US Credit Score: AAA to AA+

[Glitzer]

Did you miss the whole "phone congress" speech he gave that resulted in thousands of email and phone calls every hour for a few days straight?

Why yes, I suppose I did. I respectfully retract that point, thanks for bringing it up.

Granted, most of them were probably the vocal far right and left folks fuming with anger and rhetoric laden soundbites that just called to fan the flames further and encourage more digging in because they knew they were right...

It's unfortunate people think those on the fringe are in the majority because they are much more vocal than the reserved moderates. What we could use are more outspoken moderates, DAMNIT!

[Davis 51]

And judging a politicians words while he is sucking up to the camera is thinking critically? It's apparent he said what he did to make it look like some glorious victory for his party, as all politicians do. They always have to upstage each other and make it seem their party prevailed and the American people are the big winners.

Yes. He can't have it both ways. Either he expects us to take his word seriously, or not. If not, then he has no business being Speaker of the House. Saying that it's "just him doing what all politicians do" is a cop-out. If this isn't what he wanted, he shouldn't have walked out of negotiations.

If the democrats are blameless, then why didn't they block it? The fact of the matter is, the bill was rewritten many times with both parties present. Obama was there, Reid was there. Obama threatened to go to the American people in one meeting where compromise was stonewalled. Why didn't he? All I seem to recall was some stupid scare tactic that social security checks might not go out on time.

After everything is done, if one party screws things up, it's only because the other party remained silent.

He did go to the people. He addressed the nation, which tied up phone lines in congress straight up to the vote. In case you haven't been paying attention to the polls, the GOP is circling the drain, precisely because he took his case to the people.

You don't seem to understand the consequences of a default. If it was a scare tactic, it's only because the danger was very real, and far worse than just social security checks. Full blown Great Depression 2.0.

And we didn't default. We also managed to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the time being. The truth is, the S&P downgrade is mostly symbolic, but its symbolism that carries a lot of weight. We needed to cut more. SS, Medicare/Medicaid do need restructuring. We do need to raise taxes. It's blatant that the S&P has way more credibility than it should, esp. the way it was handing out AAA ratings to everyone and their grandma, but their stated reasons for the downgrade was crystal clear. We have become dysfunctional to the point where a single fanatical minority group can block up both houses and steer the country to catastrophe. They specifically mentioned the lack of revenue increases as one of the biggest reasons.

The reason isn't because the Democrats were "silent". It's because they weren't willing to play Russian roulette with the economy. Unlike the GOP, they can be pigheaded, but they're not a purely ideologically motivated cult. They don't drive to one lockstep, and I'd rather keep it that way than see them turn into a cult of their own.

Yeah, they gave in. It sucks. What would you have them do? What do you think Democrats yelling loudly and stamping their feet would have accomplished? The people voted in the Tea Party. The Tea Party put their hands on a button and said "I'LL FUCKING DO IT!" If it's anyone's fault, it's the fault of the American people for being made up entirely of apathetic morons who didn't understand they were electing a bunch of fanatics, many of whom wish we did default.

Boner represents them. He is their mouthpiece. The buck stops with him, because he thought it would be a good idea to play this sick, twisted game in the first place. It's a game that should never have been played, and one can hardly blame Obama and Reid for trying to act in good faith. Obama and Reid may have been naive to think that they could be negotiated with, but that does not make them malicious.

[Glitzer]

You don't seem to understand the consequences of a default. If it was a scare tactic, it's only because the danger was very real, and far worse than just social security checks.

Forgive me for not understanding. Reid said that Social Security is "fully funded" and he was sick of people bringing it up when they talk about the debt. Obama said he couldn't guarantee those checks would go out. Who is lying?

Full blown Great Depression 2.0.

We are not even in the same realm of the Great Depression. Stock markets hit an all time high a while ago, and people are generally well off. Wait 6 months - year we're going to be in much worse shape as they are going to continue to spend and dig us deeper into debt. Like I previously mentioned, we have been doing this for forty years, it isn't going anywhere.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the polls

"I haven't trusted polls since I read that 62% of women had affairs during their lunch hour. I've never met a woman in my life who would give up lunch for sex."
Erma Bombeck

And we didn't default. We also managed to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the time being.

So which is it? Boehner screwed us or saved us? Since you know, this deal is all his doing.

The truth is, the S&P downgrade is mostly symbolic, but its symbolism that carries a lot of weight. We needed to cut more. SS, Medicare/Medicaid do need restructuring. We do need to raise taxes.

Couldn't agree more. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"Cut more" is a bit of an understatement though. Either we make massive spending cuts like never seen before or we go to 'AA'.

their stated reasons for the downgrade was crystal clear. We have become dysfunctional to the point where a single fanatical minority group can block up both houses and steer the country to catastrophe. They specifically mentioned the lack of revenue increases as one of the biggest reasons.

"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. 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."

They did not say "single fanatical minority group" they said "Congress and the Administration". Revenue was mentioned, along with all of our other problems, but you can't base from that their believing it's the biggest reason.

Also,

"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."

The reason isn't because the Democrats were "silent". It's because they weren't willing to play Russian roulette with the economy. Unlike the GOP, they can be pigheaded, but they're not a purely ideologically motivated cult. They don't drive to one lockstep, and I'd rather keep it that way than see them turn into a cult of their own.

Here's a history lesson. We had a "Grace Commission" called in 1982.

From wiki:
"The Grace Commission Report[3] was presented to Congress in January 1984. The report claimed that if its recommendations were followed, $424 billion could be saved in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. It estimated that the national debt, without these reforms, would rise to $13 trillion by the year 2000, while with the reforms they projected it would rise to only $2.5 trillion.[4] Congress ignored the commission's report. The debt reached $5.8 trillion in the year 2000.[5][6] The national debt reached 13 trillion after the subprime mortgage-collateralized debt obligation crisis in 2008.

The report said that one-third of all income taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and another one-third escapes collection owing to the underground economy. “With two thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government."[4]

After that they passed the The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in a quarter of a century."

The Republicans and Democrats have either forgotten that or ignored it.

The people voted in the Tea Party. The Tea Party put their hands on a button and said "I'LL FUCKING DO IT!" If it's anyone's fault, it's the fault of the American people for being made up entirely of apathetic morons who didn't understand they were electing a bunch of fanatics, many of whom wish we did default.

If EvaFan doesn't mind, I'll steal his brilliant quote,

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
—John Adams

Even though I disagree with the Tea Party, at least it's an attempt to interfere with the the leviathan two party system. Something I can support.

Boner represents them. He is their mouthpiece. The buck stops with him, because he thought it would be a good idea to play this sick, twisted game in the first place. It's a game that should never have been played

Yep. It's a dangerous game the politicians play with our money, with the American people as the big loser.

Obama and Reid may have been naive to think that they could be negotiated with, but that does not make them malicious.

I never once said they were malicious. Just liars.

[EvaFan]

The thing with government is all government jobs are paid for by people with real jobs and those are in decline right now. Goverment jobs should reflect the economy. Cant have tons of jobs lost and still expect to make the same in taxes to cover current costs.

I'm all for pay cuts for everyone with a government job cept maybe the necessities that deserve it like teachers, fireman, policemen, etc... sorry but thats just how it is. The rest of the US is dealing with money problems so you can afford a 10-15% paycut. Too many boneheads in washington to realize something so simple but then again why would they pass a law that involves paycuts for them, instead lets just raise taxes.

[BasharOfTheAges]

You don't seem to understand the consequences of a default. If it was a scare tactic, it's only because the danger was very real, and far worse than just social security checks.

Forgive me for not understanding. Reid said that Social Security is "fully funded" and he was sick of people bringing it up when they talk about the debt. Obama said he couldn't guarantee those checks would go out. Who is lying?

Strictly speaking, neither is, Social Security is fully funded by it's own investments; it has it's own internally balanced budget, using its revenues to pay its debts. Governmental budgets don't necessarily work like that, though. Just because you bring in as much or more than you spend as a department, doesn't mean your revenues are your own. That money could be taken in times of need and spent elsewhere. Since the paying of Social Security checks is dependent on having money to do so, and the need to pay off debt interest was deemed a higher one to keep a good credit rating, there was a chance that some or all checks would go unpaid. The president couldn't guarantee what would or wouldn't be paid because that wouldn't be his decision to make.

Both statements were true, albeit somewhat vacuous.

[Glitzer]

Strictly speaking, neither is, Social Security is fully funded by it's own investments; it has it's own internally balanced budget, using its revenues to pay its debts. Governmental budgets don't necessarily work like that, though. Just because you bring in as much or more than you spend as a department, doesn't mean your revenues are your own. That money could be taken in times of need and spent elsewhere. Since the paying of Social Security checks is dependent on having money to do so, and the need to pay off debt interest was deemed a higher one to keep a good credit rating, there was a chance that some or all checks would go unpaid. The president couldn't guarantee what would or wouldn't be paid because that wouldn't be his decision to make.

Both statements were true, albeit somewhat vacuous.

Appreciate the clarification. You said more in one paragraph than any politician could do in entire speeches. Contrary to my usual belief, I guess they can have it both ways

Hey Bashar, I found the website PolitiFact this morning that I quite like, do you think it's worth staying updated with?

I especially enjoy their Truth-O-Meter. Do you think it's credible?

[BasharOfTheAges]

I try to avoid actively following politics in my free time. It's far too depressing and life shortening.

[Qyot27]

Hey Bashar, I found the website PolitiFact this morning that I quite like, do you think it's worth staying updated with?

I especially enjoy their Truth-O-Meter. Do you think it's credible?

They have their detractors, but overall I'd say yeah, credible enough. Of course, note my location.

Also, the St. Pete Times (PolitiFact's parent paper) isn't corporately owned. To quote Wikipedia (heh, heh):

It is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida campus in St. Petersburg.

[Glitzer]

I try to avoid actively following politics in my free time. It's far too depressing and life shortening.

I know I should try and emulate your attitude, especially since there isn't a dang thing I can do to influence the direction our country is headed. Even a little sleep lost as a result of politically based stress is wasteful.

My justification lies within this quote by Jefferson. Excuse the monster length, but it's one of my favorites,

"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people. It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. Light and liberty go together. I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man. Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."

They have their detractors, but overall I'd say yeah, credible enough. Of course, note my location.

Also, the St. Pete Times (PolitiFact's parent paper) isn't corporately owned. To quote Wikipedia (heh, heh):

It is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida campus in St. Petersburg.

I'm grateful for your insight. I delight in media which endeavors to separate itself from party attachments. Also, it seems they leave no stone unturned during their research. Though, I may have spent more time there today than sensible

Have you thought about working for the paper? It would make the site/newspaper that much more interesting

[Qyot27]

I barely write anything on stuff I maintain myself, no way I'd be able to do deadline work (especially on form, either - it'd have to be a pretty well-oiled subject column or something...but besides that, I have no degree, much less in a journalistic background).