U.S Credit Rating Has Been Downgraded

[PHenry42]

In one of his creative moments, a friend of mine suggests that anyone running for office should be able to choose the size of his or her congressman's wage. It would, however, be public information how much each candidate is requesting in wages, and be on display inside the booth and on the walls of the voting station. In that way, no congressman would get more wages than the electorate thinks he deserves.

 

[RisingSpirit]

what do you think?

I think we should go back to stone Age and start over

 

[Wolseley]

Too bad nobody in Washington will write that legislation!

If We the People all got together on it, Congressional legislation would be unnecessary.

 

[PHenry42]

I have a much better idea: for every $1 billion dollars that the debt goes higher, we execute one Congressman until the rest of them get the debt squared away.

Since we are currently going into debt at the rate of $4 billion dollars every day, I'm willing to bet a policy like that would get them moving, what do you think?

No thanks, there's way too much destructive brinkmanship going on in Washington as it is.

Executing congressmen to enforce political demands. Damn. That sure sounds terroristic to me. We might as well start the US Civil War round #2 while at it.

 

[RisingSpirit]

No thanks, there's way too much destructive brinkmanship going on in Washington as it is.

Executing congressmen to enforce political demands. Damn. That sure sounds terroristic to me. We might as well start the US Civil War round #2 while at it.

These riots seems Lucifer inspired. London riots spread, over 100 arrested

What would Jesus do. What would His government look like? Perhaps we should put together a new government here.

 

[[serious]]

Harry Reid tabled the one thing that the S&P said would have stopped the downgrade - the cut, cap and balance plan which he would not even bring to the table for a vote - now how can the Tea Party be blamed for that. The head of S&P said himself if that had been considered they would not have downgraded, but as it is they don't see any progress for anything.

One thing?

"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," reads a statement from S&P. "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."

One of three things I think you mean. Try reading what they actually said before making claims about what they said. Maybe you could just read the selections of the statement in the first post for starters.

Some other reasons from the full statement,

"our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty" p3

"The political brinksmanship of recent months" p3

"The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy" p3

"new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options" p3

"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" p4

"When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015." p5

 

[NotreDame]

I'm coming to believe that the co-opting of the Christian right by radical free-market propertarians was the coup of the century, because what I'm seeing about economics on this board cannot be, in any way, rooted in reality.

By the way, Ireland and Greece, the two biggest debt-bombs in the EU, have revenue rates far lower than the OECD average, just like us.

The Democrats, with a few exceptions like Kucinich and Sanders, are moderates. Where is the radicalism in any of their proposals!? Even the furthest left-wing set of proposals would not get us to the level that right-moderate governments in Europe have successfully lived with.

The above remark is devoid of any explication as to what would constitute as a moderate or radical. Those two words are very amorphous when used in the political arena. A moderate today quite plausibly would be a radical 50 years ago.

In other words, the above remark is nearly impossible to refute since there is no conceptualization of the words moderate and radical.

Webster's dictionary defines moderate as:
professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme

Oxford's online dictionary defines moderate as: (of a person, party, or policy); not radical or excessively right-or left-wing:

Both definitions are not conducive to finding any resolution as to who is a moderate among the Democrats, as a result of its inherent subjectivity.

The word radical, however, and is not quite as subjective. However, given its meaning, the word can be applied loosely and in a manner most people would find peculiar, a paradoxical, and as a result, I am not sure the meaning is palatable in its presented form.

Oxford: (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough:a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework<LI class="subSense scrollerBlock">characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive:a radical approach to electoral reform<LI id=m_en_us1282692.005 class="sense sense-type-core scrollerBlock">2 advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party:


Webster's: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change

At this point, I can't really refute the notion Democrats are moderate as opposed to radical, and to be certain, the poster failed miserably in making any cogent argument supporting such a claim. What I can say, however, is based on the preceding meanings of the word radical, some Democrats have advocated for radical legislation.

1. Between 44 and 51 Senate Democrats supported a public option. Open Left:: Senate Whip Count Update: No Democrats Oppose Public Option
2. Several Democrats in Congress expressed the opinion a public option was necessary. Some Key Democrats Say Public Option is Essential to Health-Care Reform
3. Pelosi intimated House Democrats would vote in favor of a public option. Some Key Democrats Say Public Option is Essential to Health-Care Reform
4. Majority of Democrats in Congress voted for the The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act | TheMiddleClass.org Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - MarketsWiki, A Commonwealth of Market Knowledge

Most importantly, stop lying about out-of-control entitlement spending. Those on the board saying we spend too much on entitlements are either heartless, insane, or view the entire world as consisting of the U.S.

Ahh...reliance upon the logical reasoning fallacy of poisoning the well. Demonize and characterize in a negative manner those making a claim, which is what was done above. "Those on the board saying we spend too much on entitlements are either heartless, insane, or view the entire world as consisting of the U.S."

The underlined portion is a strawman argument. It should be rather conspicuous that this is not a good argument, the reasoning is deplorable and plagued with reasoning fallacies.

Entitlement spending in the U.S. is 26th out of 34 nations in the OECD, calculated as a percentage of GDP.

Something substantive...finally!!! This is a rather ridiculous rebuttal of the notion the U.S. spends too much on entitlements. The issue of whether the U.S. spends too much on entitlements cannot be answered by a comparison of U.S. entitlement expenditure compared to other nations. The question is entirely a subjective one, a political one, and a philosophical query to be answered solely and exclusively by the people of the particular political community, taking into consideration all of the political peculiarities of the political regime, the societal views, morals, beliefs, principles, and philosophy of the people belonging to the political community.

Comparing U.S. entitlement expenditures to other nations, and then deducing the U.S. is not spending too much on entitlements, is parallel to comparing one family's expenditures on food (Family A) to another family's expenditure on food (Family B). Family A spends more on food than Family B and on this basis it is illogically deduced Family B is not spending too much on food. Of course this rests upon the dubious principle of since one family spends more on X than another family, then the latter family is not spending too much on X. Since when did it ever make any sense in determining whether a family is spending too much on X to compare it to another family's expenditure on X? It doesn't make any sense, since each family, like nations, are unique, individual, have different goals, priorities, values, morals, beliefs, etcetera.

Similarly speaking, it makes zero sense to refute the claim the U.S. spends too much on entitlements by illuminating the fact other nations spend more. Yes, other nations may spend more than the U.S. on entitlements, but this does not support the rebuttal of the U.S. is not spending too much. The U.S. is an individual and unique nation from those other countries, its (U.S.) people are different, with different beliefs, values, philosophies, etcetera.

So, the comparison you made to other nations, while certainly edifiying information, does not refute the notion the U.S. spends too much on entitlements.

So, we ultimately have a non-sequiter. At this point, the argument you are argument has a very inauspicious beginning.

I'm coming to believe that the co-opting of the Christian right by radical free-market propertarians was the coup of the century, because what I'm seeing about economics on this board cannot be, in any way, rooted in reality.

This post you made is not "in any way, rooted in reality." Your argument is inundated with reasoning fallacies, false deductions, and non-parallel, non-sense comparisons.

 

[Steve Petersen]

According to William Niskanen, Federal spending is actually reduced with divided government.

Divided U.S. Government Can Work, Scholars Say | USPolicy

 

[[serious]]

A public option IS the moderate position. The center left position is single payer. The far left is single payer state run. What we have under Obama is going from far right (no govt. involvement and almost no regulation) to center right (no government involvement but some government regulation)

The areas that have the highest government involvement generally have t he highest satisfaction too. Medicare, tricare, etc.

 

[NotreDame]

A public option IS the moderate position. The center left position is single payer. The far left is single payer state run. What we have under Obama is going from far right (no govt. involvement and almost no regulation) to center right (no government involvement but some government regulation)

The areas that have the highest government involvement generally have t he highest satisfaction too. Medicare, tricare, etc.

How exactly do you deduce the public option is the moderate position? Based on the dictionary meaning of radical, the public option is a radical position. As I stated previously, I find the dictionary meaning of radical as problematic when using it in politics.

The areas that have the highest government involvement generally have t he highest satisfaction too. Medicare, tricare, etc.

Well, I am pleased to know there are people receiving government handouts who are happy about the handouts!!!! Part of the problem, however, is the conflicting ideologies in this country between individual responsibility, keeping more of what you earn and having less of it redistributed, and social welfare. The Republicans and members of the Tea Party want to resist any tax increase, and certainly tax increases commensurate with a reduction in spending, for several very important reasons. A.) They have an aversion to the notion of redistributing the wealth beyond its present existence, B.) They want to keep more of what they earn and have less of it redistributed, after all it is the laborers' money and C.) They are keen to why President Obama wants significant tax increases, so he can keep feeding the poor (feeding in the colloquial sense, not to be taken or limited to a literal "feeding" as in only food).

The fact is, Americans, well a considerable number of Americans, have an aversion to high taxes, higher taxes, or taxes above 38%-42%. They want to pay less in taxes, no tax increases, and perhaps a tax decrease so they can retain more of what they labored to receive as compensation for their labor. Yet, an increasing number of Americans, and a considerable number of Democrats, want to expand the social welfare rolls, which is going to require more money. These two approaches are fundamentally the basis of disagreement at this present moment between Republicans and Democrats.

If I recall correctly, between 49%-51% of tax units did not pay federal income tax in 2009 and it has been estimated the numbers are identical for 2010. A considerable number from this group receives some form of social welfare assistance from the federal government. What we are witnessing is a revulsion in American society of the federal government welfare state, quite simply because it has become too expensive and they do not want to pay the bill.

A compromise would be massive entitlement reform, which includes significant reduction in entitlement spending for Medicare and Medicaid, an increase in tax revenues but not for the purpose of abating entitlement cuts but rather to pay down the debt. Of course, what complicates this approach is the fragile economy.

There is perhaps no simple answer. I suspect we are at a point where people are just going to have to tolerate the pain.

 

[Wayte]

If We the People all got together on it, Congressional legislation would be unnecessary.

If it came down to violence, it wouldn't be too hard for them to convince the majority we're just terrorists. I mean heck, look what a bunch of crazies with signs and no understanding of what communism can do >.>

 

[variant]

"our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty" p3

"The political brinksmanship of recent months" p3

"The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy" p3

"new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options" p3

"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" p4

I don't think some people here are ever going to get it.

The government not being able to come to rational decisions and instead relying on political brinksmanship (a massive game of chicken with the American economy) necessarily makes the markets flip out.

Fighting over the statutory debt limit was a stupid idea from the get go, we basically said to the economic world &#8220;look at us were crazy and we can&#8217;t come to any reasonable conclusions in our political stupidity&#8221; and now you can all see the consequences.

 

[variant]

I agree.

One side scared everyone thinking that the world would fall apart if we didn't raise our debt ceiling and name calling people that wanted to see the cuts that the creditors requested to keep our credit rating unchanged.
The other side negotiated against themselves until there was almost no cuts in spending while adding 2trillion in debt.

Budget terrorists unite!

If there is no crisis forcing goverments hands, they will not stop spending.
If the side wanting cuts won't stand strong, they will not stop spending.
If the side wanting cuts do not ensure real dollar cuts, they won't stop spending.

The great "deal": increase debt by 2 trillion this year, 1.9 trillion in "cuts" over 10yrs, with no reduction in spending; meaning 9-10trillion dollars* in debt added on while they are "cutting". Then the all great study group that will spend more money looking for ways to cut spending that no one will pay attention too.

*actually alot more, if we spend a trillion every six months, debt increase would be 20 trillion dollars.

It is not possible for you to agree with me and still blame the other side you know.

But, you've managed to give it a good try.

 

[Veritas]

So who does the Obama admin. blame?

Democrats seek to pin credit downgrade on tea party - Washington Times

 

[variant]

So who does the Obama admin. blame?

Democrats seek to pin credit downgrade on tea party - Washington Times

Uh huh. As I said, that is the important part. Certianly not fixing the problem.


GOP Candidates Blame Obama for Credit Rating Downgrade - The Note

Obama Allies Blame Tea Party as They Seek to Reassure Investors

It's not like they are going to listen and adjust to the S&P criticisms (which is why they deserve the downgrade)

 

[LUColt27]

Both sides are equally to blame, as are we, the American public, for electing these jokers to office in the first place. At least I'll get to tell my grandkids about how I was around to watch the fall of the United States.

 

[DeathMagus]

Both sides are equally to blame, as are we, the American public, for electing these jokers to office in the first place. At least I'll get to tell my grandkids about how I was around to watch the fall of the United States.

That's assuming you survive.

 

[LUColt27]

That's assuming you survive.

True enough, but if anything's going to get me, it'll probably be a hurricane before any rioters.

 

[abysmul]

Both sides are equally to blame, as are we, the American public, for electing these jokers to office in the first place. At least I'll get to tell my grandkids about how I was around to watch the fall of the United States.

You are right, sadly.

 

[lordbt]

I don't think some people here are ever going to get it.

The government not being able to come to rational decisions and instead relying on political brinksmanship (a massive game of chicken with the American economy) necessarily makes the markets flip out.

Except that the markets flipped out after the agreement was reached, not during the supposed 'game of chicken.'

Fighting over the statutory debt limit was a stupid idea from the get go, we basically said to the economic world “look at us were crazy and we can’t come to any reasonable conclusions in our political stupidity” and now you can all see the consequences.

World markets are falling because the world is awash in red ink and a global recession is looming. I dont think some people here are ever going to get that.