S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA

I'm glad my congressman is home..... That way I can convey my feelings about what they did with regards to the debt deal in person!

Barney Frank is blowing a gasket on Maddow's show.

I'm blowing a gasket here.

Interestingly enough S&P did not find it necessary to downgrade the Nation's credit rating when the National Economy was in the tank eh?

Nor had they found it necessary to downgrade Corporations from Enron to AIG that were headed for bankruptcy eh?

Well I must admit I do find this a bit on the humorous side. When I think about all of the back slapping and circle jerking that went on in congress over this issue especially after the passage of the deal I honestly think we got what we disserved; not that I am exactly happy about it. The TEA Failed, The Democrats Failed, and the Republicans Failed. If I personally have an outrageous income to debt ratio I either have to get another source of income i.e. a job or I have to cut my spending right now today. I do not get ten years to (perhaps) do it in conjunction with a credit line extension right now today.

Honestly 90% of congress should be clamped in irons and charged with dereliction, along with current / former Whitehouse employees. Why congress would continue abdicate its primary authority to super committees made up of a few is honestly beyond me, and it is clearly beyond others as well.

This is not good...not good at all...

It cannot just be cuts, cuts, cuts. We HAVE to raise revenue. There is the Medicare Part D with no funding source; there are two wars with no war bonds sold or any other means of paying for them. We have spent 15 years of spending, deregulating, cutting programs for the poor but not ONE trying to raise any revenue for the things we have bought or obligated ourselves for. If they want this rating to change raising revenue is a big part of the picture.

Didn't Johnny-B-Tan say he got 98% of what he wanted in the budget deal?

Guess that includes the downgrade too. Criminals all on the right.

Damn right, FLYNAVY! Thank your local bagger.

The bank said it was because of how Congress acted and bad behavior. They do not trust Congress to work with anyone including the wishes of the American people. Congress is responsible for determining what organizations get funds, tax cuts, war funding, etc. Basically for our spending and now they want to blame the debt on everyone else. This congress has refused to work with the people, the Democrats, the President or the Senate.

The current Congress is not trusted to do what is best for this nation and they actually said repeatedly it was not a big deal if they did not pay our debt.

I also found out why the teaparty and the republican party listens to Oliver North. North funds the majority of their campaigns to help get them elected. His contract states that if they do not support his "no tax" agenda, North will find someone else to run for their office in Congress. The teaparty and republicans in Congress are afraid of North. They only serve him....

When that many members in Congress works for North (and a hand full of other superPacs) instead of our nation, it would frighten or justify bad behavior by a few banks. Banks are not moral or fair. They do not care.

so i guess that means that we need to tax nobody, cuz the government dont need no stinking income right republicans?

or give more tax breaks to corporations so they can hire more people in india.

or lets just give all our money to the corporations so they can hire us to clean their toilets cuz at least u cant outsource that.

But, but , but...I thought Obumboo said if we didn't pass a bill we would be downgraded...what a lie and what an idiot!!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama-urges-both-dems-and-gop-to-compromise-avoid-credit-downgrade/

Well duh, we fiscal conservatives TOLD you this would happen. You can't keep spending money you don't have...DUH!

YES LUSH! You hit it on the nail.

It means that we should cut Government spending, fire people, cut social benefits, cut cut cut!!

So that people get less money between their hands so that they buy less so that...hmmmmmm....we produce less and ehhhh........can provide less jobs so ehhhh.......there is less money and people buying less and ehhh....we can shut down factories and.......well, ya know get less money into the Government in taxes so we ehhhhhhh......can save the tax payers the money they don't have?

lalalalalalala....lalalalalalala.......(I am trying to do the Boehner/Tea Party tin foil economics magic dance where promoting public spending in a time of recession is kinda........retarded even for people being uneducated, ideological numb nuts).

vol, read the facts.

yeh u "fiscal conservatives" politicians who all file bankruptcy and live like kings sure know about conservation of funds. where were you all during the bush spending spree?

Why should S&P trust a Congress in the hands of dingbats controlled by Grover Norquist.

Wasn't it just this afternoon that Obama said we need to give tax breaks to business that would cost 120 million dollars? Wasn't it just the other day that he was saying we need to raise revenue, stop the tax breaks to business, close the loop holes because business aren't paying their fare share of taxes, tax the rich, etc...?

Which one is it? Raise revenue, tax breaks,raise revenue, tax breaks, please stop my head is spinning...

If the Bush tax cuts had expired in December this never would have happened.

Well duh, we fiscal conservatives TOLD you this would happen. You can't keep spending money you don't have...DUH!

Congress is the one that spends money Vol Fan, congress, THIS congress is the one that approved the current budget that they knew would exceed the debt ceiling. Instead of blaming someone that has no control over the situation, perhaps you should blame those that CAUSED the situation.

My, My, are we embarassed Liberals.......so embarassing....one more lie from Obama, and this lie was repeated ad nauseum for the last two weeks...

Maybe the First Tea party offer was the best, along with the Ryan budget. And what was Obama's and Reid's counter offer ? You know, the offer from Obama that would have Saved the credit downgrade, what was it ?

XNihilZer0, I am throwing the bull@!$%# flag. The Bush tax cuts did not cost 3 trillion in 3 years.

Thanks pee party and your republican servants, what the @!$%# are you going to do for an encore.

Facts. The Democrats refused to cut spending.
Fact. S&P downgraded the rating due to THIS administrations refusal to larger cuts.
Fact. Everyone needs to begin paying their fair share. The top 2% are going to expect larger taxes despite they pay the second most in taxes next to the middle class. And now the 47% better figure something out now because no more floating their bills.

Repo throw the flag to s&p, buddy, not Presidents fault. Congress raises revenues. forget?

If I was at S&P I would have downgraded the USA also. We didn't do crap to fix the problem. If we look at what really happened, we comitted to cutting 2.4 trillion over 10 years to borrow 2.4 trillion today. So nothing has changed.

It is congress and the presidents fault. Congress writes the bills but the President signs them.

My BS flag was about the Bush comment.

Romney is already out there harping on Obama and leadership. Positioning and spinning himself into a ball of secret underwear and disgraceful misunderstanding of the situation.

It was simple. Use some common sense...Republican spit on that option and now this is what we have. Why did they do it? - To bring down Obama. No other reason. Many of them could care less about tearing up the economy because it means people will have to work for next to nothing.

And the worse thing..... many voters support this mess!

We never had a downgrade after 8yrs of Bush. But after 2 1/2 of this failed administration along with Boehnors refusal to do what the American people demanded and give in to Obama. No wonder all the Tea Party are done with Boehner

I am done with Boehner...we are in a real mess now!

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." S&P

Yes, Get it?...It's because of the refusal of GOTP in Congress to increase revenues, aka 'taxes', that S&P did this...

The blame here is on the GOTP...NOT OBAMA...

The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit

reduction

plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation. S&P

It's right at the top of this page. Get it. We didnt have a revenue problem we had a spending problem.

Forget about what they say they lost all creditability when they were bought off by the banks and declared the worst loans ever made triple A. Now they come up with this and you think the world will listen. They should have been closed down and jailed.

I hope your right. I hope the world will not listen. But if we continue down this path, then the world will agree with them.

S & P will regret this. When the dust clears, they'll have lots of egg on their face. Speaking of dust clearing, aren't they a little premature with this?

It's as if they couldn't wait to do this. If they had any credibility after their last FUBAR, it will be gone in a week or so.

Here's a little story about how little credibility S&P have these days:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/credit-rating-agency-anal_n_305587.html

Now, why would anyone believe what this outfit has to say? Has anyone ever tallied up the losses investors suffered when S & P gave totally effed up ratings on Lehman Bros. and AIG??

NO on higher taxes..... we need to get spending under control! We cannot spend more than we take in, even if we payed more taxes, at this point they would just spend it all as they are now. The problem is an irresponsible Washington that plays politics on both ends. One thing i can say is at least republicans are putting up viable options, i must of missed the democrats proposed budget other than a blank check to Obama.

once spending is under control and people are working again, tax revenues will come. THe BEST American economy was under President Coolidge in the 1920's. We must learn our history before taking action. The steps that gave us the booming 20's and 3.3% unemployment rate (the lowest in history) are as follows:

1) A call for a national budget program (which was vetoed by his predecessor).
2) National debt reduction
3) Tax reduction
4) An emergency tariff to protect American industry and farm commodities.
5) Farm relief legislation (farm bankruptcies were up 20% from 1914).
6) Immigration restrictions to protect American jobs.

Those steps were called the "return to normalcy" by President Harding in 1921 and is predecessor Calvin Coolidge stayed course and brought about the GREATEST decade in American history. This decade was not brought on by INCREASED TAXES, or government handouts like the democrats today believe. It was caused by creating a budget (oh lord i said it, create a budget), National debt reduction (not stimulus packages or QE1, 2 or maybe 3) and by giving a tax reduction allowing people to spend the money they EARNED!!!

To know where we are going we must know were we have been, and we forgot were we have been!

THe BEST American economy was under President Coolidge in the 1920's.

But what a hangover it left. It was a bubble.....but at least there was real productivity to back up much of the gains. We don't make anything in the US anymore (or at least a lot less of what we did).

Hoover really sent it over the edge. It did not have to become a "Great" Depression.

In more modern times, there is no correlation between tax rates and the economy.

I don't disagree with some of your suggestions though. I don't even think Coolidge was a bad President. I just think times were different then.

It's still good to look at history. So keep going into FDR. The mess was already made on a big scale then. Or go on to the 50's. It was booming pretty well then.

In manufacturing, we talk about non-value-added activities. Overhead if you will. What makes money and real growth is the manufacture of real things you can use and put your hands on. We have tried to make this some kind of paper pushing, money manipulating economy. It has not worked because it created nothing of value, nothing a person can wear, eat, live in or consume. That is what separates this time from past economic downturns.

I wonder what the Transunion score is for USA? Maybe dial credit check for quick fix and upgrade! Meanwhile, can USA purchase on the cuff?

SAM #1.36

You comment reminds me of the old campaign saw: "A return to the failed policies of the past".

You rail magainst out of control spending and repeat many conservative talking points that attempt to place any blame for our wrecked economy on president Obama, yet totally ignore the reality of who and what caused our economic crash:

The myopic philosophy of movement conservatism, and the malfeasence of the GWB administration.

1920's Great Depression causing gilded era politics? Really?

AZ your comment reminds me of why we are in the current situation we are in now. "When all else fails, blaim the other guy."

The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit

We have the ability to pay our debt, and there are other countries with higher debt to GDP ratios, who still retain their AAA rating. This was largely a comment on our political system.

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.

Jason

So....."blaming the other guy" is the cause of this severe economic recession that started with the crash in late summer of 08'?

Wow. Care to expand on that?

AZ- the crash was not as much Bush's fault as the democrats like to point out. Have you any idea what happened during the Clinton administration in '98,'99? They created the original prime rate loan, allowed CDO's to dominate the bond markets (CDO's created in 1987 are presumably the reason for the crash in the 2000). Just allowing those two things created chaos, yet alone the extensive list of laws that clinton created to offer global trade, looks like global trade really turned out to be out sourcing of American jobs and the purchasing of 80% of Mexican exports (which are mostly american companies that jumped the boarder under NAFTA).

Then come the "Bush wars" in which we had to go attack because 9/11 was the BIGGEST attack on american land ever. Once over there it becomes a bit controversial because we stopped our mission to go finish daddy's unfinished business from the 90's. Nonetheless, we HAD to go over there based on principle and to protect the american people.

By the Bush era CDO's and prime rates were running dangerously wild (caused by clinton), then sup-prime rates came along because people that make 60k a year wanted to buy Mcmansions to keep up with the jones. Which as we know created a new bubble that collapsed b/c of prime rate loans and CDO's (which really helped the lower middle class over spend).

then president Obama came in screaming and pointing fingers EVERY where. He came in with great speeches, but no leadership experience, no economic know, actually lets just say he wasn't ready for the job when he took office (he admits that). He has created one failed policy after another. Failed bailouts, failed to end the wars (but he promised :-( ), he has failed in so many ways i don't want to type them, you get the just.

The current economy was created on both parties watch, and off american greed, want and ignorance. Obama just has NOT done anything to help us return to normalcy. He thinks america is a blank check and he is undoubtedly one of the top 5 worst presidents of all time for our economy. Wait until 2014 when all the charges he's added hit you, or the addition 4 Trillion that he has spent in 2.5 years, oh wait that has already topped us. Just think about it, 2.5 years of excessive, unregulated spending and who is better off today no one, not even wall street. The troops are still over seas, we moved into libya, and Obama is starting his own "Bush" trends.

So blaming the other guy is not a viable solution anymore when we are being spent into oblivion by Obama, congress (when it was democrat-- the republicans do not do anything they just say no..remember/?) and the democratic senate (living ted kennedy's dream)!!! At this point their is no one left to point fingers at for Obama except for himself and the lack of leadership that Washington has now under democratic control.

AZ if your not smart enough to figure it out yourself, then me explaining it to you is not going to do much good.

Jason

Mine was a rhetorical question only to see what other fantasy you might be suffering from.

As I thought, you couldn't justify your accusation.

SAM: Good comment. I'll get back to you later.

Like I said. If I have to explain it, it will do know good. Kind of like talking to a dog really.

Jason we have to do BOTH. We have not paid for the Medicare Part D nor either war regardless of what else was thrown in the pot. S and P clearly indicated we had to do both.

SAM

The biggest single source of the Wall Street mortgage disaster was the gutting of the Glass-Steagal act that had been in place since the great depresssion. The point man in gutting Glass-Steagal was conservative Republican senator Phil Gramm, and he was finally successful in 1999.

Yes, some Democrats were on board, but the relentless push by movement conservatism is what led directly to the factors that ushered in this great recession.

Have you any idea what happened during the Clinton administration in '98,'99? They created the original prime rate loan, allowed CDO's to dominate the bond markets (CDO's created in 1987 are presumably the reason for the crash in the 2000). Baloney.

• Original prime rate loans have been with us since the advent of the notion of a prime rate. Maybe you meant sub-prime rate loan, in which case your assertion is still baloney, because these originated with the 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act and the related 1982 Garn St Germain Act.
• The Clinton administration had nothing to do with "allowing" CDO's to dominate the bond markets. The jump in CDOs occurred after Clinton left office, reaching its peak in 2007.

Then come the "Bush wars" in which we had to go attack because 9/11 was the BIGGEST attack on american land ever. Even you admit that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, which had nothing to do with 9/11. that war has cost us roughly $3 trillion to date, and has made America less safe, not more safe.

By the Bush era CDO's and prime rates were running dangerously wild (caused by clinton), then sup-prime rates came along because people that make 60k a year wanted to buy Mcmansions to keep up with the jones. Which as we know created a new bubble that collapsed b/c of prime rate loans and CDO's (which really helped the lower middle class over spend). More nonsense.

• CDOs didn't start "running dangerously wild" until the Republicans repealed Glass-Steagall, and passed the CFMA. Republicans essentially made oversight of the investment banks voluntary-- something which even Alan Greenspan, hardcore deregulator, admitted in retrospect was a grave mistake. The core fo our problem is Republican love of deregulation.
• People wanting to buy "McMansions" was less the cause of the bubble than a symptom of it. Once subprime lenders realized that they could offload the risk of subprime mortgages by bundling them and selling them as securities, without any particular oversight by authorities (thanks to Republicans), they began pushing subprime mortgages as the fastest and easiest way to create more "product". And the Bush administration helped them do it.

then president Obama came in screaming and pointing fingers EVERY where. Lol... What a bunch of bull@!$%#. "Screaming"? "Pointing fingers EVERY where"? Exaggerate much?

He has created one failed policy after another. Failed bailouts, failed to end the wars (but he promised :-( ), he has failed in so many ways i don't want to type them, you get the just. I get the gist that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You have to be either a liar or utterly clueless to claim that Obama's policies have "failed". Up to this dangerous game of brinksmanship played by Republicans, the markets had largely recovered from the disaster of 8 years of Republican leadership and deregulation, GDP was back up, and we enjoyed 17 straight months of private sector job growth (as opposed to a dozen months of job losses in the hundreds of thousands under Bush). Until Republicans decided that a @!$%#ed up economy improved their electoral chances in 2012 (about which they might be correct, if your ignorance is any indication), we were actually doing a helluva lot better than we had a right to expect.

He thinks america is a blank check and he is undoubtedly one of the top 5 worst presidents of all time for our economy. Your ignorance is unfortunately matched by your certainty, which I'm sure is inured to facts.

Just think about it, 2.5 years of excessive, unregulated spending and who is better off today no one, not even wall street. Baloney. The lion's share of the current debt comes from Bush's @!$%#ty decision making and the rubber stamp that Republicans used to approve his every whim. Clinton handed Bush an economy and budget that would have seen the debt retired by now, in which the 2008 financial debacle would have been easily absorbed without the debt rising to the level it currently exists at. Instead, Bush simply claimed that "deficits don't matter", and went hog wild on spending, aided and abetted by "fiscally responsible" Republicans. The war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts account for nearly half our debt. If we did nothing other than let the Bush tax cuts expire, we'd radically improve our debt to GDP ratio over the next decade.

So blaming the other guy is not a viable solution Not understanding anything about how we got to where we are prevents you from being able to pass judgment on what constitutes a solution or not. And putting the economy back in the hands of the @!$%#s who engineered this disaster in the first place isn't really a solution. Neither will be "spending cuts" without any additional revenue-- precisely the reason S&P downgraded our credit.

Unfortunately, some folks just can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

As is evident, your research is accurate as i have read the articles that you posted, but you have made inferences with a strict liberal bias (which is fine, it's your belief patterns). I do not have much time to respond so i cannot hit on everything right now. What I am going to touch on is the CDO because it literally became the route of evil throughout the 90's and popped in 2007 (not disagreeing that it popped in 2007). As noted my AZ (above) the Glass-Steagal was conservative Republican senator Phil Gramm, and he was finally successful in 1999. Now in 1999 the congress was taken over by republicans, the senate was democrats and democrat Clinton was still in office. Point being, even with the extreme persistence from Gramm, the senate and president both democrats also pushed the bill into law. Making it 2/3 democrats fault. Clinton could have vetoed, but he didn't. Now with CDO's under Clinton, we saw a mass expansion of the usage of CDO's because it allowed bankers to AAA stamp the folders and sell them off to make a profit. The following article will explain the CDO's starting in 1987 (pre- daddy Bush). http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/the-cdo-timebomb-how-it-works-and-why-it-could-sink-or-save-the-world-economy-kohler.html . In the 1990's we just did not hear a stink about it because most people didn't know about them and the people that did could not understand them (including Greenspan, who I personal think was between a rock and a nuclear bomb in the 2000's) I actually had the pleasure to sit in a lecture given by Greenspan about his time in office. It was compelling to say the least, He said (this is not an exact quote) that he had no option but to stick with the out of control policies because if they did not they would of rocketed unemployment to about 15%, stopped the housing markets, stopped job creation and put us into a spiral.

quickly for the debt...http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ (i'm sure you do not like the heritage fund as most liberals don't).

to put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

BLAME BUSH!

Now in 1999 the congress was taken over by republicans, the senate was democrats and democrat Clinton was still in office.

You're thinking 2001. 106th congress had Republican majority in both houses.

quickly for the debt

The 09 budget was Bush's proposal. $600B of the deficit was from projected revenues that never came. TARP was signed by Bush on October 3, 2008, 2 days after FY2009 began. The rest, the stimulus, omnibus, auto bail out, s-chip and cash for clunkers, you can pin on Obama. And I don't care if Obama signed it, the $950B for two more years of Bush tax cuts is on Republicans.

And the stimulus worked out fine. Unemployment is up 1.4% since Obama took office. The last Republican president who managed to have a smaller increase at 31 months in office was Eisenhower at +1.1%.

yikes on 106 congress..... i stand corrected... sorry, i should of double checked instead of going off memory while in a rush. So i apologize for that!! Clinton still could have vetoed though.

(idk how to do the "grey" copy & paste thing) But your correct on the 2009 budget, bush signed it, and i disagree with TARP as well. That still doesn't cover Obama's impressive spending frenzy. As for the bush tax cuts, Obama had to sign them b/c of his other indulgences, not to mention the weak economy. That is now a two way street!

The stimulus failed. Obama, Bernanke, and good ole Geithner admitted they failed in the long term. The bailouts were actually affective in the short.

here is a copy of the bailouts (just thought its interesting) http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html

In my belief the bailouts were affective and ineffective at the same time, depending on what you expected from them. The unemployment numbers are hardly a success of the bailouts. Lending is still tight, unemployment is still high, housing is still in an abyss., ect. However, I can say the bailouts helped me, as i bought shares of AIG at around $8.20 and sold around $40.

http://marquisc.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/did-the-bank-bailout-work/

Also, as a percentage of GDP the national debt was 57.4% when Bush took office and 67.9% when he left, an increase of 10.5% (still not good, as noted bush was not the best with deficit spending). Today we are at 100% national debt to GDP. When Obama took office this percentage was roughly 68% and today it is 100% (granted we have had economic slow down) under Obama the percentage increase is 32%. What i can say is that at least in 8 years (idiot) Bush only increased 10.5% and (genius) Obama has increased 32%. Scary!!!

I make inferences from a "liberal bias" by pointing out facts, and you make them from a "conservative bias", while pretending to neutrality, by making assertions which simply have to be corrected, again and again. I know which of us I'd prefer to rely on.

For example, you claim Republicans "took Congress" in 1999, with Democrats in Control of the Senate. This is factually incorrect. Republicans took Congress in 1995, both house, and retained control of both houses until 2001. In 2001, the Senate was split evenly for much of the session, with Republicans gaining a slight edge at the end of 2002, and regained control of the Senate in 2003. They never lost control of the House of Representatives. It wasn't until the 110th Congress starting in 2007 that Democrats took control of Congress, with a slight edge in the Senate and firm control of the House of Reps.

Then you walk back your claim that the Clinton administration "created the original prime rate loan" and "allowed CDO's to dominate the bond markets". Now the complaint is that "Clinton could have vetoed". Sure, he could have vetoed a bill that would have survived his veto. That doesn't change the fact that much of the problematic legislation behind the 2008 financial crisis originated in Republican fiscal ideology, was engineered by Republicans, proposed by Republicans, endorsed by Republicans, and passed by Republicans-- in some cases almost along party lines, and in others with the help of some Democrats. This does not, as you claim, make this legislation "2/3 democrats fault". That's simply the desperate claim of a conservative attempting to shift blame from where it firmly belongs-- Republican ideology.

Now with CDO's under Clinton, we saw a mass expansion of the usage of CDO's because it allowed bankers to AAA stamp the folders and sell them off to make a profit. This is simply untrue. We did not see a "mass expansion" of the usage of CDOs under Clinton. That's factually incorrect. In fact, we didn't even see a "mass expansion" of the usage of CDOs under Bush during his first term. The issuance of CDOs remain under $100 billion annually in volume until 2004. 2004 is when we saw the mass expansion of CDOs begin. In 2004, issuance of CDOs jumped from $73 billion the previous year to $157 billion, i.e., it doubled in 2004. By 2006, CDOs had reached $520 billion in volume. 2007 was on pace to top that, until the bubble burst in Q4 of 2007-- 2007 ended up with "only" $482 billion in volume.

Please stop trying to sell people a crock of @!$%# about how CDOs exploded under Clinton. It simply is not true.

As far as the "perspective" you put Bush debt versus Obama debt into, it's horribly skewed. And, yes, you're absolutely right-- I reject much of what comes out of the Heritage Foundation as nothing more than propaganda for the half-educated. Case in point, it assigns the 2009 deficit to Obama-- this is Bush's last budget, and should go to Bush. It neglects calculating how much of the damage in "Obama's" deficits come from legislation enacted by Bush and Republicans prior to Obama coming into office, and about which Obama can do precisely nothing. The Bush tax cuts are a case in point. They cost us hundreds of billions in revenue a year. They did not create jobs, they did not trickle down, and they're responsible for a huge chunk of our debt.

The pretense that you're attempting to sell is that once Bush left office, Obama all the subsequent economic damage became Obama's "fault". This is, of course, utter nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that Bush was handed an economy and economic plan which would have resulted in the elimination of almost the entirety of the debt by now, if he had simply done nothing but follow the plan. Instead, his administration and the feckless Republicans who are clamoring now for "fiscal responsibility" gutted that plan, heaped mountains of debt upon the American public, and are now relying on misinformed individuals such as yourself to offload their responsibility for it onto the Democrats.

Where we are is where Republicans put us. This is where Republican ideology, put into practice, led. Disaster. And we are not going to find our way out of this hole by simply "cutting spending" (and certainly not by cutting nothing but discretionary spending on social programs the far right wants to eliminate). At some point, revenue has to be raised. Republicans refuse to acknowledge this, and refuse to compromise on it.

And for THIS reason, S&P does not take seriously America's "plan" to get its fiscal house in order.

As far as the overall increase in spending relative to GDP, that's a predicted effect of economic crises such as what we experienced. It would be what would be experienced under ANY president. But don't take my word for it.

Thank you, iranuocon, you have given one of the unwashed public (me) information that will be used.

Personally, I believe S & P has gone "political", and is using their ratings reputation as a political tool in an attempt to paint the Obama administration as culpable. Time to take a look at the "who and why" of this downgrading.

This is the same outfit that had given the Wall Street giants AIG and Lehman bros. their stamp of approval.

iarnuocon- You are so lost and should consider going back to a JC to take a basic economic class. It is truly people like you that have tarnished the full faith of America. I have provided you with all the correct information, links, ect., and you still fail to acknowledge the fact that the economy has sunk under this president. While at the same time i admitted that I was wrong about the 106th congress. I have more then affectively showed you the numbers, they do not lie or establish mental fabrications like your postings. You fail to have a neutral point of view, your name should be Chris Mathews.

soooo i'll bid you ado because not matter if Obama himself told you He made mistakes you and your liberal ideology would not accept that. Everything to you is NOT true even when presented with the numbers, or its "skewed."

Please stop spreading faulty half truths!

I on the other hand apologized b/c i was wrong about the 106 congress and should have done more research. If you think about it, you are the typical democrat that fails to accept the reality behind the numbers.

Finally, as much as i hate the "tea party," in 2012 we will see a huge shift to conservatism because the general "under educated" public holds the votes and consequently have realized that the democratic spending machine has lost its wheels!

I do not even know why i present this information to someone that fails to believe it, but read this article, it covers all the topics we have discussed. You will learn that for six of eight years, Bill Clinton governed with Republican majorities in Congress (numbers times now admitting i was wrong about the 106 congress). Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced the so-called Washington Consensus, a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization.

On each of these crucial issues, the most significant differences between Clinton and Bush were differences in timing and degree, not in direction. Both administrations were willfully asleep at the wheel. Clinton was fortunate to preside over the early stages of a bubble economy. Bush has had the misfortune of presiding as a lame duck through the final stages of the same bubble and, thanks to the deregulation of the Clinton years, without a regulatory structure capable of containing today’s speculative fevers.

In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on the promise of a short-term stimulus package. But soon after being elected, he met privately with Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and soon accepted what became known as “the financial markets strategy.” It was a strategy of placating financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes were raised, spending was cut—all in a futile effort to keep long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped the Democrats lose their majority in the House. In fact, the defeat of the stimulus package set off a sharp decline in Clinton’s public approval ratings from which his presidency would never recover.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229

iarnuocon- You are so lost and should consider going back to a JC to take a basic economic class. It is truly people like you that have tarnished the full faith of America. So... no actual rebuttal, then-- only an ad hominem argument? Why am I not surprised?

I have provided you with all the correct information, links, ect., and you still fail to acknowledge the fact that the economy has sunk under this president. Well, no-- in fact, you have NOT provided "the correct information". You've spent an awful lot of time presenting propaganda (as from the Heritage Foundation-- which you seem to think is really a "Fund"), and tried to tie it together with tangentially relevant information which you've characterized in misleading ways, or misused to try to support an argument that you seem incapable of fully laying out, instead relying on innuendo.

you still fail to acknowledge the fact that the economy has sunk under this president. Listen up, buttercup. I'm not "failing to acknowledge" that the economy is in the @!$%#ter-- I've been quite clear that this is where Republican ideology has brought us. And, unlike you, I've made that argument clearly, and used relevant information (some of it even related to claims you've made in laying the foundation for your position) to show why my argument is logical.

I'm guessing that you get to the position that I "fail to acknowledge" the state of the economy in the same way that you got to the position that Democrats took over Congress in 1999, or that CDOs "exploded" under Clinton-- which is to say that you've made it up.

I have more then affectively showed you the numbers, they do not lie or establish mental fabrications like your postings. Sure, you "affectively" [sic] showed me "the" numbers. Missing is any sort of explanatory framework dealing with what those numbers mean, any timeline suggestive of cause and effect, or any other sort of actual logical argument by which heads or tails could be made of the few numbers you've provided. But, hey-- isn't it easier to just pretend that your adversary in a debate is insane, instead of actually supporting your own @!$%#ing argument?

Does this tactic work with the circle of morons you call your friends? Or is it that you're just incapable of figuring out any other strategy?

I on the other hand apologized b/c i was wrong about the 106 congress and should have done more research. Let's compile a short list of things you were wrong about--

• the 106th Congress
• when CDOs exploded
• Who "invented" CDOs
• Who "created" the "original prime rate loan" (a phrase to which you're apparently ignorant of the meaning)
• The origin of much of our debt
• How Congress works
• How the subprime crisis worked
• The impact of recovery plans
• The general shape of recoveries from financial crises such as what we experienced
• etc.

That's just the SHORT list.

The scariest thought in your whole misguided diatribe is the possibility that the people will reinstate Republican control of government and the economy on the misguided notion that they're more fiscally responsible than Democrats-- if that happens, you might want to be sure that you've already laid in a good stock of canned and dried goods, and plenty of ammo and replacement parts, because it will be a looooong bumpy road.

And, btw, the only thing more pathetic than someone trying to blame Bill Clinton for today's economy is watching that same person try to cover up his own inadequacies by pretending to knowledge he obviously doesn't have.

Nice going.

Must be proud of your democrats today! Nice going....... The links are presented above, a 3rd grader could read them!

The links are presented above, a 3rd grader could read them! Which apparently leaves you out.

We should have done that before when the housing crisis happened.

Now it's just like playing real nasty.

krounded:

Done deal.

S & P, the same bastards that took all those cute real estate mortgage-packed funds that were propped up with zero security and no cash and gave them triple A ratings... the same firm that thought that the derivatives market was the best hedge since hiding that second ace up your sleeve...

Where the hell do they get off stepping up to determining the economic status of the nation? Who gave them the job? Ahhh, I see, they just took it upon themselves out of the goodness of their hearts to screw us all over. Mighty nice of them. Wonder if they'll put that credit rating back when their favorite Republican candidate gets into the White House? Just wondering.

I hope none of you were looking forward to your Obamacare.

I hope none of you were looking forward to your Obamacare.

Quiet Donald.......no one cares about your Apprentice show or what you say.

If this doesn't wake the Liberals up, nothing will.

If this doesn't wake the Liberals up, nothing will.

And the Conservatives will continue sleeping as seen here in this seed.

The Republicans woke up 6 months ago and in a year and a half from now America will be back on the right track after this FAILED administration is over with.

Thanks for proving krounded right Jason... you fail.

Lol yeah right another zombie has joined welcome Z1

Lol yeah right another zombie has joined welcome Z1

Oh I think Z1 was paying plenty of attention.

When Republicans come up with a balanced approach that does not run the US into the ground, you let me know.

Taxes are lower than they have been in 50 years. Republicans slept all the way through the Bush administration. They think taking Reagan's doctrine to the ultimate extreme is good for the country. Reagan couldn't get elected by the GOP these days.

Dems try to negotiate and end up looking like wimps. You have to be awake to COMPROMISE. Sitting with your arms folded going No, Nope, Nada is not getting anyone anywhere.

Put some solid policy in place for creating jobs. Make some corporate tax cuts for hiring, close the loopholes and cut spending on some programs to fund others like infrastructure and education. Raise the rate on personal income for those making millions.

Last night some morons on Fox were going on about how the school system should be 100% privately funded. Honestly. It made me sick. This is the type of thing the Right is seriously proposing. That is a backward, messed up idea.

Have you been paying attention! Have you watched as your party has gone from decent Conservative ideals to lunacy? That's what being asleep is all about.

Apparently you are still a sleep. What are Obama's plans again? What has the Republican refused to accept besides no increase in taxes. What compromises has Obama given into? He caved into the Bush tax cuts. But exceeded Bush's out of control spendin. What really gets me is how ignorant can you be when you continue to do the same things that has not been working. I thought he was supposed to be so intelligent so why has he not been able to figure out what has not been working. Obamas only solution has been to spend more while taking more from those who have been giving. Wealth redistribution does not work.

What are Obama's plans again?

Boehner didn't walk out on nothing, did he?

Obamas only solution has been to spend more while taking more from those who have been giving.

Boehner walked out on a plan that cut and increased revenues. There was not more spending. It's very clear.

Your argument holds no validity on this point. You say Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts. Lots of people think that. It had nothing to do with not having a plan or spending. You cannot say someone does not have a plan when you oppose the plan laid on the table.

krounded:

Ackshully, Obama's plans are referenced and praised (faintly) in the S & P note:

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. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

What they should have done is gone for the Obama/Boehner/Biden $4T grand bargain, but when Boehner brought it back to the House, they jumped him.

And now we will have even more debt... only we won't get ANYTHING for the extra debt we'll incur as a result of having to pay a higher interest rate on our debt.

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."

S&P

The cuts were one thing, they still needed to increase taxes...since the congress will show no willingness to increase taxes while these 'people' are in Congress S&P doesn't see our 'debt' going down...in other words it can't happen with JUST CUTS...

Oh, yeah,...this is bad news for the GOTP...because EVERY AMERICAN is going to be hit with higher 'credit' costs....

Tax rates are not the problem. Tax pool is the problem. The news reported today that 42% of working age americans are not working. That means 58% of the working age people are working and they are paying their taxes. There just aren't enough people working.

Raising taxes will not help employment. Even the President says this (well, sometimes he says this and the next day he says something else).

Tax revenue has gone down and then Obama spent a couple trillion we didn't have...then he spent some more. Cut the extra spending and then cut the budget down. We should have cut 1 trillion in spending in the next year not over 10 years.

repo, tell it to S&P. you are wasting keystrokes to us.

Too bad the Democrats held the debt bill hostage - the Republicans should have held strong and not caved - I would have more respect if they said HELL NO this time.

Are you living in the same time continuum?

"... when we're all on food stamps and unemployment ..."

But I thought conservatives don't believe in federal support for the downtrodden and would refuse such aide as a sign of ideological solidarity, i.e., isn't there a pledge against that?

In any case, it was the GOP who refused to go along with the debt ceiling adjustment unless all of the tea party demands had been met.

There was an excellent book a few years ago, I'd tell you the title but many of you would react to that and not read any further.

It detailed studies that were done by the American government all over the world right after WW II to determine... why people followed authoritarian leaders, because it had been such a problem for us.

It turns out that 28% of the population, everywhere on the planet, prefers authoritarians. The like them to have some swagger, to be tough, to not think too much and to shoot from the hip. They are not comfortable with other types of leaders. They like for them to shock and awe and force issues through whatever means are necessary. They are generally very religious and they don't really respect ideas or science. They will follow their leaders and their faith, even right off the cliff.

This is why all these arguments from the rest of population make no impact whatsoever on them. This is why the whole 'the truth will set you free' view never gets anywhere with them.

That is what we are up against. The founding fathers warned us about these guys, but in their time, they figured they would all be trying to establish a king.

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's

Aren't they the same agency that gave triple A ratings to the housing bubble loans that derivatives profited from??? sigh

exactly right, SueXque, It was a stupid idea to think that you can spend money on a credit card forever and there not be consequences when you keep pushing the limits up and up...

US Federal Deficit as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History

National Debt Basics

Need to raise revenue, vol.

Need to cut spending Yellow.........S&P says so....

JayTee - S & P says to cut the debt.

Read the statement from S&P.

Need to cut spending Yellow.........S&P says so....

They also said revenues have to be raised.

S(orry) & P(athetic) are worthless themselves after the mortgage crisis. But they are right about that.

Amazing how some people can read the same thing and come up with bull@!$%# to suit their views. Cut the debt, which can and should be a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. Unfortunately we have people like suzyQ comment 4 What is wrong with you, do you suffer from amnesia? Do you regurgitate the thoughts of other people? SuzyQ in particular I would suggest you get professional help, your concept of reality is so off that I fear your words might incite the masses to concur with your inferior intellect. Facts are essential to fairly judge what is real and what isn't real.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Thank President Obama and the Dumdems for not going after more cuts - like the $4 Trillion+ S&P said they wanted to see. If the Dumdems would have passed Cut, Cap and Balance along with a balanced budget amendment, we would not have been downgraded. Another historic moment compliments of Barack Hussein Obama and the dumdems in his administration. What an epic FAILURE the last 2.5 years have been. Who would want another 4 of this mistake?

Hope Obama enjoyed his Hip Hop BBQ...and the round of golf I'm sure he's playing today - right after his press conference...is he coming out to tell us to sacrifice again today?

Hoax and chains my friends, hoax and chains.

Too much Smoke.

Let Me GET This STRAIGHT: The USA has NEVER, at ANY Time, Failed to Pay it's Debt, Yet They Have Downgraded Us! THIS

It happens to regular mortals all the time.

but this sucks

You have a point. These are the same guys who AAA'd those lousy worthless mortgage backed securities which in retrospect were obviously a way for the banks to cut their losses on a disaster they saw coming.

They downgraded us partly because we have a group of people in our government who is willing to let us default for ideological reasons. This is the first time that a group of economically ignorant people managed to all get elected at the same time. This is the fault of the Tea Party.

I hate to break this to you.....But the damage was done long before the Tea Party was even a thought.

The S&P does not change Ratings on a Country like the U.S. over a single economic cycle.

They are looking at the next decade. Minimum.

The Fed's balance sheet has expanded alot more than expected, and when they unwind their positions as rates rise, Treasury receipts will explode. imo.

Than all you LEFTVINERS will be ROTFLYAO! at the hedgefund, and widows and orphans expense.

So take a chill pill.

The S&P does not change Ratings on a Country like the U.S. over a single economic cycle.

They are looking at the next decade. Minimum.

Here's what S&P had to say about it...

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."

S&P

We told you WAY before that debt deal, that it was BAD for America. We told you it not matter what Obama and the Dems said, whether we raised the debt limit or not, they were going to downgrade us because we NEVER addressed the DEBT and SPENDING problem this country has.

The ONLY bill that made ANY SENSE and addressed the debt problem at all was the original one - CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE introduced by...OMG, the fiscal conservatives, the TEA PARTY and a few others, who thought we needed to deal with the 14 trillion dollars (now 16 +trillion). Yeah, those evil Tea Party members who said I don't care if I get reelected or not, I came here to put sanity back into our budget process. But of course, Dingy Harry Reid, wanted to tax the people MORE and SPEND that too, so he declared it and many other bills "DOA" in the Senate. Apparently the FY 2012 budget is hostage of the DOA threat too because he hasn't even addressed it yet, and we are less than 2 months away from a new fiscal year. But that's okay Nancy Pelosi didn't pass one AT ALL the last 2 years...didn't even put one together.

The ignorance on here is astounding:

1. Obama, Reid, most of the Dems, and career politicians on the Pub side all contributed to this mess, and the eventual downgrade by spending like drunken sailors. We were told we had to do this to AVOID a downgrade...a lie.

2. Obama himself and the Dems who controlled the Congress added nearly 4 trillion to the debt alone and that doesn't include Obamacare that the CBO now says will not be deficit neutral (of course not, and we told you that too).

The ONLY ones who actually had the guts to say what needed to be said and do what needed to be done, were the freshman Congresspeople who came to Washington to fix this mess. Funny thing is, Boehner couldn't bargain, bribe, and belittle them into caving like Reid and Pelosi rolled the Dems to get Obamacare passed (Louisiand Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, the FL deal Bill Nelson worked out).

Regardless, a sad day for America and the country is going to be a third world nation by the time these jackasses get out of office! And the blame goes to the carrer politicians who just play the game!

because we NEVER addressed the DEBT and SPENDING problem this country has.

You left out the lack of revenue problem.

Lack of revenue because Obama's not creating all those jobs he promised. Keeping his promise to keep unemployment under 8% I recall. Had to spend $900 billion to do that and it really did work out well for us, didn't it?

The shovel ready jobs just weren't as shovel ready as this idiot thought. Maybe he realized that government doesn't CREATE jobs - government KILLS jobs.

What's left of the businesses who employ your greedy union buddies will be moving overseas yet again, when he raises their rates. They'll save a lot of money in taxes, and the people will work even harder to get a paycheck.

Now, don't you have a doobie and some beer waiting for you out in the car, John? Lunch time!

nah, I'd say its 50-50.

Vol fan... The Tea Partiers in Congress said they would hold the debt ceiling hostage... Well, they did and look where it has gotten us. This is squarely the GOP/TP's fault.

The Tea Partiers in Congress said they would hold the debt ceiling hostage

First, where? Source?

Secondly, they proposed cut, cap, and balance which the Dems defeated in the Senate and which would have gone a long way toward actually fixing the problem with our debt and ridiculous spending (you know like 18,000 earmarks in Obama's first two bills in 2009).

Well, they did and look where it has gotten us. This is squarely the GOP/TP's fault.

No it's not. they wanted to deal with our debt (which is exactly WHY we got downgraded). The establishment GOP, Obama, and Dems -actually ALL career politicians who didn't want to deal with our spending problem, get the blame for this!

Bottom line, we told you this would happen. Our spending is out of control and thanks to the establishment parties, we solved nothing...except maybe the sequester cuts.

vol fan:

First, where? Source?

It really doesn't matter whether the Tea Party said it or not. What matters is that S & P said they said it.

The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

That's from S & P's note.

No it's not. they wanted to deal with our debt (which is exactly WHY we got downgraded).

No, Obama wanted to deal with the debt, get some more revenues and Boehner walked away. (Which is a big part of why we got downgraded)

nah, I'd say its 50-50.

Good call vol fan 50% Traditional GOP 50% Tea party.

First, where? Source?

Mitch McConnell, and you can find his quote plastered all over Newsvine including many of the threads you're currently actively posting in.

actually ALL career politicians who didn't want to deal with our spending problem, get the blame for this!

According to S&P we were downgraded because of congress' indication that they would not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire... here's their exact words:

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."

S&P

They are running on principles, Gorgon. The business interests have lost control of them. It's on authoritarian autopilot. They get their attention at campaign time when they are after the money, but mostly they run on faith and principles.

Too bad their priniciples aren't more oriented around facts, but if they were, they would run on those instead of their simple principles, wouldn't they.

Their faith in their principle of smaller government tells them this is what is good for the country. That's all. It doesn't matter what the underlying situation is.

the party that claims it represents the average Joe.

Please don't get them to trot that guy out again :-)

You're not alone in that...

Ditto.

100% with you, dc and kathy.

Count me in on that.

Now watch them try to collapse this thread.... Because they hate the truth.

OK, what's the "Obama is never wrong" count ? 4, 5....?

The Tea Party isn't even an official Party, it's a bunch of representatives elected by the American people to stop Government out of control spending...and the S&P didn't like the Compromise.

It's says 2.7 trillion wasn't enough. Obama was wrong (again), and the GOP was wrong to compromise with Keynsian failures, also known as Eco Idiot Terrorists.

We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade

I agree, JayTee.

Tea Party = fail

And anyone that supports their agenda.

I agree, JayTee.

Big suprise there vol fan

OK, what's the "Obama is never wrong" count ? 4, 5....?

Yo Jaytee the count you are referring to was people who ageed the TP was at fault, once again you prove yourself to be indifferent to facts. I can't wait to see what bull@!$%# you make up next. I will have to wait because I need to go to sleep.

"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."

S&P

Bingo........that's true.

Funny that the Repubs are very slow to point this out. Makes you wonder where their fight is when it comes to defending the US. They are too busy attacking Obama to notice that basic fact.

S&P sold AAA credit ratings for those mortgage backed securities... makes you wonder if they also took money to downgrade the US's credit rating doesn't it? Does that constitute treason?

makes you wonder if they also took money to downgrade the US's credit rating doesn't it? Does that constitute treason?

They had an agenda all right. I want to read their report. I guess it points out the political climate as a reason for the down grade.

I still think their agency is a sham. They've proved that. US economy has a rating less than a bunch of high risk mortgages.....how stupid is that.

You know that those budgets were filibusted to death. The Rs would have required things the Ds were not going to do to allow it to a vote. It's pretty awful. Obama's budget was like six months stale and obsolete before it even got a vote.

I think it will be different this 2012 budget year though. America is paying attention now.

You know that those budgets were filibusted to death

Mark you have to actually purpose a budget first.

I think it will be different this 2012 budget year though.

Mark, no it won't the FY 2012 budget was passed by the House in April...it is STILL sitting in the Senate. But Queen Nancy NEVER in the last two years even attempted to pass a budget...know why? Because if she didn't she could do a "continuing resolution", which keep the spending current.

Well said, David Noah, well said!

I would not pass Ryan Budget ever!

well, then, get ready to look like Italy, Greece, and Portugal!

Mark, no it won't the FY 2012 budget was passed by the House in April.

Bills come down when the leadership knows it has a chance of passing. Between the Republicans and Blue Dogs, no budget could be passed during Pelosi.

The budget the House passed was crap and the Senate knew it.

You all think the Dems have to roll over every time (for historic reasons). They don't.

We never had trouble raising debt ceiling until the baggers went to congress. Vote the baggers out 2012!

Yeah, they are willing to hold a gun to the head of the American economy to get their way and the Republican party knows that without their little wave they would not be holding the House now. Boehner could either call them wrong and hurt his party of do what he did.

I don't think the framers ever really imagined the Congress being willing to damage the nation to get their way. Not that they think they are damaging the USA, they just believe simple things, like shrink the government anyway you can no matter what. They don't consider the consequences beyond that, because it's an article of faith for them, and having faith is what they are good at.

I would venture to guess they are being held to opinions not of their own design. Lets face it, they are obviously to stupid to have an original idea on their own. They are a shame, an embarrassment and are anti-American.

January, only all the tax breaks will get rolled back probably. The R's will insist on all of them and Obama will veto it. This all or nothing thing is the only reason they were not rolled back before.

Going to happen - can't obstruct the expiration now. At this point the rational part of the country will accept paying more taxes before accepting another 'gun to their head'.

IT would be better to recall the baggers and have a Democrat Majority, ww-chs-sc.

You had your majority it was an utter failure

We may actually have a chance to find out what a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate can accomplish.

thanks guys for your comments......with the exception of 21.2 (non-sense); try to keep up instead of spouting drivel. Some seem to conveniently forget the misuse of the fillibuster imposed by the GOP. Senate GOP Jerks.

God Damn the Baggers.

No it's not...it's about reducing our 14.4 trillion dollar deficit..oh wait, now, it's 16.4 trillion thanks to the idiots who voted to not deal with our spending problem.

You just about said it all . These rating agencies have proved to be one of the biggest failures in

our economic system ,we relied on them for all these years and all they did was collect money and do whatever their customers paid for. This is another example of how we got ZERO protection from our regulators ( these 3 rating agencies should have been shut down & jailed). Now that the US is downgraded all the other countries most also be downgraded what a calamity.

This group of hard headed Tea Party folks sure made a mess of this . Instead of compromising and moving toward a solution they cause a none problem to cost every American more money.

Congress is not interested at all in solutions just gaining power at any cost.

And if you are sick and socked with medical bills, you are not fiscally responsible.

If you buy a house or a car with a loan, you are not fiscally responsible.

All wealthy entities had to take on debt at some time to make money.

I'm not going to say the government has been responsible with spending. They have not. But the country has been in debt since it's beginning. It's not one to one with a private household. At one time we had a deficit surplus, but the US has never been without debt.

KEYWORDS in my post being "SPEDNING MORE THAN YOU'RE MAKING". Does that include ALL debt? I think not.