Moody's warns US gov't on possible debt downgrade

[Vi-Jay 218]

A linkage that has never been made previously in the long US history of a legislated mandatory debt ceiling. And yet, Democrats, including the President, have been willing to negotiate such a linkage with Republicans in the interest of resolving the urgent ceiling increase, and because we all understand that debt reduction is necessary (even if the linkage is not). Yet, despite this good faith on the part of Democrats, they are labeled as "slow movers" by their perennial critics.

"In response to Clinton's unwillingness to make the budget cuts that the Republicans wanted, Newt Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, which would have caused the US Treasury to suspend funding other portions of the Government to avoid putting the country in default."

I know you like source links.

May I borrow that?

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Zero Sum 305]

Its probably not smart for you Republicans to bring up what happened to the GOP after the Contract on America showed to be what it was.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Its probably not smart for you Republicans to bring up what happened to the GOP after the Contract on America showed to be what it was.

1) My political affiliation is a non-factor. I remain objective. I don't trust any politician.

2) Clinton took over with a sh!t economy. Produced four consecutive balanced budgets.

[Zero Sum 305]

1) My political affiliation is a non-factor. I remain objective. I don't trust any politician.

2) Clinton took over with a sh!t economy. Produced four consecutive balanced budgets.

Sorry if you felt identified. A lack of trust in all can also be construed to be paranoia. But I sympathize in practice.

[Sc0tt28 26]

There's only one party that has taken one vital element to closing the budget gap (revenues) off the table and that's the GOP. Planned Parenthood - as much as you might be opposed to health services for women - is neither making nor breaking the budget. It's not even a drop in the bucket.

Ok, so from (give or take) February to April, the Republicans proposed between $61-$100 billion in cuts.

The actual budget deal cut $38.5 billion.

Planned Parenthood receives only $330 million.

If the Democrats are so willing to put everything on the table, then what happened to the other $22.5-$62.5 billion?

It seems that since the Democrats derailed the whole thing over $330 million (1.46%-0.528% of what was proposed), and ended up cutting half of what the Republicans proposed, then yes, they have been "slow in negotiating budget cuts" as Vi-Jay suggested.

[웃 910]

Others may feel free to navigate the thread at poster discretion.

but, Poster Beware! Emoticon's are being scrutinized!

You should seriously consider changing your name to something with emoticon in it.

The Emoticon Freak

Obsessive Emoticon Disorder

Muchos Emoticonos

Just some ideas...Or maybe Ewok will allow you to put an emoticon as your name

[Vi-Jay 218]

You should seriously consider changing your name to something with emoticon in it.

The Emoticon Freak

Obsessive Emoticon Disorder

Muchos Emoticonos

Just some ideas...Or maybe Ewok will allow you to put an emoticon as your name

Not!

[Zero Sum 305]

Ok, so from (give or take) February to April, the Republicans proposed between $61-$100 billion in cuts.

The actual budget deal cut $38.5 billion.

Planned Parenthood receives only $330 million.

If the Democrats are so willing to put everything on the table, then what happened to the other $22.5-$62.5 billion?

It seems that since the Democrats derailed the whole thing over $330 million (1.46%-0.528% of what was proposed), and ended up cutting half of what the Republicans proposed, then yes, they have been "slow in negotiating budget cuts" as Vi-Jay suggested.

Maybe the GOP shouldn't try to make such a big deal of budget reduction by stifling negotiations based on ideology. But all the power to them if they want to play that game, they should continue.

[Sc0tt28 26]

Maybe the GOP shouldn't try to make such a big deal of budget reduction by stifling negotiations based on ideology. But all the power to them if they want to play that game, they should continue.

That's fine, then the budget should have been cut by $61-$100 billion minus the 330 million for PP. That still means $60.670-$99.670 billion should have been cut. Maybe the Democrats really aren't serious about becoming more fiscally responsible?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok, so from (give or take) February to April, the Republicans proposed between $61-$100 billion in cuts.

The actual budget deal cut $38.5 billion.

Planned Parenthood receives only $330 million.

If the Democrats are so willing to put everything on the table, then what happened to the other $22.5-$62.5 billion?

It seems that since the Democrats derailed the whole thing over $330 million (1.46%-0.528% of what was proposed), and ended up cutting half of what the Republicans proposed, then yes, they have been "slow in negotiating budget cuts" as Vi-Jay suggested.

You could have $4 trillion in deficit reduction tomorrow - all it takes is the expiration of the 2001/2003 tax cut packages. Pull the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan and you book another trillion or so back into the budget. The $38.5 billion are not only insignificant but actually largely accounting tricks rather than real savings. You are buying into the rhetoric on the right that they want to fix the budget. They don't. Better warm up to that reality.

[Zero Sum 305]

That's fine, then the budget should have been cut by $61-$100 billion minus the 330 million for PP. That still means $60.670-$99.670 billion should have been cut. Maybe the Democrats really aren't serious about becoming more fiscally responsible?

Ask the GOP to seek common ground on the negotiations. Its not like the Democrats are wanting to really spend spend spend. Remind yourself where the bulk of the spending is really going- and it isn't on the social safety net.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Sorry if you felt identified. A lack of trust in all can also be construed to be paranoia. But I sympathize in practice.

Paranoia is a good thing when dealing with politicians.

[Vi-Jay 218]

You should seriously consider changing your name to something with emoticon in it.

The Emoticon Freak

Obsessive Emoticon Disorder

Muchos Emoticonos

Just some ideas...Or maybe Ewok will allow you to put an emoticon as your name

Wait a sec!

It just hit me.

You are an emoticon bigot!!

[Zero Sum 305]

Paranoia is a good thing when dealing with politicians.

Sometimes. And then things need to get done- not helped at all by foolish feelings of insecurity and paranoia going on psychosis.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Maybe the GOP shouldn't try to make such a big deal of budget reduction by stifling negotiations based on ideology. But all the power to them if they want to play that game, they should continue.

The GOP has made clear, they want to raise the limit and/ but do not think OM will cut spending w/o leverage.

(hmmm...I can't pick an emoticon for that one. See LI? See what your bigotry has done to me! )

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vi-Jay