMT -5
yet, somehow, i am supposed to blame Pelosi and Obama for this?
You could say that Obama is the first president to have our nation's debt downgraded so spin that by saying that S&P squarely places the blame on the repubs if you want .
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:51:57 GMT -5
PI, calm down. i have read the opinion. the original, complete one, which contains the passage i have posted. the one without the underlining and bolding.
you can stop posting it. it is a waste of bitspace, at this point.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:54:29 GMT -5
PI, calm down. i have read the opinion. the original, complete one, which contains the passage i have posted. the one without the underlining and bolding. you can stop posting it. it is a waste of bitspace, at this point. You misread it IMHO
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 5, 2011 22:54:43 GMT -5
...fwiw, I would question anybody's agenda if they ridicule Rs over Ds in this mess... just as I would question anybody's agenda if they ridicule only the Ds... the fact that it's from a super dooper source wouldn't give them a pass with me...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:54:54 GMT -5
yet, somehow, i am supposed to blame Pelosi and Obama for this? You could say that Obama is the first president to have our nation's debt downgraded so spin that by saying that S&P squarely places the blame on the repubs if you want . what, if anything, did i get wrong in my syllogism, above, PI?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:55:49 GMT -5
...fwiw, I would question anybody's agenda if they ridicule Rs over Ds in this mess... just as I would question anybody's agenda if they ridicule only the Ds... the fact that it's from a super dooper source wouldn't give them a pass with me... let me just ask you this: did the Democrats force this issue, Been?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 5, 2011 22:56:54 GMT -5
...fwiw, I would question anybody's agenda if they ridicule Rs over Ds in this mess... just as I would question anybody's agenda if they ridicule only the Ds... the fact that it's from a super dooper source wouldn't give them a pass with me... let me just ask you this: did the Democrats force this issue, Been? ...what do you mean by "force" the issue?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:57:16 GMT -5
PI, calm down. i have read the opinion. the original, complete one, which contains the passage i have posted. the one without the underlining and bolding. you can stop posting it. it is a waste of bitspace, at this point. You misread it IMHO i respectfully disagree, but i will await your comment on my syllogism, which boils it down a bit further.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 22:58:15 GMT -5
yet, somehow, i am supposed to blame Pelosi and Obama for this? You could say that Obama is the first president to have our nation's debt downgraded so spin that by saying that S&P squarely places the blame on the repubs if you want . what, if anything, did i get wrong in my syllogism, above, PI? Where am I blaming Pelosi in this comment to Zippity?? Or is is because you still miss Pelsosi as the Speaker of the House pushing her Liberal agenda throught congress??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 22:58:57 GMT -5
let me just ask you this: did the Democrats force this issue, Been? ...what do you mean by "force" the issue? i was thinking of the "debt ceiling issue". but i could expand that a bit, if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 5, 2011 23:01:34 GMT -5
...what do you mean by "force" the issue? i was thinking of the "debt ceiling issue". but i could expand that a bit, if you wish. ...well, the numbers forced the issue about the debt ceiling... it wasn't an R or D thing... or maybe was it an R or D initiative to set the limit? ...again, not sure if that's what you meant?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:02:29 GMT -5
what, if anything, did i get wrong in my syllogism, above, PI? Where am I blaming Pelosi in this comment to Zippity?? Or is is because you still miss Pelsosi as the Speaker of the House pushing her Liberal agenda throught congress??no, this one: so here is the syllogism: the original grand compromise was supported by the Senate and Obama. S&P stated that it would have also avoided a downgrade, both BEFORE and AFTER it was done. the House did not support it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:03:48 GMT -5
i was thinking of the "debt ceiling issue". but i could expand that a bit, if you wish. ...well, the numbers forced the issue about the debt ceiling that isn't really true, though. the debt ceiling has been raised 87 times since WW2 without scarcely an issue. again- who made it an issue this time? this is not a "gotcha moment". i think it is the GOP- specifically the Tea Party that brought this fight on. and i think that most of them are proud of that fact. and, in fact, i don't think it is anything to be ashamed of. however, in the S&P opinion, they cited this intransigence as a reason for the downgrade.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:04:23 GMT -5
S&P lowered the debt rating because the plan passed by congress fell short of reducing our debt...And if congress doesn't get their act together the S&P Rating could be lowered from AA...
They in no way blame either the dems or repubs but rather they blame both parties equally for failure to pass a bill that would reduce the debt sufficiently
|
|