Who is (most) responsible for Standard & Poor’s downgrading of federal debt from AAA to AA ?
Who is responsible for Standard & Poor’s downgrading of federal debt from AAA to AA+?
A. The Tea Party
B. The Republicans
C. The Democrats
D. President Bush
E. President Obama
F. Previous Presidents
H. All of the above
A simple question deserves a simple answer, which is, obviously, H.
The Tea Party is a logical outgrowth of the economic and political malaise we suffered through during the Bush Administration, with the Obama Administration providing the frosting of the impetus to the Tea Party’s explosion into the political arena.
The members of the Tea Party found themselves ‘mad as hell’ and felt they had to do something.
The Democrats should have realized this and should have offered to discuss the grievances and frustrations with the Tea Party leadership.
The Republicans appear to have a number of axes to grind, none of which is beneficial to the People.
In fact, if the collective goals of the Republicans and the Tea Party (usurped by the Republicans, which was, politically, brilliant) were agreed to, it would have been National suicide, which should force one to conclude that they couldn’t have been serious, i.e., as with any negotiations, their inane demands were a subterfuge used to employ the old ‘bait and switch’ concept.
The Democrats appear to represent a classic enigma. They appear to be inept, but that could be an intentional cloak of confusion. I could suggest that they appear to be weird, but that is, at best, an ambiguous characterization.
Why didn’t the Democrats, when they possessed the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, raise the debt limit?
Why, during the same period of ownership, did they not pass the ‘limited’ extension of the Bush 2001 tax legislation, prior to the November 2010 elections?
Why didn’t they pass the ‘single-payer’ payment system regarding medical expenditures?
Something appears to be very ‘interesting’.
President Bush appears to have had two major goals for his Administration, reduction of tax rates and the invasion of Iraq (hint: PNAC).
Although it appears that the Bush Administration was the single worst in our Nation’s history, it was, perhaps, the most successful in accomplishing its goals.
The annual federal deficits exploded during the Bush years.
The most fascinating and ‘telling’ phenomenon was Alan Greenspan telling the Senate’s Committee on the Budget on January 25, 2001, that his number one concern was the problem we would face once the federal debt was extinguished due to the projected ‘burgeoning’ federal surpluses!
I refuse to believe that his ‘script’ was authored by a comedic mind.
His ‘script’ included the comment that rather than increase federal spending to forestall the elimination of the federal debt, Congress should legislate tax decreases. This information should appear to be extremely interesting to all.
President Obama appears to be another enigma.
His political rhetoric of ‘change’ appeared to offer hope to the People.
Unfortunately, his actions have decried his rhetoric.
There are many examples, but the most remarkable was that he signed the extension of the Bush 2001 tax legislation on December 17, 2010. He offered that although he was against this action, he was forced into doing this because the Republicans were holding ‘hostages’. That did not appear to reflect the characteristic of a strong and rational President.
I suggest that we go back to 2008, as Senator Obama was running for the nomination to run for the Presidency. Part of his campaign included that he would reverse the Bush tax cuts.
After he was elected, he said he would allow those tax cuts to ‘sunset’.
The House could have passed the legislation to extend the cuts for those with taxable incomes less than of $250,000 prior to the November 2010 elections. It did not do so. Why? It would have been the correct action to take and would have been politically brilliant, which could have eliminated or mitigated the losses suffered by the Democrats, during that election.
The reason must have been substantial for the Democrats to have committed hara-kiri
Had President Obama not signed the December 17 legislation, allowing the 2001 tax legislation to continue for those with taxable incomes in excess of $250,000, the probability is pretty close to 100% that S&P would not have downgraded federal debt.
Oops! Does that mean that H was not the correct answer?
H is a good answer, but E is the best answer for the action taken by S&P.
August 6, 2011