Skip to main content

View Diary: S&P downgrade: John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted (293 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is on Obama, Nancy & Harry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bensdad, hmi

    S&P didn't downgrade us because of the recent debacle.  They downgraded us because we are spending far more money than we are bringing in.  George Bush doubled the national debt during is 8 years as President.  Obama will double it again in his first term alone.  Federal spending is up almost 30% since he became President and it was at unjustifiable levels before that.

    Saying this is on Boehner or the Tea Party completely ignores how rating agencies work.  They look at the long term outlook to determine the ratings.   And long term -- medicare, medicaid & social security are going to go bankrupt without major changes.  Despite 2 3/4 wars, we now spend more on medicare than defense.  Regulations that totally ignore economic realities are the norm because they promote "social justice" instead of economic growth.

    I've got news for you without the growth the work just gets outsourced to countries like Vietnam and China.  Had the Tea Party succeeded and cut 4 Trillion in spending the agencies probably would have held off on reducing our rating.  

    •  Saying this is NOT on Boehner or the Tea Party (7+ / 0-)

      completely ignores S&P's own words on why they downgraded.  A sampling, since you obviously did not read their statement:

      More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
      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.

      Here's a link http://www.dailykos.com/... that should lead you to the rest of the statement. You really should read it.

      •  Sadly, facts don't seem all that relevant (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wwjjd, SwedishJewfish, singe, Creosote

        to anyone's analysis these days.

        It seems pretty clear that S&P is concerned about the effectiveness of government and an inability to work together.  And that's not Obama's fault.  Lots of people are ticked off that he was too cooperative.   I definitely put S&P's concerns on Boehner and his cohorts.  The S&P stated:

        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.

        And clearly S&P is concerned about revenues:

        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.

        Again, I put the blame on Boehner's inability to lead the House in a more rational and responsible way.  He made it impossible to get any revenue increase at all through the House. He's the one who walked away from negotiations because of tax increases on corporate jet owners and oil companies, etc.  The idea that Obama could have made Boehner do something else is a fantasy, IMO, given the makeup of the House.  If people are hellbent on finding a way to blame Obama for this, then I'd suggest blaming the outcome of the mid-term elections on him because it's the intransigence of Boehner and the other House Republicans who really seem responsible for what S&P is saying.  

    •  Nice right wing talking points (5+ / 0-)

      I believe Red State is that way----------------------->

      Will work for food
      Will die for oil
      Will kill for power and to us the spoils
      The billionaires get to pay less tax
      The working poor get to fall through the cracks
      -James McMurtry

      -9.75/-8.26

      by SwedishJewfish on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:07:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit, read the statement.refusal to raise reve (0+ / 0-)

      nue and the fact that the republicans in congress were willing to consider defaulting is what made us less dependable in the eyes of the rating agency. with a commitment to raise the 1.4 trillion in bush tax cut reversal revenue we would have coasted their the rating agency.

    •  Lionlaw statement = Feckless and Factless n/t (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site