White House adviser blames tea party for downgrade

[aceshin]

Here's the full report: S&P

No, the rating was not lowered because taxes were no raised.

I'm sorry, but did you not read the report yourself? Contained in one of the first sentences in the section marked "Rationale"

...or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process

And I don't believe anyone has suggested S&P lowered the credit rating solely because of lack of new revenues, but as is clearly stated, it was part of their final decision.

[johnsbod]

Well, most people would agree it is better to taper your self down rather than cut straight away. *So, cutting spending gradually over time will be easier for the economy to digest. *Take it step by step.

What got passed barely makes a dent. We need to take some steps that actually have an effect on the national debt. At a very minimum, we need to be working on a balanced budget (which Obama has still not passed). We are going to need years of surplus to clean up this mess.

[johnsbod]

I'm sorry, but did you not read the report yourself? Contained in one of the first sentences in the section marked "Rationale"

And I don't believe anyone has suggested S&P lowered the credit rating solely because of lack of new revenues, but as is clearly stated, it was part of their final decision.

It's obvious in that report it is not one of the major reasons.

[Enso]

What got passed barely makes a dent. We need to take some steps that actually have an effect on the national debt. At a very minimum, we need to be working on a balanced budget (which Obama has still not passed). We are going to need years of surplus to clean up this mess.

True. And while a balanced budget is a good idea...the government does provide a service to it's people therefore it is OK imho to run a (short term) deficit..just so long as it doesn't get out of control. I don't think the government has the same luxury as a standard family. However, no one will deny, or should, that common sense needs to applied. Where that line is is up for debate, and that is the debate we all should be having. *So, while a balanced budget would be good...if we can't get quite there...that is ok too just so long as what is there is reasonable.

[PSToolman]

How are you going to create jobs by raising taxes and increasing the cost of doing business? You are latched onto a few myth there. 1. You seem to think that outsourcing can be fixed with a change in the tax code, totally ignoring the disparity in labor costs as the main factor. 2. You seem to believe that all the social spending is going all to the needy, totally ignoring the enormous waste, abuse and fraud involved. 3 You also posted that government workers are more efficient allocators of resources, which is patently absurd and flies in the face of reality.

I don't advocate raising taxes. I advocate giving tax incentives for jobs producers, which are primarily small businesses with less than 500 employees, and where you'll find the majority of Americans working. These same small businesses are where you find the most innovation, for which there should also be tax incentives. One other advantage of small businesses is they spend more of their profits, increasing the velocity of money and growing the local economies. Large companies are hoarders. Hoarding money raises prices and lowers wages. *

1. I think outsourcing can be fixed that way as I've just explained, and don't believe that labor costs are the main factor. By setting up shop abroad, they have a nice tax shelter to keep their profits and dodge their tax responsibilities here. GE didn't simply not pay their taxes. They still owe them, but they have been deferred until they bring their profits back to the States. That's not going to happen any time soon.

2. No, I know that not all of the social spending is going to the needy, and have many times posted that we need to address waste, fraud, and abuse. I will point out that high estimates on how much that adds to the cost of those programs is 15%. Addressing this will have to cost less than that to be cost effective.

3. Not sure where you get this one, but, I know that if we take the profit motive out of something, like health insurance for example, we can save a lot of money. A much greater portion of Medicare's revenue is spent on actual health care than that of your average health care provider, and Medicare has a much higher level of customer satisfaction.*

[aceshin]

It's obvious in that report it is not one of the major reasons.

Again, did you read the report or not? Because they mention increase in revenues several times. What is obvious in the report is that (in regards to taxes), they are very troubled by the inability for the US government to raise them.

In fact, if you read the report, you'll see revenue is one of the two major reasons they provided (the other being major spending cuts particularly in entitlements.

[amtharin]

If it were really about fiscal responsibiliy, we'd be talking about the tax codes that are killing jobs in the US, and nobody from the Tea Party, or the rest of the GOP, is talking about that. If the Tea Party were the grass-roots organization they pretend to be, and not financed by global-corporatists, they would be talking more about jobs. We'll never have deficit reduction until we get more Americans working and paying taxes. Cuts alone cannot get us there, and certainly not without creating a huge new class of homeless Americans. But, hey! As long as half of one percent of the US population keeps their loopholes.*

Because when you look at the numbers, it is obvious where the problem is at. *Its as simple as that. *Spending is the problem.

[amtharin]

I'm sorry, but did you not read the report yourself? Contained in one of the first sentences in the section marked "Rationale"



And I don't believe anyone has suggested S&P lowered the credit rating solely because of lack of new revenues, but as is clearly stated, it was part of their final decision.

So then do you believe the White House's statement is fair and accurate??

[PSToolman]

Again, did you read the report or not? Because they mention increase in revenues several times. What is obvious in the report is that (in regards to taxes), they are very troubled by the inability for the US government to raise them.

They were troubled by our government's*inability*to do anything. They state in the report that they make no judgment on where deficit reduction comes from, cuts or taxes. They aren't that troubled by the total debt either. They seem to be more concerned about the debt:GDP ratio. If we create more jobs here, we'd increase GDP, and improve the debt:GDP ratio. Further, we'd have a larger tax base increasing the total revenue and reducing the deficit.*

[PSToolman]

So then do you believe the White House's statement is fair and accurate??

It's not a statement from the White House, it is a statement from a White House advisor. But, I think it's accurate to say that the Tea Party's objection to, well, anything the president or the Democrats proposed, which caused a delay of passage until the final hour, was the last straw. Not the only straw, and certainly not the biggest, but they were the point of no return.*

[aceshin]

They were troubled by our government's*inability*to do anything. They state in the report that they make no judgment on where deficit reduction comes from, cuts or taxes. They aren't that troubled by the total debt either. They seem to be more concerned about the debt:GDP ratio. If we create more jobs here, we'd increase GDP, and improve the debt:GDP ratio. Further, we'd have a larger tax base increasing the total revenue and reducing the deficit.*

Yes I understand that, but they did express their hope that new revenues were introduced and did appear troubled that the mandate for the joint selection committee on deficit reduction doesn't include finding new sources of revenue. In the outlook section, again, they expressed their desire to see the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts lapsed.

When they were talking about debt to GPD ratio, being Canadian I couldn't help but smile when they mentioned our standing. And yes, I do hope there is a very concerted effort to increase the number of jobs in the US.

[amtharin]

It's not a statement from the White House, it is a statement from a White House advisor. But, I think it's accurate to say that the Tea Party's objection to, well, anything the president or the Democrats proposed, which caused a delay of passage until the final hour, was the last straw. Not the only straw, and certainly not the biggest, but they were the point of no return.*

It came from the top white house*advisor*on the*Sunday*TV rounds. *It is the message from the White House.


And to blame just one side in an inability to*compromise*is completely unfair, and inaccurate. * The left is caught up in getting the message out there that its the tea party's fault, and are more concerned with the "image of compromise" than dealing with the actual problem. *They threw peanuts at the the tea party, and then ran crying to the media "THEY WONT COMPROMISE". *Well, yeah, because you're not fuking serious about the problem.

[PSToolman]

It came from the top white house*advisor*on the*Sunday*TV rounds. *It is the message from the White House.


And to blame just one side in an inability to*compromise*is completely unfair, and inaccurate. * The left is caught up in getting the message out there that its the tea party's fault, and are more concerned with the "image of compromise" than dealing with the actual problem. *They threw peanuts at the the tea party, and then ran crying to the media "THEY WONT COMPROMISE". *Well, yeah, because you're not fuking serious about the problem.

Axelrod left his post in the White House in January.*

I will agree that some of the Tea Party people are serious, but disagree that what they espouse will solve it.*

[Streetbull]

The power of the TEA party to defeat the smartest POTUS ever is mind boggling! Housewives, hardware store owners, and soccer moms defeat the President and all his advisors and the Dem machine...wow!

Maybe Obama and company are really just rats, rats that run at the sound of a human step...

[Streetbull]

A little off topic but one thing I notice about Tea Party is that they are constantly attacked with the most vicious insults. Most lefties do not attack the Tea Party beliefs, they simply spout hateful garbage and call them tea baggers or religious nuts.

And yet, they win. what's that say about the scum hurling those insults?

[amtharin]

Axelrod left his post in the White House in January.*

I will agree that some of the Tea Party people are serious, but disagree that what they espouse will solve it.*

The article refers to him as a top advisor to the White House.

[Streetbull]

Streetbull asked dukeUSMC to ban me when I called streetbull a bigot. I got a two week ban plus a mod neg. I emailed the forum admin and the ban was lifted.

There is a disturbing trend of banning posters in this forum. You can bash gays, blacks, hispanics, you can make misogynistic statements ad nasaeum, tell people how to stalk women IRL...oddly enough those type of posters are not banned. Criticize a particular poster that leans to the right politically and you are banned.


The sad thing: self-described conservatives on this forum cheer those type of bannings.

No, you changed a quote from me to have me saying 'Ni##er'. That's what got you banned. And you typed the actual word.

[PSToolman]

The article refers to him as a top advisor to the White House.

His bio says otherwise. So does CBS, the network on which Axelrod appeared, in their story on his appearance.

"(CBS News) *Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group's political "brinksmanship" during debt ceiling negotiations "brought us to the brink of a default" *-- and that, subsequently, "this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade."
In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Axelrod, currently a campaign strategist for President Obama, said the U.S. economic downgrade was "largely a political analysis" and that "there's a broad consensus that [the U.S.] is still the safest place to invest your money.""

[markymark69]

No, you changed a quote from me to have me saying 'Ni##er'. That's what got you banned. And you typed the actual word.

Coolstorychap. My ban was lifted after only a few days. I screen shot the entire thread and linked to the direct post (before the mod deleted) I was negged and banned for...which is why the forum admin lifted the ban.
You are a fraud, a coward, bigot, and and now we can add: crybaby. I wonder how often you go crying to the mods? My dad had alot of flaws, but being a crybaby wasnt one of them. Your son must be embarassed to have a father like you.

[nutsy54]

He went on and on about how Obama had offered a $4 trillion cut. You know, the one that no one has ever seen on paper.

The same imaginary "cut" that was missing from his 2012 budget proposal, released just a few months ago. Which had also been missing from his 2011 budget proposal, and the 2010 version... And every spending bill he's proposed or signed since taking office.

But, it's always someone else's fault

[nutsy54]

Here's the full report: S&P

No, the rating was not lowered because taxes were no raised.

And contrary to Rogue's blatant lies, here are the only two occurrences of the word "Republican" in that report:

"Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures."

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

So... 4 1/2 pages of explanation, where Republicans are only mentioned twice (once in conjunction with Democrats), and that leads to absurd claims that "S&P blamed Republicans". Derp.

[Streetbull]

Coolstorychap. My ban was lifted after only a few days. I screen shot the entire thread and linked to the direct post (before the mod deleted) I was negged and banned for...which is why the forum admin lifted the ban.
You are a fraud, a coward, bigot, and and now we can add: crybaby. I wonder how often you go crying to the mods? My dad had alot of flaws, but being a crybaby wasnt one of them. Your son must be embarassed to have a father like you.

If its still there, anyone can go back and find what you did; You used a racial epithet and tried to pin it on me. You know the truth.
How does YOUR family like living with a guy who uses racial epithets? Klan much?

[Tekkendo]

Coolstorychap. My ban was lifted after only a few days. I screen shot the entire thread and linked to the direct post (before the mod deleted) I was negged and banned for...which is why the forum admin lifted the ban.
You are a fraud, a coward, bigot, and and now we can add: crybaby. I wonder how often you go crying to the mods? My dad had alot of flaws, but being a crybaby wasnt one of them. Your son must be embarassed to have a father like you.

Give it a rest and stop the usual lying spin. You got banned for making unrpovoked personal attack. Streetbull made a thread about Obama. Got nothing whatsoever to do with YOU. It was about Obama. You went totally offtopic to start shiete with Streetbull, heaping unprovoked personal attack and kept it up even after one poster called you trolling. This maybe a wild forum, making PERSISTENT UNPROVOKED personal attack CAN & WILL get you banned. Troling, making unprovoked personal attack, making CONITNUED personal attack. You DISRUPTED the forum. Thus you got disciplined. Live with it. Don't repeat it again, or face the same consequences againt.

Take it like a man.

[markymark69]

Give it a rest and stop the usual lying spin. You got banned for making unrpovoked personal attack. Streetbull made a thread about Obama. Got nothing whatsoever to do with YOU. It was about Obama. You went totally offtopic to start shiete with Streetbull, heaping unprovoked personal attack and kept it up even after one poster called you trolling. This maybe a wild forum, making PERSISTENT UNPROVOKED personal attack CAN & WILL get you banned. Troling, making unprovoked personal attack, making CONITNUED personal attack. You DISRUPTED the forum. Thus you got disciplined. Live with it. Don't repeat it again, or face the same consequences againt.

Take it like a man.

My bad...I didnt realize Streetbulls boyfriend was on this forum. How long have you two been a couple?