Kasz216 said:
bannedagain said:
Kasz216 said:
From the report.
"Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."
Aside from which they place most of the blame long term on not reforming entitlements and a perceived inability to get that done. Who's holding out on that again?
"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."
In otherwords, biased article that probably just typed republicans and democrats in a search bar, rather then reading the whole thing and noticing where they actually place the blame. AP and Politico aren't hiding anything, it's just they've actually read and understood the report!
Which was, in general not cutting the deficit (An equal problem) and greater entitlement reform. (A democratic one.)
Or... as they put it.
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the
structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt
burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated
sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,"
June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in
framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to
manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to
achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal
stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus
might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).
The whole "political consesnus might ermerge after 2012" sounds a lot like "Democrats might lose control of the senate and presidency to me."
|
Feel free to spin it anyway you want. thats exactly what All REPUBLICONS ARE DOING, YES CONS.
(Note: Big part gotten rid of for being obnoxiously big)
So get your facts straight. People are starving buddy. So go and give your money to the rich so they can put it into a offshore account and put this country even more in the dumps. People like the koch brothers make a hell a lot more money when the economy is in the dumps. Guess who started the tea party and funded it. Yes thats right, Koch brothers. They are the richest people in new york. Wonder where you info comes from.
they also cited the bush tax cuts which have been in place sense the beginning of bush's presidency. So hold up, was that the start of our economy slipping into the dumps. why yes that was. giving the rich more money don't work. Reagan started this trickle down effect and now look where we are, in a mess and people seem to think it works. the numbers are out and republicons have ran congress for most of this last 11 years. Congress spends the money buddy. So who put us in this mess. Yet they get into congress agains and what happens again. You are clearly blind.
|
You do realize that everything you've said here is completely non related to the topic stated at hand right?
All it does is show that your overwhelming bias is clouding your judgement about what S&P actually said... cause you know. They didn't say any of that.
Though yeah, they did mention the Bush tax cuts.
Which at best would be about... 400 Billion of a problem thats 4 to 15 trillion large. If you'd note, that's why even Democrats always talk about "Growing the Base' now. Which means... taxing the middle class and poor more.
If you actually rationally look at the budget, and realize how much neds to be cut in a year, the only four things big enough to cut to stop the budget shortfall are Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
You could cut the Military budegt in half, and you still wouldn't be halfway to solving he problem, because Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are all set to beign balooning due to our age demographics.... and you'd have a smaller military budget then even the most liberal liberals and libretarians in government would suggest makes sense.
All told S&P said more or less.
"More cuts are needed, and this recent issue showed that even with their backs against the wall, Republicans and Democrats have trouble working together, they need to make up the budget deficit so it stops growing by either tax increases, spending cuts or both and MUST tackle entitlement reform for the long term."
If more people held the positions republicans did during this debate, the crisis would of been solved. Had more people held the Democratic positon during the debate... we still would of been downgraded because there wouldn't of been proper entitlement reform.
|
