Obama's Downgrade

Bicycle says hi.

Well I can't explain it in better words, so let's say this:

You are an idiot.

Lets look at this point by point.
Meaningless statement.
Another meaningless statement.
See above, this has no bearing Jærik 's comments.
This statement is debatable. However, if you are not someone who is familiar with the topic at hand, it is extremely easy to be mislead by particular emphasis/de-emphasis.
Insert conspiracy theory here. Conjecture, lack of evidence and supporting material.
There are many things that can be done by talking. You can incite a person or a crowd to violence solely through talking. You can prevent violence, misunderstandings, wars, and many other things simply by talking. You can analyze problems and projected solutions by talking.
Again, no useful statements here.
Experts are not machines who cannot make mistakes. Experts are those who have significant experience and knowledge in a particular area, not infallible gods.
For example, when you:

• Go to a doctor

• Drive across a bridge or interchange without thinking it will fall down

you have taken advantage of at least one expert in a field.

Does this mean that you should take information provided by experts as gospel truth? No. Experts don't generally mind if you discuss topical material with them and have knowledge of the subject matter at hand, enough so that you can actually have a discussion about the subject matter at hand. You are more than welcome, and often encouraged to ask questions about how they came to a particular answer, and what the basis or parameters for their solution is; what it takes into account.

A layperson should not ever just be given the same credibility as an expert, in the expert's field of expertise, regardless of who they are.

...Envy

Many people have pointed to articles explaining the reason(s) for the downgrade. As I have read them (again and again), I fail to see how any different conclusion is reached about the facts of this decision. First I will point to these two sources:

1) Link

2) Link

First off, If anyone thinks a cut free, plain 2+ trillion extension of the debt ceiling wouldn't have resulted in a downgrade by all three agencies, they are not of sane mind and are incapable of participating in this conversation. It is not possible to assume the underlining issue of soaring levels of debt is omitted from the decision. One article clearly states that we lack a medium term outlook plan to address the debt burden, and that was clearly a factor in the decision. The idea that the fight/dysfunction is the sole cause of the downgrade just isn't an honest interpretation of this decision.

Secondly both links reference a lack of consensus and function among the congress and the president as a reason for the downgrade. One can clearly point to the disagreements that have occurred during the process as part of the problem. As the article states, the US as a world leader should not come within 10 hours of having a major cash-flow problem. Every team in DC is responsible for "playing politics" on this issue. I would point to: The President walking out on debt discussion meetings, holding a national address to blame those who don't want to raise taxes and threatening to veto any bill that did not meet his idea of "compromise". The democratic led Senate who voted down every bill from the house, and took every opportunity to bash conservatives for not passing a bill they liked. The republican led House for sticking to their principles of wanting to cut spending enough to address the underlining issue without raising taxes and not giving the president and fellow liberals the record level increase they were looking for.

I will however point out that Conservatives were the ONLY team to actually construct legislative solutions to the problem. Ryan budget plan, Cut cap and Balence bill, etc etc. There were no solutions to this issue proposed by Liberals or the President.

Once you sift through all this, the conclusion that makes the MOST sense is: The US lost its AAA rating because its leaders took till ~10 hours before their self imposed deadline to "punt" on the underlining causes of their debt.

Who is trying to address the problems? Conservatives and "tea party" members. Who is ignoring the problem and continuing the status quo? Obama and his fellow liberals. I mean does anyone really think that if we hadn't swapped out the house last November that we'd even be talking about such things today?

TL:DR version... It's the debt stupid, and its Obama's debt.

Classic nonsense and finger pointing from a tea party supporter.

"The debt ceiling debate hurt Americans’ view of Republicans, bolstered their opinion of Democrats, and drove the Tea Party’s favorable ratings to a new low, a poll on Tuesday found."

There's a difference between envy and annoyance.. Sure I'd like to have their money, but doesn't mean that my dislike of this practice has to be because I want the money.. They have more money than anyone could ever possibly need OR spend, but they want the lower and middle class people, who are doing good just to keep bills paid and putting food on the table, to pay instead, usually for THEIR screw up.. They screw up, let them pay.

Not surprising. Though I would prefer a survey from someone who publishes their survey methodology like gallup. Generally I take polls from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc with a big grain of salt.

Really? Thats a joke right? Let me remind you that the bill that was signed into law came from the Democratic led Senate. In the end, thats what the public is going to see.



Its leaders, including House Majority leader John Boehner, who looked ridiculous when for the 4th time he called a vote on his own bill, and it was struck down by his own party. While the Republican house was self-imploding, largely thanks to the junior republicans, aka the tea party, the Senate took the lead and got the job done. A job that could have been done in May, if not for those same junior republicans.

tl;dr version response:

Methodology and cross-tabs are in the link, although not as in-depth as Gallup.

As for those talking about the "Cap, Cut, and Balance" plan, the initiative was doomed from the start. It takes 2/3's of both houses of Congress plus 75% of every state legislature to approve any balanced budget amendment, and the proposal didn't even clear 2/3's of the House. My personal opinion on a balanced budget amendment notwithstanding (I'm not entirely against it), saying "but we passed a proposal" that has precisely zero chance of getting off the ground, and then wiping one's hands clean of everything that comes after, is completely absurd.

I mean really, a pie chart?



If you want to govern, you have to get bills passed. That involves working with the other team, even if you detest them. Proposing legislation that you know can't even clear the very first legislative hurdle is a completely pointless endeavor. At that point, you might as well just go home.

Without forgeting the 10+ trillions left behind by the previous presidents and the state the economy was in when he took power.

Derp.

Ah much obliged. The heavy skew towards land lines worries me a bit, but at least they published their methodology to an extent.

What is going on with the market is nothing more than a well orchestrated flash crash. I feel sorry for the people that get screwed in these situations (taking out stop losses to the artificial bottom).

Don't get me wrong, I think the downgrade in itself has reason, but don't be naive that people aren't using this situation for their advantage.

I never recalled us being 10+trillion in the hole before Jan 2008



Date 12/31/2007 Debt Held by the Public-5,136,302,727,072.67 Intragovernmental Holdings-5,136,302,727,072.67
Total Public Debt Outstanding-9,229,172,659,218.31

Current 08/08/2011 Debt Held by the Public-9,915,515,946,703.07 Intragovernmental Holdings-4,672,211,658,740.37
Total Public Debt Outstanding-14,587,727,605,443.44

Last time I checked, it was ~5 trillion in 2001 when bush came in and 10.8 or something when he left in 2008.

Obama wasn't in office in Jan 2008. Nor did he sign the budget for 2009.

I'm as pissed off about the debt as the next guy, and a lot of that blame falls on Obama, but I'm more pissed off by partisan ideologues trying to finesse numbers to make it look like it's entirely the other guy's fault.

well you're technically correct. We had 9.986 trillion in debt when Bush left office in 2008. The taking on of new debt while Obama has been in office has been utterly ridiculous, but the rate of new debt taken on in the bush years wasn't a whole lot better either.

Oh yes JP: Land of the great innocent ~

Unit 731

Comfort women

Bataan Death March

Japanese War Crime summary

you are a delusional dishonest parrot of the limbaugh talking points and people like you are largely the cause of problem we find ourselves in this very *** moment. you're so desperate to place the blame on the president that you're actively rewriting history on a video game message board. your "points" are not worth rebutting. learn to think critically or get the *** out of the public discourse.

Well according to the figures, it's us as an American populous that has accumulated debt, not our government.

Not saying this isn't a huge problem that is partially our government's fault, but people are just as much to blame for 1) living beyond their means 2) buying things based on a future income 3) voting these people into office and 4) not responding swiftly and harshly when elected officials have been screwing us for years

You're correct and my point wasn't that 'Bush did good and Obama didn't' it was more that we've done terrible the last three years expecting Obama to swoop in and 'fix' everything for us instead of people taking some resolve and helping themselves. There is no economic 'saviour', you have to try to get somewhere.

People are trying to help themselves. It's actually a huge part of the problem: having over-extended themselves into debt, folks are now desperately paying down their loans, mortgages, and not spending.



If nobody is spending, there's no reason to hire. Corporate profits and the bottom-lines of the wealthy are at record highs. Folks are sitting in over $2 trillion in cash. But the standard (and true!) economic theory that states lowering regulation and cutting taxes results in more profit, which results in more hiring, isn't kicking in this time because there's no reason to hire people to produce things that nobody has the money to buy.

At the same time, raising taxes or increasing regulation won't help either, because that adds to more uncertainty which causes the same corporations and rich folks to sit on even more cash just in case the worst were to happen to their bottom lines. Nobody buys, and nobody hires. You're doubly screwed.

We're out of ideas as a nation. And the problem is, the political and media climate is such that rather than looking for new ideas or a compromise between the two, we're desperately doubling down on ideological purity that is, by itself, insufficient to fix the current problems. But it lets us feel better and shifts blame to the bad guys on the other team, so then we can sleep at night contentedly full of righteous indignation.

So you want to pass the buck all the way back to the first half of the 20th century or earlier?
Huh...

Thats correct, even more interestingly, when Clinton left office, the deficit was 17 billion, and when Bush left office, it was over 400 billion, with two wars, a medicare plan, and those infamous tax cuts for the wealthy that still had to be paid for by the next President. So regardless of who came into office, the deficit was going to continue to skyrocket, thanks to Bush.

I've alway found it curious (though politically undstandable) when the President is always assigned the blame or credit for the U.S. federal budget - considering the fact that the U.S. federal budget is entirely the domain and ownership of Congress; the President simply approves or vetoes the budget (same veto which can and is overridden).

And Obama's Gallup poll rating dropped 3 points overnight too, to its lowest point in at least 52 weeks. In the end, the buck stops at the president.


The problem with mocking a "pie chart" as a pathetic attempt at getting things done is that as minuscule as you claim it to be, its still 1000x a greater effort than the solutions presented by the other side.

Yes

And yet its the "other side" that got the job done.

Because the Bataan Death March and dropping an a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are on the same tier? Whatever. We got our come-uppins with what happened to the Indianapolis.

/shrug

Good try. Still not the same though.