To all those who believe the Tea Party caused the S&P downgrade …

The key word in S&P’s explanation of its downgrading of US debt is “TRAJECTORY”.  A trajectory is based on a series of data points collected over time, not on a singularity.  A trajectory indicates a pattern of behavior most likely to result in a particular outcome (or a set of closely related outcomes).  A trajectory may be affected by specific events, but it is highly unlikely that a single event will shift a trajectory massively enough to result in a completely unforeseen outcome.

The trajectory that led to the S&P debt downgrade was put in place long before the “debt crisis” of the last two weeks, and long before there was a Republican majority in the House of Representatives that was connected to the “Tea Party” .   Our present trajectory began when President Obama and the Democratic leadership of the 110th and 111th Congresses enacted the largest peacetime expansion of the Federal government in US history, and chose to do so during the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The combination of a shrinking GDP during a steep recession and a historically large increase in government spending caused the size of the Federal government, as a percentage of GDP, to balloon from 19% to nearly 25% of GDP during President Obama’s first two years as President.  All the explanations we heard about the government spending spree of 2009 (it’s the Stimulus, it’s the bailout of banks, insurers, car companies, etc.) that were designed to make us think these spending increases were temporary, were nothing but lies.  The Federal Government is still consuming 25% of our GDP, and President Obama’s failed 2012 budget projects increases in government spending that will continue to outpace economic growth unless some kind of miracle occurs.  Meanwhile, due to the depressed economy and a corresponding drop in government revenues, annual deficits have ballooned from their historical average of 2% – 3% of GDP to an all-time high of 10% of GDP.

All of this was due to massive spending increases approved by Democrats.  Although President Bush signed the initial economic bailout bills in late 2008, the total cost of the Bush bailouts was less that one quarter of the $4.8 trillion in debt that the government incurred since 2008.  The Democrats may have taken their 2006 and 2008 electoral victories to be a “mandate” for bigger, vastly more expensive government, but I don’t recall a single national conversation during which President Obama (or candidate Obama) ever openly discussed the cost of his party’s grand big government schemes.

Nor has President Obama ever done anything substantial in the realm of financial planning.  His 2009 budget, $1.4 trillion deficit and all, was pushed through Congress as an emergency measure that was absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation and its economy.  But then he dropped the ball and allowed all of fiscal 2010 to go by without a Federal budget.  Then he claimed it was in the country’s best interest to wait on the recommendations of his bi-partisan Debt Commission before outlining any more spending priorities.  But this past March he ignored the recommendations of his own Debt Commission and presented Congress with a budget so unworkable that two months later it was voted down 0-97 by the Senate.  (This itself is unusual, as the Constitution proscribes that Federal budget measures are to originate in the House of Representatives).  President Obama has not bothered to present another budget to Congress, thus ensuring that we will endure yet another year of government finances being pasted together through spending resolutions, rather than appropriated through an actual budget.

And during the recent Debt Ceiling debate, all the plans that were put forth for public discussion and were used as the basis of Congressional debate were plans authored either by Republicans or bipartisan Congressional teams.  The White House failed to release anything resembling a detailed financial plan, only vague talk about a “balanced approach” to budget reform — just as it has failed to provide Federal budgets, or its own health care reform plan, or a plan to close Guantanamo Bay and revamp US detention and interrogation programs for captured terrorists, or a comprehensive strategy for military action in Libya, and on and on.  Speaking of health care reform, one of the biggest White House selling points for comprehensive health care reform was ‘health care reform is entitlement reform’ — we were promised significant deficit reductions if our health care system was put under the direct control of the Federal government.  Needless to say, after the final version of the bill, now the law, was scored by the CBO, its highly touted deficit reduction features were nowhere to be found.  The ObamaCare bill mandates billions of dollars in new revenues and redirected spending, none of which will be used to close the current budget deficit.

Through all of this, the ‘trajectory’ that emerged was clear — once they had recaptured power in Washington, the Democrats were going to embark on the biggest and most expensive expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal and the Great Society, regardless of the state of the economy.  To this end, they manipulated the Great Recession to justify even more spending (the failed “Stimulus”) and more regulation (Dodd-Frank).  There was only a short term fiscal strategy, based on more borrowing and printing more money.  Long term?  Eh, just kick the can down the road one more time.

Caught in the middle of this whole episode has been President Barack Obama, a man whose prior professional experience included time as a (failed) community organizer, graduate student/law professor, entry-level attorney, board member of several non-profit organizations, and elected politician.  Each of these vocations primarily involved either being a facilitator, or participating low-level meetings, or gathering and critiquing ideas from community members, clients, students, fellow board members, or citizens.  Before he became President, he had little or no experience negotiating agreements between disparate factions, or consolidating a wide range of ideas into a concrete and practical plan of action, or — most importantly — participating in major political undertakings without the aid a coterie of party operatives available to fix anything that didn’t work out in his favor.

Clearly, President Obama does not have the skills to handle powerful factions from both the Republican and Democrat political parties.  He rolled over (or perhaps more accurately, ‘voted present’) at the whim of the Democratic majority of the 111th Congress over and over again, signing whatever Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi put in front of him (specifically the Stimulus and ObamaCare bills) with little in the way of personal input and virtually no effort to include Republican minority members in the authorship of Congressional legislation.  And now that Republicans control the House of Representatives, Obama is completely out of his league.  Professor Barack can’t resist the temptation to appear clever by flinging barbs at the inability of Congress to successfully complete their homework assignments and formulate a “balanced approach” that reflects his lofty ideologies.  But he clearly has no idea how to lead Congress or the nation through our current financial and economic crises.

And so we come to the final point in our current trajectory, which is marked by President Obama’s lack of leadership.  As a nation we are at an impasse, caught between the big government fantasies and out of control spending of career Democrats, a Republican party torn amid the establishment-loving members of the old guard and a group of brash, Tea Party-inspired, bureaucracy-slashing freshman legislators, and a President who has no idea how to deal with such domestic unrest, nevermind the financial crisis in Europe and the smoldering power keg in the Middle East.

Yeah … the way things are looking right now we really are “pretty darn f*cked.”  And in a lot more ways than just our credit rating.

____________________________

Okay, I should probably lighten the mood a little bit:

YouTube: The Best of Steve Urkel, Part 1

When you have lost Maureen Dowd . . .
Progressive Agenda
  • Anonymous

    What to do now?  Revamp and stimulate affirmative action I guess.

  • Anonymous

    BEER SUMMIT!

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    It was Nero’s desire to remake Rome in his own image. Subsequently Rome just “happened” to burn giving Nero the opportunity to rebuild just as he desired. The people of Rome were outraged at the effrontery and the expense. Nero needed a convenient scapegoat to persecute and feed to the lions. History does tend to repeat itself.

  • NO, trajectory was not the problem.  S & P has publicly stated that America has the ability to pay its’ bills.  America was downgraded because some of its’ politicians expressed a willingness, even eagerness, to default rather than pay the nation’s bills.  Yea, the trajectory of debt is a problem but Obama tried to do a larger deal and it was the GOP/tea-party that refused.  It was a good deal too.  It would have cut a lot of spending plus gotten much less in new revenue compared to cuts, but the GOP/tea-party was not willing to charge rich people new taxes even though they are only paying 18% of their income to the national treasury.  I know middle class people who pay more than 18%.  What a joke! The rich are getting too good of a deal and they need to pay more taxes.  Obama was right about that but the tea-party/GOP is overly protective of the rich and they were ready to default the nation rather than see a billionaire pay one more dime in taxes.  So Obama was trying to do a deal that would have satisfied the S & P in the numbers so you can’t blame him since it was the GOP/tea-party that ran from the deal.  Basically, the GOP/tea-party is solely responsible for the downgrade.  They are the ones that caused the two problems that got us downgraded.

    1.  they made it publicly clear that they were eager to default rather than pay the countries bills.  S & P heard the tea-party/GOP express that and decided that America is no longer trustworthy.

    2.  Obama offered a deal that would have been satisfactory to the S & P but the GOP/tea-party rejected that deal because it is more important to them to overlyprotect billionaires (who are only paying 18% of their income in national taxes) than to protect the country. 

    • Read the report again, Zippy. 

      As for taxes, it seems you were as poor a student of mathematics as you were of reading with comprehension.

      • I would advise you to do the same. While the cuts made were miniscule, REPUBLICANS are mentioned- to quote S&P- “The majority of Republicans in congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues(tax increase), a position congress reinforced by passing the (debt bill) act.” The report continues to play out different scenarios of our debt and how they will change our credit rating based on that.

        You should open your mind to the idea that your view cannot be proven correct or incorrect. Look at what you type. You dont think logically, you merely debate endlessly, spinning statements and only using small insignificant details that bring your point the smallest bit closer to right, even though that is millions of miles away from what you are saying. You dont have any respect for those whos opinions differ, and therefore your opinions are of no worth or substance and only further cloud others from the truth and facts.

        The fact is our revenue must be increased and expenditure decreased. Raising taxes will increase revenue, cutting funding from programs will decrease expenditure. BOTH can potentially HURT the economy, changing anything could potentially hurt the economy. Yet the Increase in revenue and decrease in expenditure MUST be done.

        • djdrummond

          FACT:  The republicans presented and passed a number of bills to address the debt crisis.  The democrats and the White House published NO SPECIFIC PLAN WHATSOEVER. 

          FACT:  The Obama Administration has increased the federal debt by more than any previous administration in history, by a factor of more than three hundred percent.

          FACT:  The worst month of unemployment under the Bush Administration is better than the best month of unemployment under the Obama Administration.

          You got smears and lies, Kevin, nothing else. 

          • The first fact is somewhat true, isint the bill that just passed 98% of what you(republicans) wanted? Ryan’s plan (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050970-503544.html) would overhaul the medicare system and cut $725 billion in subsidies from the program. It would also DECREASE the highest individual corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. He said that he would “close corporate tax loopholes” in order to make up for the lost revenue… how specific is that? Also, in a climate where corporations are making RECORD profits (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/corporate-profits-jobs-wages-crisis_n_907653.html) and are still cutting pay and jobs, do they really need a tax break? GE paid $0 in taxes last year and other corporations get billions in subsidies from the government, if you want ill post proof. He gave no plan for social security. 

            Also, you are right, yet Obama did not start two wars the government could not pay for. The cost of the stimulus is a small fraction of the expanded defense budget and cost of the wars. But is the blame game getting anyone anywhere? that is actually why we are in this crisis. Because politicians are no better than you and me. They blame each other and try to prove themselves right not giving a shit about us.

            True, yet obama has no magic dial which can increase or decrease unemployment. Many corporations were on life support from a shitty economy and crashed during obama’s first year in office, he had nothing to do with it. He tried to create jobs by the stimulus, which worked, then didnt.

            Thanks, i look forward to your response.

          • djdrummond

            Sorry to be rude Kevin, but you are wrong on all counts;

            First, S&P made it clear that the primary problem was a lack of a program whcih would actually reduce the debt.  CCB would have done that, but nothing else, including the deal actually passed, would really fill the need.  The only good things that came out of the deal were avoiding the default, and getting the democrats to actually agree that spending has to be cut.  Part of what caused the downgrade was the lack of a serious proposal by the democrats – even now no one knows what Reid and Obama were really willing to do re: spending cuts, and this uncertainty was undeniably a factor in the downgrade decision.  The democrats’ behavior reminds me of that banal skit where a zen master tells his disciple to show him a certain rock but gives no details, so over and over again he says “no, that is not it” when the disciple makes a submission.

            As to the “wars casued the debt” canard, are you really so desperate that you are STILL trying to blame Bush for everything?  Just a few facts:  1 – the democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 elections, so from 2007 through 2010 every bill passed was a democrat creation.  If you look at the debt from before 2007 to the end of 2010, it’s pretty obvious that the democrats had a whole lot of control if they had a mind to put it to use; and 2 – the debt grew three times as much under Obama as it did under Bush, and since Bush had two full terms to compare to Obama’s three-quarters of one term, that’s pretty dismal and frankly indefensible.  Funny how it becomes “everybody’s doing it” when it becomes clear your side is FAR more culpable than the GOP.  Doesn’t make the republicans saints, but boy howdy, it’s impossible to say the democrats aren’t much, much worse.

            Now as for your ‘punish the corporations’ BS, good luck with that.  Do I really need to point out that GE’s board and chairman have been close friends with the DNC?  Is that really a good company for you to use as your example?  And by the way, I can cherry-pick as easily as you can if I want to find isolated cases, but on the whole, the problem for Obama and business is that he has added a mountain of unnecessary and punitive regulation and restrictions on US businesses.  Like last year, for example, when Obama’s reaction to the Deepwater Horizon disaster was to ban ALL Gulf drilling, even for rigs which had nothing in common with the TransOcean rig in style or operation, and in fact already boasted DECADES of safe operation.  Like banning in the gulf for half a year AFTER the area was cleaned up.  Just a small ding in employment and by the way seriously impacting several important regional industries, for NO safety benefit but a satisfying political payback against states which did not vote for him, I am sure.    

            And sorry, but the President of the United States DOES have influence and responsibility with regard to unemployment.  President Obama clearly understands this fact, since he assured the nation that his spending bill would bring unemployment below 8 percent (which of course never actually happeend, even though hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on union and state-based projects)  We have a remarkably robust economy, but there ARE certain fundamental laws of economics and monetary practice which have to be understood to avoid hindering growth and commerce.  For instance, whether or not you agree with ObamaCare, it’s important to understand that reshaping an industry which represents more than one-sixth of the total economy, and by the way doing so at a cost of well over a trillion dollars, is not something you implement in a recession, nor is it somerthing you impose with contradictory statements regarding scope and compliance.  Say what you want about Bush, but keeping unemployment down throughout his administration was not a fluke, nor is Obama’s high unemployment track record an accident.  It’s not true to claim that Bush was bad for business, anymore than it’s true to claim that Obama has been good for the economy.  I’m not totally trashing Obama; it’s true that unemployment is affected by some forces that the President cannot control, which is why even under good leadership there are sometimes recessions and downturns. But Bush, like Clinton, understood the dynamics of job growth and the effect of monetary policy on hiring and capital investment.  Barack Obama, on the other hand, had no education in business or finance, did not have any close advisors with such backgrounds, and his prior experience in government did not include any responsibility for a budget and economic performance.        

          • Hey djdrummond,

            Your facts are aall wrong.  Obama has done more to add to the debt than any other president.  You are either lying or dumb.  Check out the grapy below and you will see that Bush added a lot more to the debt than Obama has.  Also, a lot of the debt that Obama has added on had to be added on because if it hadn’t been added on then we would be in a depression, instead of anemic growth, today.  Also, a lot of Obama’s dficit spending is the result of stuff that was built into the acounts payable by previous administrations. Check out this graph:

            http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3553

            The costs of Bush’s new policies were 5. 07 trillion
            The costs of Obama’s new policies have so far been 1. 04 trillion.
            Do you get it yet?  Bush added more new spending than Obama has so far.  So you are dead wrong.

            Also, here is another graph: 

    • jim_m

      Basically, we got downgraded because the tea-party was out in public refusing to pay the nation’s bills.

      FALSE.  The only one going out in public was obama saying that if the GOP and the TEA Party didn’t cave to his demands for significant tax increases that he would not pay the bills.  That despite the fact that the government would have had the cash on hand to pay the interest payments on the debt and social security and more.

      The TEA Party demanded spending cuts which happens to be the one sure thing that the S&P wants to see from Washington.  obama was the one making it clear that he would default in retribution for not getting his way even though he had enough cash on hand to pay the bills.

      obama never put any deal on paper so anyone could do anything with it.  He constantly refused to be pinned down and even when they had nearly reached a deal he blew it up by demanding an additional $800B in taxes at the last minute.  That was when Boehner walked away and when he started negotiating solely with Reid.  Meanwhile Boehner offered two packages up for a vote and Reid offered one while obama offered exactly zip.

      Your supposed facts are nothing but leftist spin and have nothing to do with reality.

  • Anonymous

    Bill Clinton had it right when he spoke to Ted Kennedy about the Barak Obama’s experience.  

    • that is the one thing negative I have to say about Obama.  he does not have the fire in his belly.  He never should have run for president.  Hillary Clinton would have done a much better job because she is tougher.

      With all due respect I say to you Mr. President, please resign and let Hillary Clinton run for office.  She can handle the republicans but you can not.  Face it!  You are not standing up to them Mr. President and the worse part about it is that you have a much stronger hand than the republicans do.  The S& P report blames the default on the behavior that was conducted by the GOP/tea-party.  You could win that debate if you find some fire in your belly and come out swinging but you are not taking the GOP/tea-party to task and they are perceiving you to be a pushover.  You now have the debt ceiling to pay the country’s bills till after the election.  So that problem is solved.  If the GOP tries to reject the nation’s bills in their budget process go straight to the 14th ammendment and pay the bills without their approval.  Also, put about $100 billion into a jobs program to employ a LOT of people.  I saw a really cool looking idea for adding one teacher’s aid for every teacher and that plan would cost about $90 billion but you would use people who presently do not have jobs so those people woudl stop getting umemployment plus since they would be working they would be paying taxes.  By the time all is said and done the plan would cost like $50 billion and would bring the unemployment rate down to 7+ percent. This is a better idea than labor to build roads and stuff like that because those kinds of employees get bigger paychecks so the $90 billion wouldn’t go as far plus if you do the road jobs plan then a lot of the money is spent on equipment.  On the other hand if you do the teacher’s aid program all of the money goes to paycheck of about $30,000 and it would be a lot of people hired.  It’s the way to go Mr. President.  Just do it!  Use the debt ceiling money that you have to get ‘er done.  It’s our country’s best chance and it’s your best chance to be re-elected.  If you won’t do this then please turn the reins over to Hillary Clinton or else the tea-partiers/GOP will take the reins and the country will suffer. 

  • John “This is a Tea Party Downgrade!” has been a cog in the federal government’s borrow and spend machine for 9,714 days.

    Joe “Tea Party Terrorists!” Biden, for a mere 14,096 days.

    Marco Rubio, Kristi Noem, Allen West and Rand Paul, 217 days each.

    Yeah, it’s the Tea Party’s fault.

  • Anonymous

    ” it’s the Tea Party’s fault”

    I miss the ‘I blame Bush’  days already…  

  • Nobody’s buying what Obama’s selling, because anyone with a few working brain cells understands that there isn’t the amount of tax revenue to be raised to be a major part of closing the deficit, and outside what might be raised by reform (eliminating loopholes while lowering rates in revenue neutral fashion would have a stimulative effect), any tax increase in a weak economy is counterproductive.  But the diehard class warriors cannot admit this, for they would also have to tell their parasitic constituencies that the gravy train is running dry.

    As the fool spoke today, the market plunged ever faster.  Great job, Barry-O, that’s “leadership.”  If he had a shred of patriotism he would resign for the good of the country.

    • Anonymous

      Adjoran,  are you off the reservation, or losing your conservative mind? Even suggesting  looking at closing tax loopholes,  is enough to give tea jihadists  the  vapors. Senate Republican leaders in July, balked at Cantor’s new openness to closing the loopholes.”  Republicans have alwys opposed closing tax loopholes.

      • Anonymous

        Actually Crockmore, most tea party people are for closing all the loop holes.  Senate Republican leaders are not the tea party.  If they were, there never would have been a need for the tea parties to form.

  • Frank O’Connell

    Are you surprised that Laprarie didn’t link to the actual S&P statement? Don’t be surprised — it doesn’t support what he’s saying — so why would he link to it?

  • The Tea Party learned its brinksmanship tactics from Jack Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Kennedy risked nuclear war to gain a small military edge over Krushchev. The USA had the Soviet Union surrounded with nuclear missiles, but Kennedy considered even a tiny bit of turnabout was unacceptably unfair.  He was a first class idiot behaving like a drunken teenager. As a child, watching these events unfold, and unable to influence them, I was convinced we were all going to die.

  • here is the S&P report: http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

    • Anonymous

      Yes, and here’s what it says:

      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 anagreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week alls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

      agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week alls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

      The “controversy” and the “policy” are cited only because they show that there is likely little progress in containing spending and raising revenue. It is the lack of a valid fiscal policy which caused the downgrade, not a threat of default. The report also says that the debt ceiling agreement has removed any immediate threat of default.

      • Anonymous

        “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.”

        That’s the part the Democrats keep desperately ignoring, while citing every minor clause they can find to pretend it’s about raising taxes.

        S&P also point out that they assume that the “Bush Tax Cuts” will be allowed to expire as part of the deal, and that nearly a trillion dollars will come out of that – when there’s no real guarantee of any such outcome.

        The really interesting thing is how so many Democrats are whining about the horrible old Tea Party, and how they’re so intransigent about the necessary cuts in spending – while not commenting on how pretty much the entire Democratic Party was holding out for much higher taxes, and unwilling to budge an inch…

      • Anonymous

        Dang. I just can’t get those tags right.

    • djdrummond
      • Anonymous

        Can’t it be both?

  • Anonymous

    The Tea Party Caucus consists of 60 Representatives and 5 Senators.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

    In other words, about 12% of the Congress. And the Dems still control the Senate outright. The claim that Obumble couldn’t deal with this tiny fraction of Congresspeople shows what an idiot he is.

    Don’t forget the Geithner was on the tube in April–four months ago!!–claiming that there was “no chance” of a downgrade. These people had no plan for dealing with this situation because they couldn’t even see it was coming. And Obumble still hasn’t offered up a “plan” for dealing with the issues raised by S&P. Yesterday, he said he would  “present [his] own recommendations over the coming weeks.” The crisis is right now, it’s been coming for months (or years), and Obumble is just now getting around to “presenting” his “recommendations”? It can’t get much sillier.

    This is the Obumble downgrade and the Obumble economy. He has offered no leadership nor any understanding of how to deal with this situation. All he can do is blame somebody else, like a little child would do.

  • Anonymous

    I see those on the left are agreeing with our blamer in cheif that the Tea Party is to blame since they were willing to default if they didn’t get their way.

    The same applies to Obama who stated he would veto any bill that did not raise the U.S. debt ceiling through 2013.

    Again, let’s recall what Obama had to say about this when W was President.

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t give too much credence to liberals see bloggingheads videoS&P is a corrupt business who should be regulated out of business. The three rating agencies have have a legislated themselves a oligophy .S&P have been compromised before when they gave a Triple A rating for junk bonds when the investment houses paid them to give these fraudalent ratings.. They sold their reputation.The bond rate for ten year bonds for US treasury bills are way down, and have been for the last month, and even this past week. Figure that out?
    The shrinkage in jobs has been from the public sector, police, firemen etc, as the stimulus money has run out, the increase in jobs are coming from the private sector.

    • Anonymous

      “I wouldn’t give too much credence to S& P´s political decision…”

      Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall anyone questioning S&P in the past.
      I don’t recall any criticism when they downgraded Greece or Spain.

      I dunno. Seems like what we’re seeing is the typical liberal response; avoid the real subject and attack the messenger.

      Then again, maybe S&P are racists.

  • Anonymous

    No S & P they took money,  bribes from the investment houses who were underwriting dodgy real estate debt securities,  in exchange for giving them  a Triple A credit rating, which they knew to be worthless, a higher credit rating than present US bonds.They are dishonest and should be not be in business, instead they pushed Congress that only three credit rating agencies can exist. (see video I linked to if you are interested)

    • Ah, the new left-wing talking point courtesy of Michael Moore.  But Steve, you can only shoot the messenger so many times.  Our spending is out of control and there is no plan to fix the problem.  Simply raising tax rates will only bring in about 10% of what is needed to close our current deficit. The best way to increase revenues is to get the economy growing and put people back to work.  But guess what – there isn’t a plan to do that either.    Quite frankly we should be thankful that S&P had the guts to tell the truth.

    • djdrummond

      Ah.  So we should not believe the professionals whose business is understanding Finance and Credit, on an unproven accusation, but we should believe a politician with no education or experience in Finance or Credit, whose every economic action has poured gasoline on the fire?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – ahem –

                                                                  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
       

       

      • Anonymous

        So we should not believe the professionals whose business is understanding Finance and Credit, on an unproven accusation. Your appeal to authority and expertise is quite selective and touching .

        What is your view of global warming? DJ? Do you defer to the two hundred and seventy-five out of two hundred and seventy-five climate scientists, who vouch for it it? Probably not, because denying  AGW global warming, is the litmus test of a wizbang conservative?

        • djdrummond

          Stevie, trying to change the subject won’t work, either.

  • Anonymous

    The best way to increase revenues is to get the economy growing and put people back to work. 

    Yes, that should be the focus, not scuttling Obama, by scuttling the US economy,  but because of the downgrading, I  think a maufactured one, everybody is taking money  out of equities  in a stampede. and putting it into  wait..10 year US treasury bonds, which give a measly 2 % return. Investors, including  investment banks feel that is the safest investment. And now S & P  having  once again established  their stern credentials  and assessments, can go back to making  their real money  by “prostituting themselves” as David Frum, wrote today giving private debt, even dubious securties  triple A credit ratings, depending how much they are paid for their rating,…  a nice profitble racket and they are untouchable and unchallengable like Internal Revenue.
     
     

    • djdrummond

      Innuendo, smears, and trying to hijack the subject and get it away from the real problem.

      Yep, you sure make the DNC proud, Stevie!

      Too bad for you the voters have started to figure out things for themselves.

      • Anonymous

        To all those who believe the Tea Party caused the S&P downgrade

         Yes,  that is me, the bombthrowers in Congress coupled with tea jihadists caused the broken S&P, who blew their assignment when it really mattered, to blow out the rating,  If  you think I’m trying to hyjack the theme and title of the post, forgive me.

        • djdrummond

          Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, Stevie got his feelings hurt.  Got caught with nothing but name-calling and slander in his arsenal.

          Heh.

            

          • And the thing that really sucks – a lot of folks on the left are really seeing Obama for what he isn’t.

            He isn’t capable.
            He isn’t competent.
            He doesn’t have a clue.
            He doesn’t have a plan.

            He does give good teleprompter, though.

        • Anonymous

          good lord Steve stop with the god damn name calling. Why do you want to call your fellow citizens jihadists?

          • Anonymous

            I actually was thinking of using Mark Kleiman´s term  teahadists or  tihadists but typed the more direct jihadists. by mistake,  a Freudian error. They have both declared an holy war on Obama. Tea party loyalists oppose everything Obama stands for or has done, (with the one exception of eliminating bin Laden) and they look upon as their duty, religiously or not.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, well it’s still a pretty dickhead statement.

          • djdrummond

            It’s also untruthful.  The TEA Party came into existence before Obama was elected, and became known nationally when members started showing up at ‘Town Hall’ meetings held by congressmen and challenging their votes on spending and taxes.  The TEA Party has never specifically focused on Obama, and objects to his behavior rather than the man himself.

            President Obama, on the other hand, has treated the TEA Party with deliberate malice and personal insults, showing a rather immature petulance and a dismal lack of leadership. 

            It’s interesting to note how some of the more established politicians, including several republicans, fail to recognize that the TEA Party, while admittedly young and unrefined in political spin, is a fully legitimate grassrotos movement with supporters well into eight figures, who have already been the motive force in one national election and, given our current economic condition, may be the dominant moral force in next year’s election.  Yet a number of these politicians can do nothing better than resort to petty name-calling and boorish resentment.  It tells me they have no substantive defense of their own actions, but cannot bring themselves to face the fact that they were so completely wrong in their judgment and decisions.   

          • Anonymous

            Bull Shit Steve !

  • All by design of this administration, my friends.  Our arguments over semantics here are meaningless when our leaders do not wish to improve the situation.  This is going better than they could have dreamed.  Marxism is an evil system and it is growing like kudzu in The United States of America.

    • djdrummond

      So you’re saying we should hunt down those evil kudzu sowers?

  • Pingback: Who’s responsible for the downgrade? « Woe to the conquered – Livy()

  • retired.military

    The tea party couldnt state how the money coming in would have been spent if a deal hadnt been reached.  That would be the Treasury who takes direction from Obama  The treasury takes in about 200 Billion a month.  That was more than enough to pay the bills that were owed as far as the debt is concerend.  There was no chance of default unless the treasury and Obama decided to default rather than pay the nations bills.

    S&P is obviously racist as they did this to Obama and not to any other presidents.

  • Anonymous

    The whole point of the matter is that Obama IS NOT a Leader, other than leading the country like lemmings over the edge and into the abyss.

  • Oysteria

    The media and the left keep saying that the TEA Party wanted to default so it MUST be true.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone listening to Bloomberg TV in the days preceeding the S&P downgrade understood that the downrade was imminent, despite Geithner’s pronouncement on the preceeding Thursday that such a downgrade “could never happen”.  For purely political and self serving reasons, and at the expense of this country, Obama intentionally obstructed debt ceiling negotiation progress until after the downgrade, then proceeded to stand back and point the finger at the House, actualy having the gall to accuse “some” of “putting politics before country”.  As Emanuel advised Obama, “never let a crisis go to waste”.  This president continues to accuse the GOP of misdeeds he commits.  Apparently half of the country are buying into this.  Obama is the height of hypocrisy.  He is all politics, all the time.