A Standard & Poorâs director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default â a position put forth by some Republicans. Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that âpeople in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,â Mukherji said. âThat a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,â he added. âThis kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.â Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html#ixzz1UowmjphH Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html#ixzz1Uowegz6r
Is it your premise that if the Democratic Party held it's majority, that there would not have been a downgrade from S&P ? Is it your premise that President Obama's budget, if passed intact, would have prevented a downgrade from S&P ? Simple questions, yes or no please.
And since it was tax hikes that Obama and the democrats wanted, why did they not pass any during their 2 1/2 year supermajority??
Quote from Free Thinker: No desrespect intended, but I think you're putting too much faith in how well the fox says he can guard your hen house. I think the article posted in my previous thread - "The revenge of the rating agencies" - might offer a more objective point of view. Not to infer that the S&P, or any other facet of our banking community would ever attempt blow the slightest granule of smoke up our asses.
Until, that is, the other day when one of the Tea Party Express performers mentioned that the Standard & Poor's credit downgrade was being blamed on the tea party wing of the Republican Party. The crowd loved it. Tea Party Crowd Cheers Credit Downgrade At a Tea Party Express lawn concert, the credit downgrade was announced and the concert-goers cheered the news. Perhaps they simply didn't understand what just happened. Perhaps they tend to blurt out "yay!" every time the tea party moniker is mentioned in public, like when a rock star mentions your home town during a concert. But I tend to go with Occam's Razor on this. The simplest explanation is the most likely one: they were thrilled that our credit rating was downgraded because, in keeping with the plan, it would damage the economy and, thus, the president.
That's it, no doubt. The nuts in the tea party hate the man, they don't hate his politics. We were more socialistic 50 years ago, and I'd wager a lot of those fartknockers were union members at the time, too.
While there may have been more unions 50 years ago then there are today, there are FAR MORE government rules and regulations, as well as government intervention, and government programs in place then there were 50 years ago. Plus people feel far less guilty today taking advantage of all these programs. People used to feel embarassed about accepting welfare, today its expected. Plus the unions that are still out there have gotten much more piggish, they wouldnt look so bad if they didnt fight tooth and nail to defend people who choose not to work. There are countless examples of absolute shitheads in government, or the UAW, who are completely useless, yet they manage to hold onto their jobs because they have tenure, and the unions defend them. The unions might have ground to stand on, if they had a highly productive workforce, but the results arent there, so they just wind up looking like pinheads, and rightfully so. You cant tell me that government employees today have it worse off than they did 50 years ago, that would be an absurd statement.