It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said Friday shortly after markets closed.
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka
I've done nothing but read about this issue. Focusing on increases in taxes is myopic at best. No one, apparently, has the stones to admit that this administrations keynesian spending tactcs have caused this.
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by beezzer
Evidently you didn't read the words of the guy from S&P... he clearly stated the reasons... and they weren't Obamas policies...
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
You really should read the full OP and reflect before postingedit on 6-8-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)
Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.
S&P’s downgrade was as much a political critique as a financial conclusion. It is based on a view that U.S. political leaders would be unable to come up with at least $4 trillion in savings, which is needed to bring the nation’s debt to a manageable level over the next decade.
S&P added that it expects that the upper income Bush-era tax cuts will continue, despite vows from Obama to end the breaks next year.
“The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” the firm said.
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by macman
Another non reader...
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
He clearly states it's not because of Obama....
Funny, he doesn't blame Bush either.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by macman
Another non reader...
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
He clearly states it's not because of Obama....
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by macman
Another non reader...
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
He clearly states it's not because of Obama....
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Funny, he doesn't blame Bush either.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by macman
Another non reader...
Asked who was to blame, Chambers said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in the making -- well over this administration, the prior administration."
He clearly states it's not because of Obama....