Seven Wishes wrote:From the AP:
A Standard & Poor’s director said for the first time Thursday that the 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.”
The statement seems likely to bolster one Democratic line of attack, that it was tea party intransigence — not a shortcoming of leadership by President Barack Obama — that is to blame for the U.S. downgrade, from AAA to AA+. Obama himself called on Republicans to “put country ahead of party” Thursday — a dig at conservatives in Congress who are blocking his agenda.
Wow ... this has to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever read! We can trash former president Bush, call him a murderer, a butcher and everything under the sun, but if some in this country put their foot down for what they believe to be the best interest of the nation's future, and not budge on the ridiculous level of spending and unfair tax brackets of the upper income earners, we lose our credibility and have our rating lowered? Dan, I'm embarrassed
for you for posting that nonsense. Seriously, sit back, throw parties out the window and read and digest what S&P is saying. It's unfathomable, in that it seeks to suppress our basic freedom to think and decide for ourselves. And it certainly reeks of political agenda.
As for "putting country in front of party," I think that's a hell of an idea. While democrats fight for money to pass out and continue to enslave the massive voting block that are the beneficiaries of the entitlements, republicans seem content to fight for a very small voting block of the country's highest earners. So, let's analyze that, shall we? You have one party that wants to enslave a massing voting block of people with cradle to grave entitlements in exchange for their continued vote (and for that of their offspring), and you have another party that fights for equality of a few and and put an end to the discrimination of earned income. Yeah, I'd say that one party certainly puts country first, and that party's color is the same one that shows virtually every county after every election to be red.
That's what mainly comprises the working middle class of this and the backbone of the country. Not generational clusters of gang-ridden, drug using, government dependent, inner city trash. And
those are the people (both "red" and "blue") that want less spending, less government and a uniform tax code. And deep down you
know it.
