The Journal Gazette editorial page has joined the chorus of liberal drones trying to sell the incredible crock that it was the Tea Party's stubbornness that led to the Standard & Poor's downgrade of our credit rating:
Clearly, compromise will be required to develop a workable deficit-reduction plan.
What does state treasurer and U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock say about the need to reach agreement?
“We need less bipartisanship and more conservative, fiscal principles in this on-going debate. Bipartisanship has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy and now to our first ever financial downgrade.”
This type of obstinate refusal to negotiate on behalf of the tea party congressional wing and its willingness to default on debt was a significant factor in Standard & Poor's downgrading the nation's creditworthiness, and that, more than other factors, is what took the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, not bipartisanship.
I just can't fathom this. Do they really believe that, or is the idea to just keep repeating the nonsense in hopes that it will stick with some people? Yes, the intransigence and brinksmanship in Washington -- by both political parties -- were cited by S&P as concerns. But only because they prevented the government from cutting $4 trillion from the debt, the minimum amount the agency felt would signal a seriousness about being fiscally responsible. If the unwillingness to deal with the crippling debt is the reason for the downgrade, how in the world can you place the most blame on the one group that has been the most insistent on dealing with the debt? This is not just economically illiterate and politically dishonest. It is felony imbecility.
Compromise with such ignore-the-obvious obstinancy? No thanks.
Comments
Why is the Tea Party blamed for the debt down grade?
William: "Why is the Tea Party blamed for the debt down grade?"
I would submit it's because dems/libs/progs/hippies that never grew up/whatever you call them these days in conjuction with the old school media (abc/nbc/cbs/nyt/etc) will always blame anyone and everyone but themselves.
When something goes wrong, no matter what it is and how obvious it is, just ask a teenager or democrat what happened and you will get the exact same response. It's uncanny.
Tim, you and Eric Cartman are the only two I can think of who are still worried about hippies. Can I at least assume you've gotten over beatniks?
At any rate, Leo, even if I agreed with you (I don't - I think the Tea Partyiers are indeed foolish and reckless) it would be no sillier that the recent GOP decision (I assume you got the memo) to henceforth refer to all rich people as "job-creators." Mitt Romney, by any measure, is a very rich man, yet he has eliminated more jobs than anyone I can think of.
littlejohn,
How many jobs have you created? When it comes to running a business, would "YOU" be willing to compete with companies that increase productivity, quality and reducing price to the consumer by adding machines and eliminating people? If not you will loose everything you invest.
Look at John Deer who invented the plow. He made it possible to shed thousands of workers from farms to do other things they would much rather do. Because of John Deer and followers like him, instead of 95% of us working on a farm, there are less than 4%. Are you going to say John Deer is the cause of major layoffs?
We can then look at Henry Ford where it took months to build an automobile and through improvements was able to build one car every minute. the result was price reductions, improved quality, and innovation. Are you going to blame Henry Ford for laying off thousands due to his improvement in productivity or praise him for being able to improve product and higher thousands?
The purpose of a business owner is to make money and for companies to make money for the share holders. Based on what I have read from your posts, I would never lend you a penny to start or operate a business.
So again how many people have you employed with your capital assets?
Mr. Larsen,
Since you don't know me, I'll be kind. I'm not rich. I'm not even middle-class. If you re-read my comment, you'll notice I did not claim to be a job creator. Neither did I suggest that Mr. Romney has any obligation to create jobs - which is good, since he apparently hasn't.
Other than that, my friend, you got everything just right.
I was merely making the neutral observation, which struck me as amusing, that apparently all prominent Republicans have been instructed to stop using the word "rich" and substitute "job-creator." Just a bit of public relations.
Personally, I don't think it will work. Most Americans will continue to think of the GOP as the party of the wealthy, but who knows? Maybe word swap will turn out to be a stroke of genius.
By the way, if you're rich - I mean a job-creator - tell me where to send my resume.
Littlejohn, would you please cite the source for the claim that republicans' are to now refer to "rich" people as "job creators"? I never saw the story please enlighten us.
Also, does your jealous animosity toward rich people include Ultra wealthy Dems like Peter Lewis (Progressive Insurance) Jeff Immelt from GE (talk about killing jobs in America) Steve Jobs from Apple, Bill Gates, The two dudes from Google, the untire upper managament of Goldman Sachs, George Soros, John Kerry, Jane Harmon, Jay Rockefeller, etc etc etc etc...
Lastly, who creates jobs? Poor people? Do poor people open companies and hire people?
Plus, Small place to ......,
How can you, the self declared "unemployable", can even make a statement like "I think the Tea Partyiers are indeed foolish and reckless". That is the most serious example of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever heard!
Kalb, you are seriously mentally deficient.
Are you even aware that you just stated that "unemployable" and "foolish and reckless" mean the same thing?
I own several dictionaries, my friend. You're an idiot.
Hmmmm...Well, one might assume if a person was foolish and reckless that could certainly go a long way to making them unemployable as well, no?
Tim - AMEN.
S&P specifically mentioned the inability of the government to come to an agreement in their statement about the lowered debt rating.
And I have to agree with S&P. A credit rating is based not only on the ability to pay one's debts, but a willingness to do so in a timely fashion. If Congress wants to not spend money, then don't spend money, but refusing to pay the bills for what you've already spent is the hallmark of a deadbeat.
I will say it once again, S&P was correct to make the downgrade. Looking at history, 53 years of continual deficits and the national debt doubling regardless of who is office about every ten years would cause concern. Would you loan money to a friend who was addicted to spending, deeply in debt?
Again 3rd graders, we were never ever ever in risk of default despite the Barackalypse rhetoric, the debt ceiling is by definition the mechanism to stop overspending, and the downgrade by S&P was because of the very very simple fact we are over-extended.
Everybody (at least I hope everybody) should know by now, the much publicized "cuts in spending" are really just reductions of future increases of spending.
Nothing more complicated than a lender/borrower relationship with an over extended buyer. Lower your obligations (of which there literally thousands that could be done away with) and the "score" will go back up.
Shame they don't teach basic math anymore in K-12 isn't it?
The US was not at risk in defaulting, but then if you go back decades, neither were Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland or Portugal. The US faces tough choices ahead and the inability to even discuss priorities would make me think a second time if I wanted to loan that entity money.
Congress does not need to do anything about Social Security or Medicare, these two programs already have legislated limits on what they can spend. Both SS-OASI and Medicare are spending about 15% more than they take in in tax revenues and that number will increase until both of their Trust funds hit 20% of any given years projected expenses and then large automatic cuts will take place. I think it is these two programs that worry countries the most. But like most Americans, they do not realize or know about the automatic limits on them. Unless Congress removes the limits, these program cannot gobble up the GDP or federal budget.
The downgrade was based on the impression that Congress is not willing to address its financial mess now and if not now, is not willing to do so in the future.
If you look at the major industrial corporations of the US, the ones in the DJIA or the Fortune 500, are there ANY who have been debt-free in the past 53 years?
Cable television systems spend $300 to $400 to acquire a subscriber, and the faster they lose money, the more investors love them.
Add together all the profits and losses for all airline companies, since the invention of flight, and you have a net loss, yet there's no shortage of investors.
People spend twice as much on the care and training of race horses than the horses earn racing. Some owners collect stud fees, but other others pay them, so those are a wash. There's no shortage of investors in race horses, though.
There's no way to break even on breeding puppies except with a so-called "puppy mill", but people decide to go into that business every year anyway.
Until recently, we had a national economy, not a global economy. When government spent more than it collected in explicit taxes, it effectively imposed an implicit tax in the form of inflation. It's only really become a problem in the past few decades as we've developed a global economy. Instead of the national debt being us owning ourselves, it's us owing them.
Still, instead of financing the federal government as we do, if each department would have mortgages on the facilities they use, nobody would think twice about the national debt. I have a more modest house today than I had in the 80s, and yet the mortgage today is 50% greater than the purchase price of that other house in 1983. Most people would have a similar tale.
That doesn't mean that we can ignore the fact that health care here costs us more than twice as much (as a proportion of GDP) as in countries with socialized medicine. Nor can we ignore the fact that real wages for working people have been deteriorating for 40 years.
It should be pretty clear to everyone that we not only are facing a jobless recovery, but a jobless future as well. Our school systems, though, still turns out people socialized to shut up and take orders. We need to teach kids (and adults) to be goats, not sheep, and to give them the basic skills needed for self-employment.