Debt

[james2012]

?How The Bush Tax Cuts Blew Up The Deficit And Debt?‏ - YouTube

Um, bad example seeing as we are now at 100% GDP to debt ratio under Obama - in 2.5 years. Whoops.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

 

[james2012]

?How The Bush Tax Cuts Blew Up The Deficit And Debt?‏ - YouTube

Whoops, bad example. GDP to debt under Obama has reached Greece like levels of 100%. Hmmm..I wonder why we were downgraded. It's such a mystery:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

Now can everyone figure out why we did not want to just increase the debt ceiling like Obambi wanted? It's time to take the credit card away from the little child.

Oh, and Obama manged this feat in just over 2.5 years. Change you can believe in.

 

[james2012]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

In 2.5 years. From Dr. Scally's example of just around 60% to 100% GDP to debt ratio.

No really a good example to be floating around. I kind of makes the case the Obambi is a huge problem for the country and makes it well.

 

[james2012]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

In 2.5 years. From Dr. Scally's example of just around 60% to 100% GDP to debt ratio.

No really a good example to be floating around. I kind of makes the case the Obambi is a huge problem for the country and makes it well.

 

[GirlyMan]

 

[james2012]

News from The Associated Press

Well that's just great. Here is an idea - throw out Obama, the libs, and the RINOs and I bet that chance drops to 1 in 10.

 

[james2012]

Wow, from the New York Time's Maureen Dowd: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/127067228.html

And our deer Leader has yet to address the nation to calm the markets. Probably because he can't say anything without sounding like the scapegoater-in-chief and the polls drop every time he opens his mouth. Catch 22 - say something and the markets will drop along with your approval ratings, shut up and they will do the same. His advisors must have figured out that the second case would result in less damage. Leadership.

Barack Obama must wonder sometimes if his luck has run out. Maybe he used it all up in 2008.

"Yes, we can!" has devolved into "Hey, we might."

"When I said, 'Change we can believe in,' I didn't say, 'Change we can believe in tomorrow,'" he told an audience at a Chicago fundraiser on Wednesday.

"Not, 'Change we can believe in next week.'We knew this was going to take time, because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy."

True enough, but not FDR-inspiring to a deflated and desperate nation that may face higher borrowing rates after the shock of the first credit downgrade in U.S. history.

Barack Obama blazed like Luke Skywalker in 2008, but he never learned to channel the Force. And now the Tea Party has run off with his light saber.

The dissonance of his promise and his reality is jarring.

When he had power, he didn't use it. He wanted to be a "transformational" president like Ronald Reagan, but failed to understand that Reagan's strategic shows of strength allowed him to keep the whip hand without raising his voice.

And now, just when the high school principal in the Oval has been browbeating Congress to help create jobs, he is once more distracted from that task as he tries to save his own.

He goes to fundraisers to tell people to stick with him, but he seems to be trying to reassure himself.

"I have to admit," the president said in Chicago, "I didn't know how steep the climb was going to be."

At the large fundraiser in his hometown, he tried to reassure disillusioned liberals about "unfinished business" to help those in need. Later, at a smaller $35,800-a-head dinner, he defended the unpopular debt package like a proud fiscal conservative.

The president talks fondly of George Bush the elder, just as Bush the elder does of him. Obama thinks Bush is a poignant figure because he did the right thing, breaking his tax pledge to fix the deficit, even though he got punished for it with one term.

 

[GirlyMan]

Here is an idea - throw out Obama, the libs, and the RINOs and I bet that chance drops to 1 in 10.

Well, you're not gonna have the votes for that so I guess you're just gonna have to keep trying to fart them out. Only thing you've convinced this 30 year voting-life long Republican of is that teabaggers are pricks. Well done asshole.

 

[james2012]

The big picture: S&P bond rater: It’s the debt, stupid; Update: S&P official: Another downgrade will come if we don’t reduce long-term debt ? Hot Air

And no budget from the Senate in over 800 days. Obambi's budget that was put before the Senate was voted down 99-0, a little known fact. Bambi needs to go.

Obama has yet to address the nation with futures down 200 points on the DJIA and Asian markets severely rattled.

ObamaCare and other entitlements are going to kill this country. Big government socialism.

As far a buck passing goes, here is a woman showing Obama how to own his balls and man up:
Small Businesswoman: Obama Should 'Apologize' for Economy | MRCTV

 

[james2012]

Well, you're not gonna have the votes for that so I guess you're just gonna have to keep trying to fart them out. Only thing you've convinced this 30 year voting-life long Republican of is that teabaggers are pricks. Well done asshole.

You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt.. And I doubt you were or are ever a Republican. I'm loving the Democrats on the cable news channels admitting Obama is toast, as is the Dems. Nobody is buying the Tea Party is to blame BS. The goal of the Tea Party is to dump the RINOs and it's going to happen.

 

[james2012]

Ah, the truth hurts: Obama won’t escape blame for credit downgrade | Campaign 2012

Defenders of Obama will attempt to pin the blame on his predecessor, President Bush, and on intransigent Tea Party radicals in the current Congress. But that would leave out the part in between. For his first two years in office, Obama’s party controlled both chambers of Congress – for part of that period, he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. During that time period, he and his fellow Democrats could have passed his supposedly ideal, long-term, deficit-reduction package — one that represented a “balanced approach” between spending cuts and tax increases. It also could have delayed the deficit reduction for several years, so it wouldn’t have affected the current weak economy or the “investments” he considers crucial. Forget about actually accomplishing serious deficit reduction — he didn’t even attempt it.

When Obama came into office, he argued that we needed deficit spending to boost the economy, so he passed a $800 billion stimulus package. Then, in one of his first supposed pivots to the deficit, he convened a ‘fiscal responsibility summit’ in February 2009. But that actually turned out to be part of a different pivot altogether. It was during that summit that then White House Budget Director Peter Orszag declared, “health care reform is entitlement reform.”

And so, for the next 13 months, Obama spent all of his energies trying to get health care legislation across the finish line. The end product was a plan that, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, did not bend the health care cost curve down. Let’s even set aside the argument over the accounting gimmicks that were employed to obtain a CBO score that showed modest deficit reduction. The reality is this: the law used money raised through tax hikes and Medicare cuts that otherwise would have been available for deficit reduction, to instead expand Medicaid by 18 million beneficiaries and create a massive new health care entitlement.

Yup, the blame the Tea Party meme will have a shelf life of, oh, about 1 month. [)]

 

[james2012]

Futures continue going down. Scapegoater in chief joins with Liberal Scapegoater panic "blame the Tea Party" idiots. Wow, is that panic ever palpable on the liberal blogs. What fun!

opcorn:

 

[GirlyMan]

You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt..

I doubt everything you motherfucker. I spent an entire semester at the senior level of a Philosophy major studying Descarte's Cogito Ergo Sum argument and still doubt my own existence. So fuck you asswipe. At best you're just a prick incapapable of handling that shit.

And I doubt you were or are ever a Republican.

Yeah, you're not a Republican either, you're just a pathetic meaningless asswipe at best.

The goal of the Tea Party is to dump the RINOs and it's going to happen.

I guess we're gonna see about that soon enough, asswipe.

 

[dantank]

opcorn:

 

[james2012]

I doubt everything you motherfucker. I spent an entire semester at the senior level of a Philosophy major studying Descarte's Cogito Ergo Sum argument and still doubt my own existence. So fuck you asswipe. At best you're just a prick incapapable of handling that shit.



Yeah, you're not a Republican either, you're just a pathetic meaningless asswipe at best.



I guess we're gonna see about that soon enough, asswipe.

Wow, you sure have an obsession with my ass, and it also appears the same obsession exists with wiping it. Are you making an offer? Or does the truth hurt so much you can't control your emotions. Perhaps you would like me to send you a picture of my ass so you can stare at it.

Or perhaps you would like to play a game of horse: I'll be the front end and you be yourself. Now there's the real ass.

Anyway, back to actual pertinent news and facts - nothing of which I have seen from you - which again means you are not a Republican (who use objective data) but rather a liberal (who use emotional data with no basis in reality). This is one of many - use Google to find more and read the text of the S&P downgrade, which point the finger at - you guessed it - entitlement reform as THE major contributor. The Tea Party blame meme is funny at best.

Entitlement reform is the key: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGO3GJKw-SE]?S&P Chief, David Beers: Entitlement Reform is the Key?‏ - YouTube[/ame]. This is what S&P said. And which entitlement can you think of in the last two years that was passed when the Democrats were the majority in the House and Senate? ObamaCare - a huge drag on the U.S. deficit.

As previous posts indicate, both parties are to blame for blowing up deficits, but Obama's contribution outshines everyone. For Obama it's not "The Buck Stops Here" but the "The Buck Dies Here". American's are figuring this out and I can't believe the sheer number of my liberal friends in Austin who as just plain pissed off at Obama for what he has done to this country, his abuse of power using the EPA to do his dirty work, and Congress for failing to hold him to account an throw his useless rear end out of office.

Blame who you want Bambi, it was under your watch this happened. With U.S. held bonds by Israel just getting downgraded to AA+, look for other countries to follow - this is breaking news as we speak. Soon, nobody will want to borrow from us. The crash of the entitlement state will be on Obama's shoulders. There would have been a way to have real entitlements for those who need it, but like any good Marxist, Obama is hurting those who most need the help.

 

[james2012]

ROFLMAOPIMP

This is typical liberal thinking:

ABC News' Cokie Roberts blames U.S. Constitution for S&P downgrade - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to ABC News' Cokie Roberts, the real problem facing America is the Constitution, the document that Ezra Klein once said is confusing because it's really old.

Discussing the S&P downgrade on ABC News' This Week on Sunday, Roberts said:

This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what.

And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it's divided government or not. We have divided branches of government under any circumstance.

Her statement caused fellow panelist George Will to shake his head in disbelief.

Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard wrote:

Wow!

In June, Time magazine's managing editor Richard Stengel wrote a cover story asking, "Does the Constitution Still Matter," and now Roberts goes on national television blaming our credit rating downgrade on America's most sacred document.

Somehow I doubt Roberts would be bemoaning the majority's inability to ram through any legislation it wanted if the Republicans controlled the White House as well as both chambers of Congress. Liberals like her only decry divided government when they're in control.

Yeah, that damned Constitution getting in the way of Obambi destroying this country. What a drag. If only we could just ignore it. Now you know why we need a Tea Party, because this IS the thinking of Obama and the liberals. Again, look at the deficit increase under Obama vs. Bush vs. every single other U.S. President. And has Keynesian economics helped at all. Nope. Stimulus: Bomb. Bailouts: Bomb. ObamaCare: Bomb. Growing government period: Bomb. I think we know who the real economic terrorists are today.

[)]

 

[james2012]

Can I get an Amen!

EDITORIAL: Obama’s tantrum against S&P - Washington Times

Standard & Poor’s historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is an attempt to bring adult oversight to the political squabbling over out-of-control government spending. But rather than “eating his peas,” President Obama is throwing a tantrum.

The day after the S&P action, the White House took aim at the messenger. Administration officials launched a blistering attack on the agency’s integrity, accusing S&P of employing flawed methodologies and making basic math errors in its analysis. When the bureau acknowledged and corrected one of the problems, chief White House economic advisor Gene Sperling pounced, saying that the credit downgrade “smacked of an institution starting with a conclusion and shaping any arguments to fit it.”

Well, look who’s talking. A review of White House budget proposals from 2009 to present reveals a series of long-term economic assumptions that torture credulity in service of Mr. Obama’s big-government agenda.

According to the fiscal 2010 budget proposal, released in February 2009 and modestly entitled “A New Era of Responsibility,” prosperity was just around the corner. The projected gross domestic product for 2009 was almost zero, but in 2010 the Obama administration foresaw 3.43 percent growth, followed by 5.23 percent in 2011 and an astonishing 6.26 percent in 2012. By 2015, this would level out to a comparatively modest but objectively unrealistic 4.45 percent, which was the default assumption out to 2019. These growth dreams were laughable. Without credible rationale, the White House posited that the U.S. economy would grow at a record pace for almost 20 years. This red-hot growth projection was necessary, however, to justify and cover the record levels of government spending Mr. Obama was planning.

White House long-term deficit projections were wrongly rosy as well. According to Mr. Obama’s first budget, the projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2010 would be sliced in half to $533 billion by 2013. This red ink would creep slowly up to $712 billion by the end of the decade but would still be around 3 percent of the mammoth projected GDP.

Two years later, the economy isn’t producing the benefits Mr. Obama promised. Growth has been anemic rather than robust, and deficits have skyrocketed rather than receded. Never mind, the fiscal 2012 budget proposal gives the impression that everything is going according to plan. The administration still projects almost 4 percent growth this year, when most economists who aren’t in Mr. Obama’s employ predict 1 percent to 2 percent growth. The Obama budget predicts the economy will surge in the out years, growing between 4.36 percent and 6.15 percent per year for the rest of the decade. And through some inexplicable numerical magic, the projected yearly deficits for the period after 2017 are even lower than the absurd numbers offered in the 2010 budget. These outlandish figures are an insult to the national intelligence.

The projected job impact of the budget-busting “stimulus” plan, issued two weeks before Mr. Obama took office, is another important document revealing the haplessness of White House economic assumptions. According to this study, the unemployment rate with the stimulus plan in the third quarter of 2011 was supposed to be 6.5 percent, instead of the current 9.1 percent. Doing nothing would have yielded 7.7 percent unemployment. Even by their own economic estimates, doing nothing would have been better for America than what the Democrats did.

The White House’s baloney growth and deficit projections are the type of politically motivated numbers that caused S&P to question the ability of the United States to end its orgy of deficit spending. Rather than waging political war on the ratings agency, the White House should come clean and submit a budget proposal with honest assumptions that better reflect the damage Mr. Obama has wrought on the economy.

 

[james2012]

Obama presser: Blame the Tea party. Blame everyone but me. And the markets still plunge. Why? Because nobody is interested in your excuses and buck passing Obambi. No rousing speeches. No comforting rhetoric. Just child-like blame that the markets are not buying.

Your are useless.

 

[james2012]

Reality bites: the downgrade is the fault of the Democrats and RINO demonizers of the Tea Party: The Tea Party downgrade | Questions and Observations. Got to hate those facts, and look at them poll numbers! CCB was the way to go, and it was the Tea Party way. And a huge majority of American's supported it. RINOs and Dems beware:

Look at the history of this – the fact of the matter is that this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade. The Tea Party brought us to the brink of a default.” –David Axelrod, top political consultant to President Obama, in an appearance on “Face the Nation”, Sunday, 7 August, 2011

Damn those Tea Partiers, and their rigid insistence on slashing the Federal budget. If only they were more flexible on spending and increased taxes, we’d be just fine. Their demand that we substantially cut federal spending, balance the budget, and pay down the debt without significant tax increases has now caused S&P to conclude that we aren’t serious about getting debt under control.

That’s the Democrats’ argument anyway. And they’re sticking to it.

I will defer to Protein Wisdom’s Jeff Goldstein for his response:

For all those — both left and (establishment) right — inclined to excuse their own complicity and try to scapegoat the TEA Party, which remains the one faction who actively pushed for serious, actual debt reduction and a return to fiscal sanity, take note here: we recognize that it’s been your strategy since the downgrade to seize on the warnings against “political gridlock” in order to insist that a failure to “compromise” on the part of the TEA Party supporters is what led to the downgrade. We also recognize the dishonesty and cynicism of such a strategy: as has been noted time and again, Cut Cap and Balance was the compromise, with the vast majority of TEA Party supporters in the House voting for the bill, which gave the President his debt ceiling increase in exchange for both real cuts and a mechanism by which to control future deficit spending and debt.

Who didn’t compromise — and whose political intransigence is at the heart of the downgrade — is the Democrats, who refused to come up with their own plan, and who then refused to even allow CC&B come up for a vote. This faction — along with the go along/get along GOP establishment — is now looking to pass blame for their own willingness to block compromise onto the TEA Party.

It won’t work. 66% of the population backed CC&B; 75% backed a Balanced Budget Amendment. What they got instead was more spending (the single largest increase in history) for more empty promises of future cuts in the rate of spending.

This didn’t come anywhere near to what the credit agencies demanded, and it is not lost on us, no matter how feverishly you wish to spin it, that what is missing from any plan but those pushed by the TEA Party is any “‘stabilization and eventual decline’ of the federal debt as a share of the economy,” something that simply won’t happen without real cuts. Raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” even were you to confiscate all their wealth by taxing them at 100%, would run this government for less than a year. And once you confiscated it all, you’d have to then look elsewhere for new “revenues” to keep the government running.

The political class is unwilling to accept a simple premise: They’ve looted the system. And they’ve looted it to such an extent that some notional increase in revenues obtained by taxing the "rich" can never make up for the spending.

Blaming the downgrade—or anything else—on the only group in America who are willing to fix the problem, rather than kicking it down the road as far as they can, is just a non-starter.

Or, it would be, if there weren’t so many people who weren’t so desperate to believe the gravy train can roll forever.

And look at the intrade odds form Bambi's re-election. They are falling as fast as the market is today. Bambi out in 2012 - that is real CHANGE.

 

[CubbieBlue]

Greg,

Who do you think will be the republican contender against Obama?