First time in history. It's official folks, Obama is the worst president ever.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44040574/ns ... d_economy/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/ec ... m?iref=BN1

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08 ... downgrade/

Not sure how its the fault of the Tea Party. S&P stated that they would lower the rating if they did not see a plan with deficit reductions of $4 trillion over 10 years. The plan that was passed by ALL involved only reduced $2.4 trillion. Obama was never serious about deficit reduction. The only reason any even occured was because of House Republicans.

Not sure how its the fault of the Tea Party. S&P stated that they would lower the rating if they did not see a plan with deficit reductions of $4 trillion over 10 years. The plan that was passed by ALL involved only reduced $2.4 trillion. Obama was never serious about deficit reduction. The only reason any even occured was because of House Republicans.

S&P pointed out their displeasure at the debt ceiling debate and the threat of default (Tea Party)
and the government's inability to raise revenue (Tea Party)

You can blame both sides, but you can't ignore the Tea Party's role.

S&P wouldn't have even reviewed for a downgrade if they didn't for the issue with their zealotous dogma.

It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.

And if you remember properly, Obama was pushing for his "grand plan" of $4T in cuts. He was willing to compromise. He and Reid had a deal worked out, that Tea-Quida wouldn't accept (e.g., Reid couldn't keep his people in order).

In the end, Obama did more than compromise, he rolled over just to get something done.

the way Tea-Quida went about them did more damage than good to this country.

* The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
* Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. . .
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. 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.

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.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. 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.

Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.

The only controversy came from the Tea Party. The threat of default came from them.

The S&P says here that they want deeper cuts in entitlements and increased revenue.

I wonder which party will be willing to let them expire??? And which one will foam at the mouth over it??

Government is going to have to work together. But, you see, working together means compromising. Tea Party has no interest in compromising.

I would bet every limb on my body that at cut/cap/balance amendment would have maintained our AAA rating. Forcing a balanced budget through constitutional law would have made everyone happy. The Democrats were the ones who didn't want to be made to balance the budget.

If you can’t even propose a budget, you don’t get to blame others for the downgrade.

Yep... two years of unfiltered, unadulterated, uncontrolled power.

No budget.

You hit the nail on the head.

Lets be fair here...Obama inherited 2 wars..

The facts are this, and the S&P agrees, we cannot simple cut enough from spending to balance the budget, let alone lower the debt. We need to increase revenues, however this needs to be done by overhauling the tax code, not simply by raising rates. During the Reagan presidency, corporations paid roughly 30% of the revenue the IRS took in, now its roughly 10%. This is not a party issue, both sides sell out their constitutes regularly..IE

Repubs won't agree to cut the tax subsidies for the oil companies. This was put on the books when oil was $15 a barrel and it was supposed to help off set exploration costs....well given oil companies have had the most profitable decade ever, think it's time to erase this one.

The Dems have subsidized the mining industry to the point that most of the gold that is mined from federal lands doesn't even bring in a single cent to the treasury. And Sen Reid(Nev) said touching this subsidy is a non starter....ok really..gold is currently around $1740 per troy oz...think they can pay for OUR GOLD THAT THEY MINE !!!

By cutting out the subsides and loop holes for both the corporate side and the personal side, we will boost our income tremendously, but we could actually lower rates while doing this. that coupled with real spending cuts is the only way I see out.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/os-medical-bankruptcy-20110730,0,7678152.story

We've had Dem control for 2 of the past 3 years, they control the White House, they control the Senate.

They had a supermajority for 2 years and failed to get anything accomplished.

So of course I'm stuck on the "dem" thing right now.

They have held most of the levers of power throughout this "recovery" so they deserve a commensurate amount of the blame.

Oddly enough (for me) is that I think the Dems and the Republicans could have worked this whole thing out well enough. Enter the Tea Party and see the cluster**** we got....

Rich following that logic of the Dems having the power for the first 2 years of this recovery, do you blame the repubs for getting us in this mess...

I mean Clinton did leave a budget surplus...

cut cap and balance is complete poop.

Wait till inflation hits

As for cut cap and balance... whats wrong with a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? Is that not what we want? Do we want to balance the budget at all or just make the numbers smaller to save a little face? Please... Dems shot that down because they know it would require serious spending cuts. I will agree with the tea party on this one. And I have no shame doing it. There is no argument that a balanced budget would be bad..

We should have a constitutional amendment to require some responsibility and common sense amongst our congresspeople.

I think that is a terrible idea.

If we had something like that, no one would run for public office, we would have no government and our society would spiral into anarchy.

Making deficit spending illegal would severly limit our governments power to improve bad situations.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I don't see borrow money to buy our way out of a bad situation with cash we don't have.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also, let's forget about the economy for a second. What would happen if we have a balanced budget amendment. We get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Slash spending everywhere. Reform medicare, medicade and social security. The budget gets balanced and taxes=spending. Then the next day China attacks the US. I can just imagine the cries of outrage when whoever is president at the time goes on TV and says: "Sorry America, we don't have the money to defend ourselves and the balanced budget amendment says we cannot borrow money to do it. Oh, and the Tea Party says we cannot raise taxes so we can fight the war. We can either stop all Social Security payments or negotiation with our attackers to cede them Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California."

What should we do then?

I think you are over-reaching on this. The US will do whatever they have to to fight any attack on our country and the American people will back it up.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Maybe should look in the right places:



Also, let's forget about the economy for a second. What would happen if we have a balanced budget amendment. We get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Slash spending everywhere. Reform medicare, medicade and social security. The budget gets balanced and taxes=spending. Then the next day China attacks the US. I can just imagine the cries of outrage when whoever is president at the time goes on TV and says: "Sorry America, we don't have the money to defend ourselves and the balanced budget amendment says we cannot borrow money to do it. Oh, and the Tea Party says we cannot raise taxes so we can fight the war. We can either stop all Social Security payments or negotiation with our attackers to cede them Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California."

What should we do then?