Default Skeptics Try to Run From Their Record

I wonder if Peter Schiff (Sirlusly Long's favorite economist) will try to pull a similar ploy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...nt.php?ref=fpa

Default Skeptics Try To Run From Their Records — But They Can’t
Brian Beutler | August 12, 2011, 10:16AM

Standard & Poors has a specific justification for downgrading the U.S. bond rating, and it's deadly for Republicans. It wasn't just that Congress showed itself to be reckless and dysfunctional, or that the GOP shows no sign of ever ending their anti-tax jihad. It's that for a period of weeks, some lawmakers (read: Republicans) were quite literally shrugging off the risks of blowing past the August 2 deadline, running out of borrowing authority, and missing payment obligations.

"[P]eople in the political arena were even talking about a potential default," said Joydeep Mukherji, senior directior at S&P. "That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable," he added. "This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns."

This is unambiguous, and leaves little room for obfuscation. S&P's original, lengthy statement explaining the downgrade cited political dysfunction in Congress quite broadly, but did not mention this specific element of the debate. For weeks, high-profile conservative lawmakers practically welcomed the notion of exhausting the country's borrowing authority, or even technically defaulting. Others brazenly dismissed the risks of doing so. And for a period of days, in an earlier stage of the debate, Republican leaders said technical default would be an acceptable consequence, if it meant the GOP walked away with massive entitlement cuts in the end.

Of course, that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to sweep the mess they've made down the memory hole. Here's Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who sponsored legislation that would've forced the Treasury to prioritize interest payments on U.S. debt in the event of a lapse in borrowing authority. "No one said that would be acceptable," he said of a default. "What we said was in the event of a deadlock it was imperative that bondholders retain their confidence that loans made to the United States be repaid on schedule."

Talking points memo.


"Yesterday a member of the S&P credit rating board said for the first time that politicians suggesting a temporary US default might not be so bad was a key reason in itself for the S&P's downgrade of US debt. In response congressional Republicans are today pressing the point that they never doubted the seriousness of the US going into default. And some other publications are accepting that claim at face value. But there are actually numerous examples of top congressional Republicans openly doubting whether a temporary US default would really be such a big deal."

Again much more interesting then one appeals court decision on health care mandate. We all know its going to the Supreme court
so its essentially meaningless.

Now when Congress almost brings the world economy to its knees over a U.S. default that seems to me to be worthy of a very serious discussion.

[...]The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
[...]It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

[...]The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

[...]Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Siriusly long will never admit to all the outrageously wrong predictions that his favorite economist
Peter Schiffs has made, and will never respond to the fact that he came out in favor of letting the U.S. Govt defualt on its debt. You can run but you cant hide.

Nobody was more excited about default than
Michele Bachmann (Larry Downing/Reuters)

Lunacy has consequences:
A Standard & Poor’s 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 — 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 “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”

So Republican tea partiers went crazy, took the economy hostage, and even though they got everything they wanted (because Democrats, including President Obama, couldn't or wouldn't stop them in 2010 when they had the change), the American public still paid the price. Thanks, GOP.

Check out Peter Schiff's comments on the default situation and understand just how far to the right S&L's favorite economist is.

Hint: He supported the default of the U.S. Gov't

Still waiting for Siriusly Long to say whether or not he supported Peter Schiff's position. I think its fair that he answer this simple qquestion so we understand where he stands.

The Liberal's only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of mis-educated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college class-room. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance.

Peter Schiff? Still waiting. tick, tock. Lol.

This is so much fun. Thanks for the entertaining Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Peter Schiff? Still waiting. tick, tock. Lol.

This is so much fun. Thanks for the entertaining Sunday.

---

De nada!

Here's one that should ring home for you.

"Liberals are elitists who exempt themselves from the oppressive rules they impose on the general population."

Damn Brain freeze back. How close are you to a hospital? Get their quick. I dont know how
to break this to you, but your condition is terminal.

I am listening to Fox while i write this and between the two of you i couldnt be enjoying myself more. LOl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

I am listening to Fox while i write this and between the two of you i couldnt be enjoying myself more. LOl.

---

YOU CAN'T HANDLE FOX!!!

Fox Business News is better.

I love Fox. What you talking about? Good comedy material for the whole week. You should watch John Stewart. Then you wouldnt be one of the many ignorant that watch Fox and get all the facts wrong. Ouch.

Glen Beck and O'Reilly could step on my foot and I wouldn't know them.

I do watch Fox Business News on occasion. The Judge, Stuart Varney, Jerry Willis....

How do you know their names? Liar. Ha. ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

How do you know their names? Liar. Ha. ha.

---

From you bitching about them all the time.

The key to the nature of progressivism is the realization that the size and scope of government and the freedom of the individual do not stand in diametrical opposition, as conservatives and libertarians would have one believe. Instead, the progressive vision of government is simple: government is the entity most responsible for ensuring equality of opportunity. The children of the rich will always have a leg up on the children of the poor: they will often be sent to the best private schools. Their parents will be able to afford to send them to the best universities, regardless of a scholarship. When they graduate from college, they will have easier access to employment because of the connections that so often come hand-in-hand with money and prestige. The government can never mandate equality, but it can at least offer an opportunity for advancement. Our tax dollars fund public schools to ensure that everyone has a chance. Our tax dollars fund scholarships and grants to ever so slightly reduce the unfairness that makes one child unable to go to a good university while another with no better qualifications can go, owing to nothing but the fortunate circumstance of parentage. The same principle is at the core of a progressive mindset regarding the relationship between a government and its people. For instance, government can promote equality for women by creating regulations and laws that ensure equal pay for equal work, but it can do the same for the LGBT community by eliminating the regulations that discriminate against them. People should similarly be free to breathe clean air, and free to feel sure that their employers have taken adequate precaution to ensure that as employees, they will not get maimed at the workplace.