S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES ARE ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USA RECEIVING ITS FIRST EVER DOWNGRADE.
S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.OBAMA AND REID AND PELOSI.
IT IS ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT. ENTIRELY.
WHY? SIMPLE:
THEY DIDN'T ALLOW CONGRESS TO PASS BIG ENOUGH CUTS.
REPEAT: THEY DIDN'T ALLOW CONGRESS TO PASS BIG ENOUGH CUTS.
REPEAT: THEY DIDN'T ALLOW CONGRESS TO PASS BIG ENOUGH CUTS.
S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.NO SURPRISE HERE:
CLASS WARFARE AND PROFLIGATE SPENDING AND CRONY CAPITALISM ARE ALWAYS RECIPES FOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE.
OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES PROTECTED THEIR PALS RECEIVING THE BENEFITS OF FEDERAL SPENDING...
... OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES DID NOT PROTECT THE TAXPAYERS.
S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.OBAMA AND HIS EFFIN' LEFT-WING BASTARDS NEVER EVEN PASSED A BUDGET DURING THE TWO YEARS THEY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.WHAT ASSH*LES.
AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES WOULDN'T ALLOW THE GOP AND THE TEA PARTY WHICH PUT THEM INTO POWER CUT MORE FROM THE FEDERAL BUDGET.
S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.FOR DAMAGING OUR NATION'S CREDIT-RATING AND RAISING THE COST OF BORROWING FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE, EVERY DEMOCRAT WHO PREVENTED LARGER CUTS SHOULD BE TOSSED FROM OFFICE.
ER UM... THAT'S EVERY DEMOCRAT!
AND THEY THEY SHOULD BE TARRED AND FEATHERED!
14 comments:
Great post.
I'll be linking to this on Monday, Reliapundit.
The progressives own this one.
The tea party hasn't spent a dime, and had Harry and the Pelosicrats listened to the tea party, this would not have happened.
Actually, S&P said that it was because the Republicans would not allow for any serious revenue increases. They specifically said that cuts would not be enough - especially the ephemeral cuts agreed to thusfar with the promise of more cuts that may or may not come to pass. Without tax increases, they see our debt problem only getting bigger.
You can't advance your position when you ignore the facts.
maybe if in the last 888 days the us senate had passed as budget we'd have more to talk about.
obama and his comrades controlled the senate and house for 2 years and didn't even pass a budget.
the gop in the house passed 2 budget that would have met the S&P goals WITHOUT RAISING TAXES IN A RECESSION...
so hammer boy:
fuck off.
Hey, no need for hysterics, or rudeness. This is a part of the problem with our political process these days: it isn't much of a process. Mostly just yelling at each other.
In terms of the facts, my post was correct. We got downgraded because we could not agree to increase revenues and because the process is so dysfunctional.
I agree, there should have been budgets passed, and we should have put the brakes on the spending much earlier. All that said, increasing taxes on the higher income brackets isn't going to worsen the recession. It is going to have to happen, so the choice is really, do it now, when it will hurt less, or do it later, when it will hurt more?
We always opt for later. Couldn't we just take care of this up front?
HAMMER WROTE:
...increasing taxes on the higher income brackets isn't going to worsen the recession ...
NONSENSE.
LEFTIST ASSHOLES LIKE HAMMER OPENLY LOBBY FOR HIGHER TAXES ON CIGARETTES AND FATTY FOODS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT HIGHER TAXES EFFECTS BEHAVIOR.
YET THEY HYPOCRITICALLY DENY THIS WHEN IT COMES TO TAXING THE RICH.
HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLES.
LIKE HAMMER.
HAMMER;
WAKE UP OR FUCK OFF.
You display your lack of relevant support by continued personal attacks. *shrug* You only make yourself look worse by doing so.
The truth is, you are assuming that I "lobby for higher taxes on cigarettes and fatty foods." You assume that I "know that higher taxes effect [sic] behavior."
Therefore, you are assuming I am a hypocrite.
All unwarranted assumptions that you are pulling out of... well, thin air.
Reality is that when you tax a poor man who makes $10 at 50%, it means he has to decide between eating and washing his laundry. When you tax a rich man who makes $1 million at 50%, he can still eat, do laundry, buy another car, take another vacation to Australia, etc. etc.
Taxing the rich at a higher rate isn't going to make the recession worse. But if you are really afraid that it will, we can couple that with lowering taxes on everyone else a little bit. That ought to balance things out quite nicely.
Corporate welfare has to end. So does corporate personhood. If we want out of debt, we are going to have to raise taxes.
These are realities. If we keep on playing pretend with our economy, eventually we're going to run out of people who will play along, and the whole thing is going to come crashing down.
Now, I made my points all without so much as an obscene gesture in your direction. If you can rebut any of the points I made, do so. But personal attacks just mean that you've got no clue.
to hammer:
thanks for coming back for more
attacks, asshole!
why do leftards like you insist on thinking that taking away money from "rich" people and sending it to washington or albany or trenton or any other state capital to be spent by politicians at the direction of lobbyists is a good thing!?!?
there have been several studies that have shown that government spending is not stimulative. (i have posted on some here at this blog.)
it did NOT even help during the great depression, either.
letting people keep what they EARN - regardless of how much they EARN is a MORAL IMPERATIVE.
if we must tax, then we should tax AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
and certainly not just to cover the incredibly idiotic and wasteful past spending excesses.
money spent by the people who EARN it is always more stimulative than government spending because people spend what they earn on the things they like and this leads to people making more of it or making it better.
if government spending was stimulative that the USSR would be the biggest economy on earth.
china has ONLY grown because of privatization.
HAMMER:
i was a leftists once - one raised by card-carrying commies.
i saw the light.
you can too.
so...
WAKE UP OR FUCK OFF.
PS:
RAISING THE INCOME TAX RATES ON "MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES" (WHICH IN THE PUNY AND OVER-RATED MIND OF OBAMA SOMEHOW MEANS PEOPLE EARNING 25,000 AND MORE!!!)
IS SIMPLY TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THEM THAT THEY EARNED!
I THINK IF SOMEONE CAN EARN THAT MUCH, THEN G-D BLESS THEM!
IT'S TOUGH TO EARN THAT MUCH!
to hammer:
thanks for coming back for more
attacks, asshole!
why do leftards like you insist on thinking that taking away money from "rich" people and sending it to washington or albany or trenton or any other state capital to be spent by politicians at the direction of lobbyists is a good thing!?!?
there have been several studies that have shown that government spending is not stimulative. (i have posted on some here at this blog.)
it did NOT even help during the great depression, either.
letting people keep what they EARN - regardless of how much they EARN is a MORAL IMPERATIVE.
if we must tax, then we should tax AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
and certainly not just to cover the incredibly idiotic and wasteful past spending excesses.
money spent by the people who EARN it is always more stimulative than government spending because people spend what they earn on the things they like and this leads to people making more of it or making it better.
if government spending was stimulative that the USSR would be the biggest economy on earth.
china has ONLY grown because of privatization.
HAMMER:
i was a leftists once - one raised by card-carrying commies.
i saw the light.
you can too.
so...
WAKE UP OR FUCK OFF.
PS:
RAISING THE INCOME TAX RATES ON "MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES" (WHICH IN THE PUNY AND OVER-RATED MIND OF OBAMA SOMEHOW MEANS PEOPLE EARNING 25,000 AND MORE!!!)
IS SIMPLY TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THEM THAT THEY EARNED!
I THINK IF SOMEONE CAN EARN THAT MUCH, THEN G-D BLESS THEM!
IT'S TOUGH TO EARN THAT MUCH!
Fantastic.
History is what it is. Government spending to spark the economy has worked in the past - see the Great Depression - and is what just about every economist says would be prudent for the US at this time.
Government spending should be streamlined and efficient. There is no reason to have 40 different programs to address the same need. All you do is multiply the overhead by 40 and make the spending less efficient.
Show me a study that says that spending does not spark the economy, and I'll show you a conservative group that performs "studies." Spending has to be directed and intelligent, so there is no apt comparison to spending in a failed soviet system.
We have to pay for the debt we are in. It matters not who got us here or how (compare the way Clinton left the economy - surplus - to the way Bush destroyed it), what matters now is getting out of it. We cannot do that through cuts. If you think we can, then you're disconnected from reality. Everyone, including Republicans, have their pet programs that they will protect, and the end result is that no real cuts are ever made. This reality is what we have to be aware of and work within. It is far more likely to get a consensus for a spending cap, and then to raise revenues to start buying down the debt. As possible, during this process, we SHOULD cut programs and streamline. The faster we get it paid off, the sooner we'll have more income to use on everyone's pet programs.
Oh, and I realize that accuracy isn't the focus here (see your original article that was completely inaccurate), but the cut-off line that is often referred to is not 25,000, but 250,000 - and yes, if an individual makes 250,000 or more in a year, they can afford to pay more in taxes for a while.
Each and every exchange highlights our differences. You employ devastating personal attacks while I address your points and support my own with substance. And, you seem to be locked into the cycle, since you seem to think that refraining from such attacks would make you seem weak in the eyes of some.
*shrug*
I'm sure that you've been busy, and just haven't gotten to my last post. You wouldn't censor me.
I found some supporting information for my position, and wanted to share it with you.
Here is an excerpt:
"Also, raising taxes to pay for current spending has proved more effective at restraining spending than allowing the government to finance its outlays with deficits. Every time we have tried to cut spending by restraining taxes, we have failed. In the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan and in the past decade under President George W. Bush, taxes fell, but spending rose. The only time in the past 30 years when spending fell was in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, when taxes were also raised.
Even the massive tax increases during and after World War II -- amounting to a permanent rise of 10% to 15% of gross domestic product -- and the much smaller tax increases in 1990 and 1993 did no discernible damage to U.S. economic growth.
If we are going to raise taxes as part of the fiscal solution, the tax burden on high-income, high-wealth households needs to rise. The recently enacted debt deal contains only spending cuts and has little or no impact on high-income households. Rather, it puts the entire burden of closing the fiscal gap on low- and middle-income households. High-income households should not be exempted from helping resolve the nation's fiscal problem.
Households in the top 1% of the distribution can afford to contribute. They have done enormously well during the past 30-plus years. In 1979, their income accounted for 10% of total income. According to the most recent data (from 2008), their share of total household income more than doubled to 21%. In contrast, real income for middle-class workers has remained roughly constant over the same time frame."
From http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/15/gale.taxes.deficit/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
HAMMERED WROTE:
Households in the top 1% of the distribution can afford to contribute. They have done enormously well during the past 30-plus years. In 1979, their income accounted for 10% of total income. According to the most recent data (from 2008), their share of total household income more than doubled to 21%.
NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE - ESPECIALLY NOW. MANY PEOPLE/FAMILIES MAKING A LOT OF MONEY A FEW DECADES AGO ARE NOT NOW.
I MADE MORE IN THE 80'S AND 90'S THAN NOW.
HAMMERED SCRAWLED:
If we are going to raise taxes as part of the fiscal solution, the tax burden on high-income, high-wealth households needs to rise.
WE DO NOT NEED TO RAISE TAXES.
THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF REVENUE EVER RECEIVED BY THE IRS WAS IN 2007.
AND WE SPENT ONLY 200 BILLION ORE THAN WE TOOK IN.
NOW WE SEPND NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH.
YOU CAN;T RAISE TAXES ENOUGH TO COVER THE GROWTH IN SOPENDING.
SPENDING THAT HASNLT MADE US A BETTER COUNTRY OR BETTER ECONOMY.
IN FACT, THE SPENDING HAS HURT US - PRINCIPALLY BY DRIVING THE DEBT WAY UP.
FOR THE LIFE OF ME HAMMERTINE I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY LIBS LIKE YOU WANT MORE MONEY SENT TO WASHDC STO BE SPENT BY CAREER POLITICIANS AT THE INSTRICTION OF LOBBYOSTS AND BUREAUCRATS.
DO YOU REALLY WANT PRESDIENT PALIN AND SPEAKER ALLEN WEST TO HAVE MORE MONEY AND MORE POWER OVER YOU!?
SHEESH.
ALSO:
I POSTED ON THE UNIVERSITY STUDY WHICH PROVED THAT FEDERAL SPENDING HAD NO IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT IN ANY DISTRICT.
DISTRICTS THAT GOT NO FEDERA SPENDING DID JUST AS WELL OVER TIME AS DISTRICTS THAT GOT BEAUCOUP MONEY.
I WILL FIND TH LINK FOR YOU.
AND YOU SHOULD BY THE SCHALES BIOK ON THE NEW DEAL. SHE PROVED IT FAILED.
AND EXAMINE THE COLLIDGE YEARS.
HE WAS PERHAPS OUR 4TH BEST PRESDIENT EVER. LOWERED TAXES. LOWERED SPEDNING AND PRESIDED OVER THE BEST GROWTH OF USA ECONOMY OF ALL TIME.
LOOK AT WEST VIRGINIA FOR CRYING OUT TEARS!?!?!
SHEESH.
DECADES OF LARGESS BY FORMER KKK KLEAGLE BIB BYRD DIDN'T DO DICK FOR WVA.
WALMART AND HOME DEPOT AND FORD - TO PICK 3 AT RANDOM - HAVE DONE MORE FOR EMPLOYMENT (MOTIVATED ONLY BY PROFIT) THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVER DID.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mksc6dvviik/Tj6eeiGQC4I/AAAAAAAAOCs/ogf_hs8X2aY/s1600/INSANE%2BLIBERAL%2BTAX%2BAND%2BSTIMULATE%2BPOLICY.jpg
MEMO TO THE LEFT: EUROPE'S DEBT CRISIS WASN'T CAUSED BY MILITARY SPENDING OR "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH"
NYTIMES:
Debt Crisis Seen Taking Toll on Euro- Area Economy
The slowdown in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, will make it more difficult for the euro zone to pull out of its debt crisis, economists said
* THE DEBT'S CAUSING THE CRISIS ARE GOVERNMENT DEBTS.
* THE GOVERNMENT DEBTS IN EUROPE WERE NOT CAUSED BY TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH OR MILITARY SPENDING.
* THEY WERE CAUSED BY SOCIALIST SPENDING POLICIES.
SAME HERE IN THE USA.
WE WON'T GET PUT OF THE CRISIS UNTIL WE UNDO DECADES OF UNAFFORDABLE SOCIALIST POLICIES.
THIS MEANS REDESIGNING PENSION AND HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
EUROBONDS AND CONGRESSIONAL "SUPER-COMMITTEE'S" ARE TO LITTLE TOO LATE.
Post a Comment