The Republicans got the best deal possible…

“S&P has already said it may slash the Triple-A rating if a debt ceiling deal is not accompanied by what it deems is a credible plan to cut the $14.3 trillion federal deficit by $4 trillion”
(copied from above)
These S&P guys don’t know the difference between the debt and the deficit? The DEBT of $14.3 trilllion was never going to be cut. It was going to grow at a slower pace by reducing the annual deficits (by $4 tril) over 10 years. No wonder the public stays confused.

“S&P has already said it may slash the Triple-A rating if a debt ceiling deal is not accompanied by what it deems is a credible plan to cut the $14.3 trillion federal deficit by $4 trillion”
(copied from above)
These S&P guys don’t know the difference between the debt and the deficit? The DEBT of $14.3 trilllion was never going to be cut. It was going to grow at a slower pace by reducing the annual deficits (by $4 tril) over 10 years. No wonder the public stays confused.

Ha, now you have some leverage..Dude what in the world is Obama going to do?

Japanese Tsunami…ummm Arab Spring!!?…uhhh European uncertainty!?!?! AHHHHHH

Ever since the debt deal was passed, I’ve been saying something doesn’t add up.

Republicans repeated the mantra that there were no tax increases included in the deal, while democrats stated the deal included the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as part of the math.

My question to anyone who cared to answer is why did Boehner automatically assume the Bush tax cuts would expire ? Obama has already extended the tax cuts once, and in 2013 there might be a new republican president anyway.

Using the Bush tax cuts as included revenue in the debt deal was fuzzy math at best. Apparently S&P agrees.

Ever since the debt deal was passed, I’ve been saying something doesn’t add up.

Republicans repeated the mantra that there were no tax increases included in the deal, while democrats stated the deal included the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as part of the math.

My question to anyone who cared to answer is why did Boehner automatically assume the Bush tax cuts would expire ? Obama has already extended the tax cuts once, and in 2013 there might be a new republican president anyway.

Using the expiration Bush tax cuts as included revenue in the debt deal was fuzzy math at best. Apparently S&P agrees.

when it was they themselves that blocked the deal that would have prevented a downgrade (CCB).. It seems they are also blaming us for the drop in in the stock market.

Ridiculous.

The economy, the stock market tank, all of it is due to Obama and his neo-socialist policies. The only thing Obama and the Dems know how to do is spend other people’s money and blame the Republicans for everything under the sun, including the messes the Dems made themselves.

…that revenue increases (tax increases) need to be part of the future deficit reductions. It’s disappointing there appears to be no acknowledging the positive economic impact to extending the Bush tax cuts.

Come on folks — time for a reality check. The debt ceiling issue was barely more than a 1st down gain of a couple yards. CutCap and Balance was sent deep, but the RINO pass protection broke down, and the QB had to scramble around for a while to grab a short gain.

It’s a long game — it’s 2nd and long. Strap on your chin strap and get back into the huddle. There’s lots more work to do to get this ‘game’ under control. The goal is achievable, it’s more than laudable — it’s necessary for our future. How to get there hasn’t been written, other than it’s not going to happen in one play, nor is it likely to succeed with one simple repeated strategy pounded over and over. Most likely it will require a concerted and loud effort on multiple fronts to properly frame the debate to all the various factions that are willing to listen and think about what they are being told and to convince them to get involved…

I quit…. We might as well just go ahead and raise our own debt ceiling. I am going out tomorrow to purchase about 25K in home improvement supplies and perhaps a brand new set of living room furniture. I mean seriously…. this is some crazy stuff.

Fight for the grandkids!!!

which would not have been sufficient. The Ryan budget would have been, though, with $5.5 trillion + in cuts over the ten year window.

I think part of the problem here is a focus on spending/debt levels as if they have meaning in and of themselves, and I beg to differ. Part of the reason for the downgrade is not just debt and where the numbers end up being crunched. It encompasses much more of the political economic picture given that we appear to have an unstable, incoherent, and economically destructive public policy apparatus. It is, to put it politely, central planning gone wild and has no purpose other than to serve the immediate wants of radicals and cannot provide the kind of financial stability we once had when abused. It is not deserving of a AAA rating because of all the economic implications that come with with gangster government.

None of the policy choices that accompanied the debt ceiling debate addressed that, or even put out the possibility that the power Obama and his thugs wield would be abridged. And it isn’t just Obama either. It is the possibility of another Obama; the potential for abuse of power that goes unchecked that is a big problem to safety and security of capital. Capital is what makes us grow and if we can’t get that because of this fundamental transformation into Zimbabwe, we are up a creek and won’t be able to pay any of the bills in very short order.

I think it’s sad that CCB has been and still is being quite oversold as the holy grail, as if we could just pass this and our problems disappear. It isn’t that, and not even close.

Erick has the right of it (No pun intended), The democrats have always been the party of deficit spending, let them try to lay this at others doors they will only make themselves look like weasels in the attempt.

For those of us that believe in a smaller government now is the time to press the message and its a simple message, “Live within your means”. Everyone gets it, When you toss in the extravagant programs that have been little more than theft, people not only get it, they get up on their hind legs about it

RSG03 is going to be (let me date myself) “off the hook”. So in deference to Sen. Jim DeMint’s inspired Senate Conservative’s Fund (senateconservatives.com), is there a now and if so where is the House version?

Unless you consider 5 Dems defecting bi-partisan support. By that logic, even if 1 Dem defected, it would have had bi-partisan support. From The Hill:

“The so-called “cut, cap and balance” measure passed on a party-line vote, 234-190, as nine Republicans — including presidential candidates Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Ron Paul (Texas) — and five Democrats defected.”

CCB wouldn’t have passed in the Senate unless it was seriously ammended. Obama wouldn’t have signed CCB if the Senate decided to sign it. As much as I like CCB, it would not have passed as it was passed by the House.

Once we win the Senate in 2012 and the presidency, then we can pass CCB. If we had won the Senate in 2010, we may have had a better chance since we would have had so-called leadership; but we didn’t and we don’t.

The first thing you need to do is see the problem.

Just because you WANT to raise income, doesn’t mean it will happen. Every revenue projection that anyone in Washington comes up with is always too optimistic. You cannot automatically cause revenue increases to happen. But you can cause spending to be reduced. THIS is where the discussion needs to start.

After you members of the DC political class are able to reduce spending (actual dollars, not imaginary baseline dollars), then you start selling assets…like the buildings occupied by the useless alphabet-soup agencies that you just eliminated. Then you will find that you are able to balance your books for the year!