The Tea Party downgrade

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that the moves in the market are much more about the economy and much less then the S&P ratings. Look at the GDP numbers and it is pretty easy to see how bad things are.

Funny how the current administration had a supermajority and did nothing for over 18 months. Of course it is not their fault, it is definitely the oppositions fault.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Funny how the current administration had a supermajority and did nothing for over 18 months. Of course it is not their fault, it is definitely the oppositions fault.[/quote]

First, the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling.

Congress authorized the spending and they needed to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the spending they (not the President) had already authorized.

Implicit in your statement is that the Democrats in Congress had 18 months to do something that needed to get done, but they proscratinated.

Yes, the Democrats procrastinated because they had wrongly assummed that everybody felt that the debt ceiling had to be raised. That doesn’t excuse the obstruction on the Republican side.

More on the S&P downgrade, any underwriter woud say that ability and willingness to repay debts are very important in assessing risk.

Now, we have a Congress that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, Congress passes budgets and authorizes spending, but then, on the other hand it placed a ceiling on the issuance of debt to finance the authorizations.

There is a growing number of politicians who believe that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. They want to cut-off funding and let the government arbitrarily select who to pay first from available cash. There is however no political mechanism to decide which creditors, vendors, or employees get paid first.

S&P is concerned, not about the ability to pay, but about the willingness to pay. S&P is worried about America’s willingness to live up to its commitments (if not, change the commitments but don’t play political games).

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Funny how the current administration had a supermajority and did nothing for over 18 months. Of course it is not their fault, it is definitely the oppositions fault.[/quote]

First, the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling.

Congress authorized the spending and they needed to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the spending they (not the President) had already authorized.

Implicit in your statement is that the Democrats in Congress had 18 months to do something that needed to get done, but they proscratinated.

Yes, the Democrats procrastinated because they had wrongly assummed that everybody felt that the debt ceiling had to be raised. That doesn’t excuse the obstruction on the Republican side.

More on the S&P downgrade, any underwriter woud say that ability and willingness to repay debts are very important in assessing risk.

Now, we have a Congress that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, Congress passes budgets and authorizes spending, but then, on the other hand it placed a ceiling on the issuance of debt to finance the authorizations.

There is a growing number of politicians who believe that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. They want to cut-off funding and let the government arbitrarily select who to pay first from available cash. There is however no political mechanism to decide which creditors, vendors, or employees get paid first.

S&P is concerned, not about the ability to pay, but about the willingness to pay. S&P is worried about America’s willingness to live up to its commitments (if not, change the commitments but don’t play political games).

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Funny how the current administration had a supermajority and did nothing for over 18 months. Of course it is not their fault, it is definitely the oppositions fault.[/quote]

First, the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling.

Congress authorized the spending and they needed to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the spending they (not the President) had already authorized.

Implicit in your statement is that the Democrats in Congress had 18 months to do something that needed to get done, but they proscratinated.

Yes, the Democrats procrastinated because they had wrongly assummed that everybody felt that the debt ceiling had to be raised. That doesn’t excuse the obstruction on the Republican side.

More on the S&P downgrade, any underwriter woud say that ability and willingness to repay debts are very important in assessing risk.

Now, we have a Congress that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, Congress passes budgets and authorizes spending, but then, on the other hand it placed a ceiling on the issuance of debt to finance the authorizations.

There is a growing number of politicians who believe that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. They want to cut-off funding and let the government arbitrarily select who to pay first from available cash. There is however no political mechanism to decide which creditors, vendors, or employees get paid first.

S&P is concerned, not about the ability to pay, but about the willingness to pay. S&P is worried about America’s willingness to live up to its commitments (if not, change the commitments but don’t play political games).

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Funny how the current administration had a supermajority and did nothing for over 18 months. Of course it is not their fault, it is definitely the oppositions fault.[/quote]

First, the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling.

Congress authorized the spending and they needed to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the spending they (not the President) had already authorized.

Implicit in your statement is that the Democrats in Congress had 18 months to do something that needed to get done, but they proscratinated.

Yes, the Democrats procrastinated because they had wrongly assummed that everybody felt that the debt ceiling had to be raised. That doesn’t excuse the obstruction on the Republican side.

More on the S&P downgrade, any underwriter woud say that ability and willingness to repay debts are very important in assessing risk.

Now, we have a Congress that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, Congress passes budgets and authorizes spending, but then, on the other hand it placed a ceiling on the issuance of debt to finance the authorizations.

There is a growing number of politicians who believe that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. They want to cut-off funding and let the government arbitrarily select who to pay first from available cash. There is however no political mechanism to decide which creditors, vendors, or employees get paid first.

S&P is concerned, not about the ability to pay, but about the willingness to pay. S&P is worried about America’s willingness to live up to its commitments (if not, change the commitments but don’t play political games).

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Funny how the current administration had a supermajority and did nothing for over 18 months. Of course it is not their fault, it is definitely the oppositions fault.[/quote]

First, the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling.

Congress authorized the spending and they needed to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the spending they (not the President) had already authorized.

Implicit in your statement is that the Democrats in Congress had 18 months to do something that needed to get done, but they proscratinated.

Yes, the Democrats procrastinated because they had wrongly assummed that everybody felt that the debt ceiling had to be raised. That doesn’t excuse the obstruction on the Republican side.

More on the S&P downgrade, any underwriter woud say that ability and willingness to repay debts are very important in assessing risk.

Now, we have a Congress that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, Congress passes budgets and authorizes spending, but then, on the other hand it placed a ceiling on the issuance of debt to finance the authorizations.

There is a growing number of politicians who believe that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. They want to cut-off funding and let the government arbitrarily select who to pay first from available cash. There is however no political mechanism to decide which creditors, vendors, or employees get paid first.

S&P is concerned, not about the ability to pay, but about the willingness to pay. S&P is worried about America’s willingness to live up to its commitments (if not, change the commitments but don’t play political games).

[SD Realtor]

Sorry there was no obstruction. The house presented options that were shot down in the senate. To say that both parties were obstructionists is fact, to say that one was is simply a defensive mechanism that you regularly employ.

Furthermore to say that after not submitting any budget while having a supermajority for over 18 months should be excused because “everybody assumed the debt ceiling was going to be raised” is a pretty sad portrait of why we are where we are.

So let’s review that strategy, We didn’t deal with the problem because we figured we would get a debt limit raised so we wouldn’t have to… deal with the problem? So when would the problem be dealt with? I don’t know, why deal with it when we don’t have to?

It seems to me that the democrats had a fantastic opportunity to deal with the problem, the choices would have been hard, but they could have picked and chose what would be cut and what would not have been cut. Politically would it have been suicidal? Perhaps but it would have earned my vote in the future.

I have posted more then once about how problematic things become when rates do go up. The cost of refinancing debt as old debt is retired at low rates gets very scary. So the excuses of, well we deal with this down the road when wars are over and such doesn’t wash. Deal it with now, stop Libya, pull out of the wars, declare a loss or whatever, and pull the plug, would have been rough but seems to me the fiscally prudent thing to do. Curiously though that didn’t happen and the word you neglect to discuss at all, Libya did happen.

Don’t worry because if the repubs were in the drivers seat I would be saying the same thing. The only difference is you would cheering instead of rationalizing. Bush started the debt trajectory and the current administration as added jet fuel to it. Today you rationalize and when and if there is a change of leadership for the party you dont like, you will attack them. Even if the behavior is fundamentally the same, which it will be.

[SD Realtor]

Sorry there was no obstruction. The house presented options that were shot down in the senate. To say that both parties were obstructionists is fact, to say that one was is simply a defensive mechanism that you regularly employ.

Furthermore to say that after not submitting any budget while having a supermajority for over 18 months should be excused because “everybody assumed the debt ceiling was going to be raised” is a pretty sad portrait of why we are where we are.

So let’s review that strategy, We didn’t deal with the problem because we figured we would get a debt limit raised so we wouldn’t have to… deal with the problem? So when would the problem be dealt with? I don’t know, why deal with it when we don’t have to?

It seems to me that the democrats had a fantastic opportunity to deal with the problem, the choices would have been hard, but they could have picked and chose what would be cut and what would not have been cut. Politically would it have been suicidal? Perhaps but it would have earned my vote in the future.

I have posted more then once about how problematic things become when rates do go up. The cost of refinancing debt as old debt is retired at low rates gets very scary. So the excuses of, well we deal with this down the road when wars are over and such doesn’t wash. Deal it with now, stop Libya, pull out of the wars, declare a loss or whatever, and pull the plug, would have been rough but seems to me the fiscally prudent thing to do. Curiously though that didn’t happen and the word you neglect to discuss at all, Libya did happen.

Don’t worry because if the repubs were in the drivers seat I would be saying the same thing. The only difference is you would cheering instead of rationalizing. Bush started the debt trajectory and the current administration as added jet fuel to it. Today you rationalize and when and if there is a change of leadership for the party you dont like, you will attack them. Even if the behavior is fundamentally the same, which it will be.

[SD Realtor]

Sorry there was no obstruction. The house presented options that were shot down in the senate. To say that both parties were obstructionists is fact, to say that one was is simply a defensive mechanism that you regularly employ.

Furthermore to say that after not submitting any budget while having a supermajority for over 18 months should be excused because “everybody assumed the debt ceiling was going to be raised” is a pretty sad portrait of why we are where we are.

So let’s review that strategy, We didn’t deal with the problem because we figured we would get a debt limit raised so we wouldn’t have to… deal with the problem? So when would the problem be dealt with? I don’t know, why deal with it when we don’t have to?

It seems to me that the democrats had a fantastic opportunity to deal with the problem, the choices would have been hard, but they could have picked and chose what would be cut and what would not have been cut. Politically would it have been suicidal? Perhaps but it would have earned my vote in the future.

I have posted more then once about how problematic things become when rates do go up. The cost of refinancing debt as old debt is retired at low rates gets very scary. So the excuses of, well we deal with this down the road when wars are over and such doesn’t wash. Deal it with now, stop Libya, pull out of the wars, declare a loss or whatever, and pull the plug, would have been rough but seems to me the fiscally prudent thing to do. Curiously though that didn’t happen and the word you neglect to discuss at all, Libya did happen.

Don’t worry because if the repubs were in the drivers seat I would be saying the same thing. The only difference is you would cheering instead of rationalizing. Bush started the debt trajectory and the current administration as added jet fuel to it. Today you rationalize and when and if there is a change of leadership for the party you dont like, you will attack them. Even if the behavior is fundamentally the same, which it will be.

[SD Realtor]

Sorry there was no obstruction. The house presented options that were shot down in the senate. To say that both parties were obstructionists is fact, to say that one was is simply a defensive mechanism that you regularly employ.

Furthermore to say that after not submitting any budget while having a supermajority for over 18 months should be excused because “everybody assumed the debt ceiling was going to be raised” is a pretty sad portrait of why we are where we are.

So let’s review that strategy, We didn’t deal with the problem because we figured we would get a debt limit raised so we wouldn’t have to… deal with the problem? So when would the problem be dealt with? I don’t know, why deal with it when we don’t have to?

It seems to me that the democrats had a fantastic opportunity to deal with the problem, the choices would have been hard, but they could have picked and chose what would be cut and what would not have been cut. Politically would it have been suicidal? Perhaps but it would have earned my vote in the future.

I have posted more then once about how problematic things become when rates do go up. The cost of refinancing debt as old debt is retired at low rates gets very scary. So the excuses of, well we deal with this down the road when wars are over and such doesn’t wash. Deal it with now, stop Libya, pull out of the wars, declare a loss or whatever, and pull the plug, would have been rough but seems to me the fiscally prudent thing to do. Curiously though that didn’t happen and the word you neglect to discuss at all, Libya did happen.

Don’t worry because if the repubs were in the drivers seat I would be saying the same thing. The only difference is you would cheering instead of rationalizing. Bush started the debt trajectory and the current administration as added jet fuel to it. Today you rationalize and when and if there is a change of leadership for the party you dont like, you will attack them. Even if the behavior is fundamentally the same, which it will be.

[SD Realtor]

Sorry there was no obstruction. The house presented options that were shot down in the senate. To say that both parties were obstructionists is fact, to say that one was is simply a defensive mechanism that you regularly employ.

Furthermore to say that after not submitting any budget while having a supermajority for over 18 months should be excused because “everybody assumed the debt ceiling was going to be raised” is a pretty sad portrait of why we are where we are.

So let’s review that strategy, We didn’t deal with the problem because we figured we would get a debt limit raised so we wouldn’t have to… deal with the problem? So when would the problem be dealt with? I don’t know, why deal with it when we don’t have to?

It seems to me that the democrats had a fantastic opportunity to deal with the problem, the choices would have been hard, but they could have picked and chose what would be cut and what would not have been cut. Politically would it have been suicidal? Perhaps but it would have earned my vote in the future.

I have posted more then once about how problematic things become when rates do go up. The cost of refinancing debt as old debt is retired at low rates gets very scary. So the excuses of, well we deal with this down the road when wars are over and such doesn’t wash. Deal it with now, stop Libya, pull out of the wars, declare a loss or whatever, and pull the plug, would have been rough but seems to me the fiscally prudent thing to do. Curiously though that didn’t happen and the word you neglect to discuss at all, Libya did happen.

Don’t worry because if the repubs were in the drivers seat I would be saying the same thing. The only difference is you would cheering instead of rationalizing. Bush started the debt trajectory and the current administration as added jet fuel to it. Today you rationalize and when and if there is a change of leadership for the party you dont like, you will attack them. Even if the behavior is fundamentally the same, which it will be.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1]

I believe the main concern at S&P is that, in America, there is a growing fringe of politicians who believe that we don’t need to pay for the spending that Congress already approved. That fringe want us to arbitrarily renege on the financial commitments Congress has already made.[/quote]

I swear to God Brian, I don’t mean to be antagonistic as I rather not upset people on this board.

But you are truly an uninformed moron of the highest order, a brainwashed automaton, or just a bad person who is in on the joke, but will lie and obfuscate relentlessly to further your agenda.

If you’re not a bad man, then it is truly a wonder how someone so clueless and feeble minded as yourself is able to be financially successful independent of government largess or inheritance.

You’re the equivalent of this boards live-in Pravda representative spreading the state’s, but not reality’s, version of the truth.

Almost everything you’ve posted regarding politics and economics that I’ve read here over the past couple of years has been wrong and the things you advocate are some of the primary reasons we’re in the fix we’re in — and will never be the solution.

Sickening.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1]

I believe the main concern at S&P is that, in America, there is a growing fringe of politicians who believe that we don’t need to pay for the spending that Congress already approved. That fringe want us to arbitrarily renege on the financial commitments Congress has already made.[/quote]

I swear to God Brian, I don’t mean to be antagonistic as I rather not upset people on this board.

But you are truly an uninformed moron of the highest order, a brainwashed automaton, or just a bad person who is in on the joke, but will lie and obfuscate relentlessly to further your agenda.

If you’re not a bad man, then it is truly a wonder how someone so clueless and feeble minded as yourself is able to be financially successful independent of government largess or inheritance.

You’re the equivalent of this boards live-in Pravda representative spreading the state’s, but not reality’s, version of the truth.

Almost everything you’ve posted regarding politics and economics that I’ve read here over the past couple of years has been wrong and the things you advocate are some of the primary reasons we’re in the fix we’re in — and will never be the solution.

Sickening.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1]

I believe the main concern at S&P is that, in America, there is a growing fringe of politicians who believe that we don’t need to pay for the spending that Congress already approved. That fringe want us to arbitrarily renege on the financial commitments Congress has already made.[/quote]

I swear to God Brian, I don’t mean to be antagonistic as I rather not upset people on this board.

But you are truly an uninformed moron of the highest order, a brainwashed automaton, or just a bad person who is in on the joke, but will lie and obfuscate relentlessly to further your agenda.

If you’re not a bad man, then it is truly a wonder how someone so clueless and feeble minded as yourself is able to be financially successful independent of government largess or inheritance.

You’re the equivalent of this boards live-in Pravda representative spreading the state’s, but not reality’s, version of the truth.

Almost everything you’ve posted regarding politics and economics that I’ve read here over the past couple of years has been wrong and the things you advocate are some of the primary reasons we’re in the fix we’re in — and will never be the solution.

Sickening.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1]

I believe the main concern at S&P is that, in America, there is a growing fringe of politicians who believe that we don’t need to pay for the spending that Congress already approved. That fringe want us to arbitrarily renege on the financial commitments Congress has already made.[/quote]

I swear to God Brian, I don’t mean to be antagonistic as I rather not upset people on this board.

But you are truly an uninformed moron of the highest order, a brainwashed automaton, or just a bad person who is in on the joke, but will lie and obfuscate relentlessly to further your agenda.

If you’re not a bad man, then it is truly a wonder how someone so clueless and feeble minded as yourself is able to be financially successful independent of government largess or inheritance.

You’re the equivalent of this boards live-in Pravda representative spreading the state’s, but not reality’s, version of the truth.

Almost everything you’ve posted regarding politics and economics that I’ve read here over the past couple of years has been wrong and the things you advocate are some of the primary reasons we’re in the fix we’re in — and will never be the solution.

Sickening.

[Author]

Posts