• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moody's: Neither Debt Plan Protects the Nations' AAA Rating

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CC&B would, mind you....

but oooh, no. no no no. fiscal responsibility is way too far right wing fringe :roll:



The "limited magnitude" of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation's AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody's Investors Service announced Friday.

"Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating," the credit rating agency said in a new report. "The chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high."..

[b\It also clarified that as far as it is concerned, the nation will only default if it misses an interest or principal payment on U.S. debt, not if it misses payments on other obligations like federal employee salaries or Social Security benefits.[/b]

The report also gives credence to a claim popular among Republicans: that the government has enough cash to avoid a default even past the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department.

"If the debt limit is not raised before August 2, we believe that the Treasury would give priority to debt service payments and could thus postpone a potential debt default for a number of days," it said. "Revenues would be more than adequate for some period of time to meet those payments, although other outlays would be severely reduced as a result."...
 
Last edited:
First of all, I'd like to point out that Moody's itself should be a junk bond. I mean, why does anyone still attach any credibility to them in the first place? A better measure of creditworthiness is the interest rates that investors demand on government bonds.

but oooh, no. no no no. fiscal responsibility is way too far right wing fringe :roll:

There is nothing fiscally responsible about pushing the nation to the brink of default. 22 Republican congresspeople rejected even Boehner's plan as too warm and fuzzy, indicating that there is a certain bloc that will not vote for a debt ceiling hike under any circumstances. Furthermore, among those who DID vote for Boehner's plan, many did so only grudgingly and with an attached demand that they know will not happen (i.e. a balanced budget amendment).

Then we can go into the fact that the supposedly responsible right-wing fringe (to borrow your terminology) has mainly focused on cuts to non-defense discretionary spending in the current debt ceiling debate...which is at historically normal levels, easily reversible by future congresses, and should certainly not be cut during a period of high unemployment. Any truly "fiscally responsible" proposal will mostly leave this alone, and instead focus on the four areas which actually ARE a problem and are driving our long-term deficit: Health care, social security, defense spending, and tax policy.

So I agree with Moody's that neither debt plan is responsible...because they're focusing on entirely the wrong kind of cuts. With that said, I'm less concerned about what Moody's thinks than what bondholders think. Bondholders have been kind to the United States because they recognize that these problems are not as intractable, severe, or imminent as they are often portrayed...but this could all change if the government does not act to raise (or eliminate or ignore) the debt ceiling. The fiscal problems of the United States are long-term; we have time to correct our course and it's not going to happen in the next couple weeks. We need to get past the immediate threat of political default before we can focus on the long-term fiscal problems.

I compare it to a ship getting blown off course: The captain knows that he'll need to veer slightly north in order to reach his destination in 1,000 miles. But there's an iceberg in his path in another mile...does it make more sense to go around the iceberg and THEN veer north, or to head directly for the iceberg?
 
Last edited:
First of all, I'd like to point out that Moody's itself should be a junk bond. I mean, why does anyone still attach any credibility to them in the first place? A better measure of creditworthiness is the interest rates that investors demand on government bonds.

i agree with the caveat that that measure only works when you don't have an artificial buyer (rhymes with "ned") buying up 70% of issuance. but consider the direction of moody's; they are always the dumb money, the last to know.

There is nothing fiscally responsible about pushing the nation to the brink of default

i agree, however you will note that it wasn't the debt ceiling measure that has done this, but rather the lack of a fix to the long-term debt and continued deficits.

22 Republican congresspeople rejected even Boehner's plan as too warm and fuzzy, indicating that there is a certain bloc that will not vote for a debt ceiling hike under any circumstances. Furthermore, among those who DID vote for Boehner's plan, many did so only grudgingly and with an attached demand that they know will not happen (i.e. a balanced budget amendment).

Then we can go into the fact that the supposedly responsible right-wing fringe (to borrow your terminology) has mainly focused on cuts to non-defense discretionary spending in the current debt ceiling debate...which is at historically normal levels, easily reversible by future congresses, and should certainly not be cut during a period of high unemployment. Any truly "fiscally responsible" proposal will mostly leave this alone, and instead focus on the four areas which actually ARE a problem and are driving our long-term deficit: Health care, social security, defense spending, and tax policy.

you think that a BBA is dead on arrival, but a Republican Plan to reduce Medicare and Social Security expenditures isn't? Republicans have given the Senate the most left-leaning plan that can pass the House, entitlement reform can pass the House (and already has), but can't pass the Senate and the President would veto it if it did.

as for those issues you mention: Republicans fixed two of them in their 2012 Budget. You know, the one Senate Democrats declared dead on arrival?

I agree with Moody's that neither debt plan is responsible...because they're focusing on entirely the wrong kind of cuts.

yes and no. we need to drastically reduce future Medicare and largely reduce future Social Security expenditures; and it would be best if we did so in a way (with regards to Medicare) as to hold down medical costs so that those reduced expenditures still go further. however, a balanced budget amendment would be precisely the kind of structural change that would force an alteration in future spending and is therefore indeed a responsible measure.

With that said, I'm less concerned about what Moody's thinks than what bondholders think. Bondholders have been kind to the United States because they recognize that these problems are not as intractable, severe, or imminent as they are often portrayed...but this could all change if the government does not act to raise (or eliminate or ignore) the debt ceiling

both of those claims are inaccurate. bondholders have somewhat fled the even worse nightmare of Europe (temporarily driving the rate down) and have been operating in an environment where the Fed is massively intervening to drive the yield down even further. The US Bond yields could change extremely rapidly because the underlying economic logic of why they are currently low isn't stable.

The fiscal problems of the United States are long-term; we have time to correct our course and it's not going to happen in the next couple weeks. We need to get past the immediate threat of political default before we can focus on the long-term fiscal problems.

that is true and hence the speakers two-part-plan. :)


which the President (who apparently disagrees with you) has promised to veto :(
 
Last edited:
CC&B would, mind you....

but oooh, no. no no no. fiscal responsibility is way too far right wing fringe :roll:

Only the right wing thinks fiscal responsibility is sole property of the right.
 
CC&B would, mind you....

but oooh, no. no no no. fiscal responsibility is way too far right wing fringe :roll:



The "limited magnitude" of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation's AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody's Investors Service announced Friday.

"Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating," the credit rating agency said in a new report. "The chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high."..

[b\It also clarified that as far as it is concerned, the nation will only default if it misses an interest or principal payment on U.S. debt, not if it misses payments on other obligations like federal employee salaries or Social Security benefits.[/b]

The report also gives credence to a claim popular among Republicans: that the government has enough cash to avoid a default even past the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department.

"If the debt limit is not raised before August 2, we believe that the Treasury would give priority to debt service payments and could thus postpone a potential debt default for a number of days," it said. "Revenues would be more than adequate for some period of time to meet those payments, although other outlays would be severely reduced as a result."...

You left out the part where Moodys' called for lifting the debt ceiling entirely

Gee, I wonder why?
 
i agree, however you will note that it wasn't the debt ceiling measure that has done this, but rather the lack of a fix to the long-term debt and continued deficits.

Actually, it is the debt ceiling measure that has done this. Moodys has explicitely called for the debt ceiling to be eliminated, and cited the lengthy negotiations as part of the reason for possibly downgrading our credit rating

Moody's warns again on U.S. debt: eliminate debt ceiling - Jul. 18, 2011
 
The debt ceiling was suppose to be the mechanism to get government spending under control, but as has already been pointed out by the President, Reagan raised it 18 times during his tenure, for example, and the nation never really knew anything about it. Yesterday, there was a chart in one of the threads illustrating how the deficit had risen enourmously when DC was ruled by Democrates in both Congress and the White House over the last 40 years. What I found interesting about that was how other charts illustrate that the deficit remained relatively in check until 1080 when Reagan took office. So, what accounts for the sudden rapid increase in spending?

Answer: President Obama attempting to preserve the economy via the Stimulus, payroll tax credits, unemployment compensation and extending the Bush tax cuts.

Now, Conservatism says that tax cuts create jobs. We're still waiting for the jobs to come about in abundance. Instead, what we're seeing is federal and public employees being kicked off payroll and very little private sector job growth. Of course, cutting payroll is the easiest way to reduce operational costs. But I digress; we'll not go through that tax argument again as it's been argued to death. As I see it, the prove is already out there right before our eyes in the unemployment numbers, numbers that were already high before the Stimulus was enacted but did come down afterwards, yet are threatening to rise again now the Stimulus funds have been exhausted. So, you be the judge was to what works and what doesn't. The proof is right before our very eyes.

As to this debt limit deal, Washington Post columnist, Ezra Klien outlines the deal perfectly in his opinion piece here. The key is the "trigger" which would go into affect if Congress does not embrace deficit reduction measures as recommended by the deficit reduction Commission as outlined in the debt limit deal. And that "trigger" is massive cuts in across the board defense cuts, half of which Republicans have already agreed to.

So, the bottom line is this: neither side got everything they wanted, but both sides agreed to the lowest common denominators their party could take. If Republicans don't accept the Commission's recommendations, their sacred cow - defense spending - will get massively cut. And for the defenders of the homeland to accept such a thing to happen knowing full well that they agreed to accept whatever the Commission outlines would be renigging on their promise to "compromise" for the sake of the country. As for the President's stance on including revenue into the mix, he'll get them; it just won't happen until January 1, 2013.

Both sides won...sorta...but the country will still have to muddle through for atleast another 16 months.
 
NEITHER party is fiscally responsible. Republicans amassed massive debt. Democrats couldnt even bother to submit a budget and ran up 5 trillion in 4 years. We wouldnt even be HAVING these discussions if it wasnt for the Tea Party. Yes...the evil tea party...NOT the people that have dug the country into a now 15.5 trillion dollar hole- Republicans and democrats and their mindless shills.
 
NEITHER party is fiscally responsible. Republicans amassed massive debt. Democrats couldnt even bother to submit a budget and ran up 5 trillion in 4 years. We wouldnt even be HAVING these discussions if it wasnt for the Tea Party. Yes...the evil tea party...NOT the people that have dug the country into a now 15.5 trillion dollar hole- Republicans and democrats and their mindless shills.

While I agree that the Tea Party's actions brought many things with our national politic and our nation debt to light, I can't give them credit for it because of how they did it.

Look, if the Tea Party was orchestrated to be that "responsible party" on all things "oversized government", why does it seem that everything they do is "attack the President and the Democrat party" if they are a mixture of Republicans, Democrats and Independents?" I would think with such a mixture of party voices they'd attack both sides, not just one. But that's what I hear from Tea Partiers: "We're here to stop all this out-of-control government spending and growth of government. Blame Obama, blame Democrats". Only near the end does anybody within the Tea Party begin to acknowledge that out-of-control spending was done by both parties, and it took President Obama to point that out, "re: Reagan raised the debt limit 18 times".

If the Tea Party really wants to be viewed as "the responsible voice in our national politics", they need to branch away from the Right-wing and form their own party affliliated with no one except themselves. Only thing can they be taken seriously as "the true voices of reason and compromise in Congress". Until then, I and most of America will only see them as the radical, ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party renamed and packaged to be something it's really not - holding both sides accountable - when in truth they're only a bunch of right-wing extremist. (Sidenote: I wonder who really controls them and sets their mandate? Bachmann, Ron Paul, Eric Cantor or someoney else?)
 
NEITHER party is fiscally responsible. Republicans amassed massive debt. Democrats couldnt even bother to submit a budget and ran up 5 trillion in 4 years. We wouldnt even be HAVING these discussions if it wasnt for the Tea Party. Yes...the evil tea party...NOT the people that have dug the country into a now 15.5 trillion dollar hole- Republicans and democrats and their mindless shills.

The democratic president is the only one who managed to create a surplus, which was promptly destroyed by bush* and the republicans. And most of that $15T hole was created under a repubs watch.
 
While I agree that the Tea Party's actions brought many things with our national politic and our nation debt to light, I can't give them credit for it because of how they did it.

Look, if the Tea Party was orchestrated to be that "responsible party" on all things "oversized government", why does it seem that everything they do is "attack the President and the Democrat party" if they are a mixture of Republicans, Democrats and Independents?" I would think with such a mixture of party voices they'd attack both sides, not just one. But that's what I hear from Tea Partiers: "We're here to stop all this out-of-control government spending and growth of government. Blame Obama, blame Democrats". Only near the end does anybody within the Tea Party begin to acknowledge that out-of-control spending was done by both parties, and it took President Obama to point that out, "re: Reagan raised the debt limit 18 times".

If the Tea Party really wants to be viewed as "the responsible voice in our national politics", they need to branch away from the Right-wing and form their own party affliliated with no one except themselves. Only thing can they be taken seriously as "the true voices of reason and compromise in Congress". Until then, I and most of America will only see them as the radical, ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party renamed and packaged to be something it's really not - holding both sides accountable - when in truth they're only a bunch of right-wing extremist. (Sidenote: I wonder who really controls them and sets their mandate? Bachmann, Ron Paul, Eric Cantor or someoney else?)

Perhaps the reason it seems that way to you is because you are so blindly ideologically bent. The Tea Party hasnt been targeting democrats and the president, they have been targeting REPUBLICANS. And frankly, while most wouldnt admit it, they espouse the exact same virtues as the majority of liberals that believe in RESPONSIBLE federal spending.

As for branching off...its not going to happen, nor would it be effective. Its not unlike the Libertarians...there is just too much power vested in the two party system and too much pandering to thoughtless folks that buy into the my party good, your party evil mindset. The Tea Party is doing just fine targeting republican candidates. What would be absolutely AWESOME is if fiscally responsible democrats actually engaged the battle.
 
The democratic president is the only one who managed to create a surplus, which was promptly destroyed by bush* and the republicans. And most of that $15T hole was created under a repubs watch.

Only in the eyes of an ideologue...good ****ing lord...

Clinton created not a single budget. He passed not a single budget. He was blessed with the good sense to work with a fiscally conservative congress...and he gets major props for that. Bush gets the blame for signing every deficit budget bill he signed. The GOP is responsible for about 9 trillion in 6 years. The democrats are responsible for 5 trillion in 4 years. And you want to thump your chest and play king of dunces.
 
Perhaps the reason it seems that way to you is because you are so blindly ideologically bent. The Tea Party hasnt been targeting democrats and the president, they have been targeting REPUBLICANS. And frankly, while most wouldnt admit it, they espouse the exact same virtues as the majority of liberals that believe in RESPONSIBLE federal spending.

Is that why they ran as republicans against democrats? :roll:

And since when do liberals support a smaller govt, cutting SS, and oppose Obama? How many liberals think Obama was born in Kenya?
 
Only in the eyes of an ideologue...good ****ing lord...

Clinton created not a single budget. He passed not a single budget. He was blessed with the good sense to work with a fiscally conservative congress...and he gets major props for that. Bush gets the blame for signing every deficit budget bill he signed. The GOP is responsible for about 9 trillion in 6 years. The democrats are responsible for 5 trillion in 4 years. And you want to thump your chest and play king of dunces.

So the current budget problems aren't the fault of Obama, right?
 
Perhaps the reason it seems that way to you is because you are so blindly ideologically bent. The Tea Party hasnt been targeting democrats and the president, they have been targeting REPUBLICANS. And frankly, while most wouldnt admit it, they espouse the exact same virtues as the majority of liberals that believe in RESPONSIBLE federal spending.

As for branching off...its not going to happen, nor would it be effective. Its not unlike the Libertarians...there is just too much power vested in the two party system and too much pandering to thoughtless folks that buy into the my party good, your party evil mindset. The Tea Party is doing just fine targeting republican candidates. What would be absolutely AWESOME is if fiscally responsible democrats actually engaged the battle.

Far from it!

I see the need to protect the poor and unemployed just as I see the importance of protecting our nation's posterity. I understand that if you tax businesses and wealthy individuals too much, they won't reinvest neither in the national economy nor in their business ventures. I get that totally! However, I also understand that in situations such as this country is experiencing RIGHT NOW, you can't place the bulk of the responsibility on bringing this nation out of its economic slump on those who have very little, if anything more, to give! As such, the wealthiest among us have had nearly 30 years to do whatever it is they wished to do with their capital. Moreover and more to the point, it was the wealthiest among us who caused this economic problem, not the poor, not the middle-class. Yet, we are being asked to carry the burden. It's unfair!

As to the Tea Party, as I said, okay, NOW they hold Republican's feet to the fire in insisting on more spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment. But as I've pointed out neither the CCB bill proposed in the House, the debt limit agreement presently (and apparently reached by members of Congress) nor the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control at did anything to rein in spending in those areas we're being told are costing our government the most - Social Security, Medicare and VA benefits. Democrats haven't touched them and except for Paul Ryan's Medicare plan Republicans stayed clear of messing with them, too. Yet, who has the Tea Party attacked the most since prior to the Nov 2010 midterms? I don't have to tell you because you already know the answer to that question.

So, let's not pretend that the Tea Party has acted with nobility here. They may have sigular purpose of forcing government to reduce its spending, but until recently the blame coming from them has been very one-sided.
 
i agree with the caveat that that measure only works when you don't have an artificial buyer (rhymes with "ned") buying up 70% of issuance. but consider the direction of moody's; they are always the dumb money, the last to know.

This is false.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/100702-china-has-divested-97-its-treasury-bill-holdings-2.html#post1059542495

i agree, however you will note that it wasn't the debt ceiling measure that has done this, but rather the lack of a fix to the long-term debt and continued deficits.

How are you defining the bold?

bondholders have somewhat fled the even worse nightmare of Europe (temporarily driving the rate down) and have been operating in an environment where the Fed is massively intervening to drive the yield down even further.

The carry trade is alive and well, as the stability and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury market is the epicenter of it all. Why are yields still so..... low!?!?!?

The US Bond yields could change extremely rapidly because the underlying economic logic of why they are currently low isn't stable.

Would you explain this with a bit more detail?
 
Last edited:
While I agree that the Tea Party's actions brought many things with our national politic and our nation debt to light, I can't give them credit for it because of how they did it.

Look, if the Tea Party was orchestrated to be that "responsible party" on all things "oversized government", why does it seem that everything they do is "attack the President and the Democrat party" if they are a mixture of Republicans, Democrats and Independents?" I would think with such a mixture of party voices they'd attack both sides, not just one. But that's what I hear from Tea Partiers: "We're here to stop all this out-of-control government spending and growth of government. Blame Obama, blame Democrats". Only near the end does anybody within the Tea Party begin to acknowledge that out-of-control spending was done by both parties, and it took President Obama to point that out, "re: Reagan raised the debt limit 18 times".

you apparently haven't been paying attention - the Tea Party movement is just as willing to target Republicans; if anything, it is more fervent when it does so.

If the Tea Party really wants to be viewed as "the responsible voice in our national politics", they need to branch away from the Right-wing and form their own party affliliated with no one except themselves. Only thing can they be taken seriously as "the true voices of reason and compromise in Congress". Until then, I and most of America will only see them as the radical, ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party renamed and packaged to be something it's really not - holding both sides accountable - when in truth they're only a bunch of right-wing extremist

wanting to balance the budget is right wing extremism. about 70% of the Public, apparently, are right wing extremists. who knew?

. (Sidenote: I wonder who really controls them and sets their mandate? Bachmann, Ron Paul, Eric Cantor or someoney else?)

nobody "controls" the tea party movement. that is it's strength and weakness.
 

funny. I say they are buying 70% of issuance, and you claim it's false, because they aren't buying up to 70% of all bonds, but rather 70% of issuance.

however, I would love to see your argument for how the fed has not intervened lately to drive down rates :).

How are you defining the bold?

as we move forward, our deficits will be driven by our entitlements, and increasingly by interest on the debt accumulated. we need a way to fix the first, so we never get drowned by the second. we need policies that will consistently produce >3% growth and severely curtail expenditures.

The carry trade is alive and well, as the stability and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury market is the epicenter of it all. Why are yields still so..... low!?!?!?

because we remain one of the less bad of the options currently available. Though I understand Britain might be moving into that spot.?

Would you explain this with a bit more detail?

the low rate on our bonds is currently dependent on external instability. not on any factors inherent to ourselves. such a situation is itself inherently unstable.
 
Last edited:
As to the Tea Party, as I said, okay, NOW they hold Republican's feet to the fire in insisting on more spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment. But as I've pointed out neither the CCB bill proposed in the House, the debt limit agreement presently (and apparently reached by members of Congress) nor the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control at did anything to rein in spending in those areas we're being told are costing our government the most - Social Security, Medicare and VA benefits. Democrats haven't touched them and except for Paul Ryan's Medicare plan Republicans stayed clear of messing with them, too. Yet, who has the Tea Party attacked the most since prior to the Nov 2010 midterms? I don't have to tell you because you already know the answer to that question.

well yeah. since that time, Republicans have voted for the Ryan Plan, and Democrats have generally reacted to any discussion of entitlement cuts like

scream.jpg


however, it is worth noting that you are not fully correct. Republicans were able to prove that market pressure can produce amazing results in Medicare with Part D, and George Bush had a drive to fix Social Security in 2005.
 
Neither debt plan will work...because NEITHER party is even addressing cuts that really are needed FIRST....and thats bring all non essential troops home...like from Germany where their only purpose is to enhance the german economy.
Neither side is addressing the costs of illegal immigration and STOPPING ALL AID to those who come here illegally including free healthcare so they get their ass outta here.
Neither side will cut their pet Taxpayer giveaway subsidies to superrich Corporations like Big Oil and Big Farms.....until each party starts cutting the true fat...I WILL not support cutting Social Security and Medicare for future generations....they should be cut LAST and everything non american cut first and all the corporate pigs at the trough handouts....the teaparty is for the rich of the rich period and they prove it everytime they open their mouths...and most of their supporters are dumb as doornails because their policies will hurt them....braindead
 
First of all, I'd like to point out that Moody's itself should be a junk bond. I mean, why does anyone still attach any credibility to them in the first place? A better measure of creditworthiness is the interest rates that investors demand on government bonds.



There is nothing fiscally responsible about pushing the nation to the brink of default. 22 Republican congresspeople rejected even Boehner's plan as too warm and fuzzy, indicating that there is a certain bloc that will not vote for a debt ceiling hike under any circumstances. Furthermore, among those who DID vote for Boehner's plan, many did so only grudgingly and with an attached demand that they know will not happen (i.e. a balanced budget amendment).

Then we can go into the fact that the supposedly responsible right-wing fringe (to borrow your terminology) has mainly focused on cuts to non-defense discretionary spending in the current debt ceiling debate...which is at historically normal levels, easily reversible by future congresses, and should certainly not be cut during a period of high unemployment. Any truly "fiscally responsible" proposal will mostly leave this alone, and instead focus on the four areas which actually ARE a problem and are driving our long-term deficit: Health care, social security, defense spending, and tax policy.

So I agree with Moody's that neither debt plan is responsible...because they're focusing on entirely the wrong kind of cuts. With that said, I'm less concerned about what Moody's thinks than what bondholders think. Bondholders have been kind to the United States because they recognize that these problems are not as intractable, severe, or imminent as they are often portrayed...but this could all change if the government does not act to raise (or eliminate or ignore) the debt ceiling. The fiscal problems of the United States are long-term; we have time to correct our course and it's not going to happen in the next couple weeks. We need to get past the immediate threat of political default before we can focus on the long-term fiscal problems.

I compare it to a ship getting blown off course: The captain knows that he'll need to veer slightly north in order to reach his destination in 1,000 miles. But there's an iceberg in his path in another mile...does it make more sense to go around the iceberg and THEN veer north, or to head directly for the iceberg?

So you didn't have the guts to berrate the Democrats who voted against the plan?
 
Neither debt plan will work...because NEITHER party is even addressing cuts that really are needed FIRST....and thats bring all non essential troops home...like from Germany where their only purpose is to enhance the german economy.
Neither side is addressing the costs of illegal immigration and STOPPING ALL AID to those who come here illegally including free healthcare so they get their ass outta here.
Neither side will cut their pet Taxpayer giveaway subsidies to superrich Corporations like Big Oil and Big Farms.....until each party starts cutting the true fat...I WILL not support cutting Social Security and Medicare for future generations....they should be cut LAST and everything non american cut first and all the corporate pigs at the trough handouts....the teaparty is for the rich of the rich period and they prove it everytime they open their mouths...and most of their supporters are dumb as doornails because their policies will hurt them....braindead

An excellent example of not allowing ones personal biases ruin an otherwise good arguement.

Political Class Dismissed » Blog Archive » Tea Party Coalition Declares War on Corporate Welfare
 
So you didn't have the guts to berrate the Democrats who voted against the plan?

You mean the ones who voted against Boehner's plan? Or do you mean the agreement that actually ended up passing? As far as I can tell there is no reason to believe that the Democrats who voted against the final plan wouldn't have been amenable to raising the debt ceiling if the final agreement was different (I'm unaware of a single Democrat flatly refusing to raise the debt ceiling this year). That isn't the case with the Republican holdouts, who seem to be willing to let the country default. And lest you think I'm being partisan or unfair to the Republicans, I'm sure that the next time we have a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, the Democrats will be just as irresponsible with the debt ceiling.

The danger with the debt ceiling is that one of these times, whichever party is in the opposition is going to push things too far. This time around, the deadline was August 2 and an agreement was reached on August 1. That's too close for comfort. What happens if next time, the opposition party is not able to pull back from the brink in time? We would be far better off without a debt ceiling. It's an entirely redundant mechanism that has the ability to create self-inflicted wounds.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom