Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

May 26, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Anti-religious Bias in the Media
  • Same-sex Marriage
  • 2012 Presidential Race
Home » Blogs » Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Ashley Judd to NBC: Republicans Are 'Really Dumb,' Obama Has 'Flowered'
  • Bozell Column: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
  • CBS: 'Troubling Signs' For Obama, Like Bush in '92, But President 'Cannot Control' Economy
  • On and On It Goes: Networks Cover 'Predator Priests' As They Stay Silent on Catholic Liberty Lawsuits
  • NBC's Williams Touts L.A. Banning Plastic Bags As Effort to Keep Them 'Out of the Natural World'
  • Bozell, Carlson Note Media's Silence on Obama Supporter's Bribe to Hush Rev. Wright
  • Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’
  • CNN Asks Tony Perkins 'Why Do Homosexuals Bother You So Much?'

S&P Downgrade Is Media's Fault Not The Tea Party's

By Noel Sheppard | August 09, 2011 | 09:22

Change font size:  A |  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

Obama advisers, Democrat senators, and terminally stupid ideologues that for days have blamed Standard and Poor's downgrade of America's debt on the Tea Party are sadly mistaken.

Next to the President of the United States and his Party, those really responsible are members of the media.

Since the junior senator from Illinois first threw his hat into the presidential ring in February 2007, America's press have refused to hold his feet to the fire concerning any important issue facing the nation.

This debt ceiling debate and resulting downgrade were just the most recent examples.

When Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) offered his 2012 budget proposal in April, news outlet after news outlet lined up to demagogue him mimicking talking points from the White House and the Democrat leadership.

Rather than accurately report that it would save Medicare from total bankruptcy in 2024 while trimming $6 trillion of red ink - a figure that we now know would have averted S&P's downgrade - America's press dishonestly told the public Ryan's bill would destroy the nation's senior healthcare plan

Nevermind that the President's only officially proposed budget - which would have increased the debt by almost $10 trillion and certainly resulted in a rating downgrade - actually lost 97-0 in the Senate not even getting one vote from members of his own Party; the media still continued to lambaste and excoriate Ryan and anyone that had the nerve to support a bill that passed the House 235-189 the month before.

As summer came, and Washington began talking about the looming debt ceiling "crisis", the press assisted the White House and its Party to evoke fear in the nation about a potential default on Treasury paper as well as Social Security payments to seniors.

This came despite there being ample ongoing tax receipts to pay the interest on the debt, Social Security and Medicare recipients as well as military paychecks.

Rather than mercifully telling Americans they shouldn't be concerned about such things, our news media shamefully disseminated the lies coming from the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats unprofessionally ginning up the fear in the country rather than quelling it as you would think was their charter.

Even when given a chance to discuss specifics with treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, prominent Sunday talk show hosts opted to ignore the crucial questions Americans were clearly most concerned about.

As House Republicans put together a Cut, Cap, and Balance bill that would solve the debt ceiling impasse while significantly trimming spending as well as mandating a balanced budget in the future, press outlets assisted the Democrat campaign to defeat it.

This was despite a CNN poll finding 66 percent of respondents in favor of CCB and 74 percent supporting a balanced budget amendment.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

It was obvious to the few impartial observers in the nation that so-called journalists were badly on the wrong the side of public opinion on this issue.

Media opposition to CCB continued even after it passed the House 234-190 which certainly made it easier for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to prevent the bill from ever getting voted on in the Senate, a strategy the press applauded.

We now know the passage of CCB likely also would have prevented last Friday's downgrade.

What this means is that this year, House Republicans passed two plans that probably would have preserved America's AAA credit rating if they had cleared the Senate and been signed by the President.

We also know that much like the White House and the Democrat Party, virtually every news outlet in this country with the exception of the minority of conservative ones opposed both of these pieces of legislation. Meanwhile, the only budget proposed by the Left - the President's - didn't get one vote in the Senate.

For their part, Congressional Democrats were totally MIA in this process having failed to offer a budget for well over two years, an abdication of responsibility that curiously doesn't concern America's media while the nation struggles with a budget crisis that could result in a far more calamitous financial disaster than the one we experienced three years ago.

Such folks were more fascinated and supportive of fantasy plans like the so-called "grand bargain" floated by the President during one of his many televised appearances.

Because it included revenue increases - tax hikes to you and me! - the press were almost orgasmic despite nothing having been put on paper for anyone to thoroughly analyze and the near certainty that the offer was largely cynical given the metaphysical certitude Democrats would never have supported any plan containing Medicare and Social Security cuts.

As a comical aside, the Congressional Budget Office months earlier commented about its inability to score budget proposals made during presidential speeches.

Clearly, the media don't have such a problem, for Obama's "grand bargain" with or without the inconvenience of parchment or specificity was, as Goldilocks would say, just right.

What wasn't right to them of course was the final bill that passed in the House last Monday 269-161 in a rare case of bipartisanship with half of the Democrats supporting it. Bipartisanship continued to carry the day Tuesday when the bill passed the Senate 74-26.

This rare bout of unity seemed to infuriate the normally bipartisanship-loving press as they called Tea Partiers terrorists and hostage takers for their role in crafting a package that so many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle had the nerve to vote for.

As MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted Monday, "Almost half of the Congress almost always votes against increasing the debt ceiling. The Party out of power leaves raising the debt ceiling to the Party in power."

"In fact," O'Donnell continued, "last week's vote for a debt ceiling increase was the most bipartisan vote to increase the debt ceiling we have seen in a very, very long time."

You certainly couldn't tell that by all the finger-pointing at the Tea Party once S&P announced the downgrade.

Much like the bipartisan support of the Iraq War resolution in October 2002, the Democrats quickly took on a "They Made Me Do It" posture once the agreement they supported became unpopular. True to form, the media were just as willing to give their Party cover now as they were then.

Must be nice to know if your vote ends up being a political albatross, the press will be there to help you remove the burden.

But all this assistance to the White House and its Party has come at a dear cost to the nation.

If press members had been doing their jobs all year, the President and the Democrat leadership would have been forced to put legitimate, written counter-proposals on the table as they unceremoniously swatted aside those offered by Republicans.

Maybe then a far more encompassing piece of legislation would have been in front of Congress in July with more sweeping short and long-term cuts that would have appeased the credit rating agencies while setting the nation on a more solid fiscal course.

Instead, the media played willing accomplices to Obama and his Party with total disregard for the lack of leadership on display. As a result, we're now a double-A+ nation that appears to be heading towards a double-dip recession. 

If that's not enough to shame press members that have participated in this chicanery, and the damage to the nation doesn't concern them, maybe they should consider how they have enabled their beloved President to be less of a messiah than they thought he was.

Think about Obama's behavior from last Friday forward.

As we now know, the White House was alerted to the downgrade many hours before S&P released the news to the public. After the back and forth over the numbers, once it was determined that S&P was adamant, Obama largely hid from the nation until his televised appearance Monday afternoon.

Why? Would a strong, confident President have waited so long?

One envisions Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, his father, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy being far more proactive knowing how the stock market was going to react Monday.

I think any of them would have told S&P that he would be making the downgrade announcement to the nation himself in a televised address Friday. During said speech, he would have informed the public about S&P's decision, expressed his disappointment, and then accepted full responsibility for having signed something that was clearly so lacking.

He then would have requested all members of Congress end their summer holidays and immediately return to Washington to start crafting a new plan that might better appease all three credit rating agencies while suggesting that nobody's going home - including himself - until a better package was agreed upon.

That's what a real president would do in my opinion.

But this one has been so coddled by the press and continually allowed to blame his failures on others that he lacks the integrity and intestinal fortitude to behave the way leaders are supposed to when their nation and history demands it.

As much as this is Obama's fault, a shamefully complicit media has enabled his deficiencies thereby making them almost as responsible for Friday's downgrade.

Share this

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
  • 2012 Presidential
  • 2012 Congressional
  • 2010 Congressional
  • Bailouts
  • Banking/Finance
  • Budget
  • Economy
  • Medicare
  • National Debt
  • Recession
  • Social Security
  • Stimulus
  • Stock Market
  • Taxes
  • Tea Parties
  • Unemployment
  • Barack Obama
  • Harry Reid
  • John Boehner
  • Lawrence O'Donnell
  • Paul Ryan
  • Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Comments

The media hacks for Obama are

Submitted by wendybar on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:33am.

The media hacks for Obama are pathetic. Talk about crazy. They use the same talking points that the administration trots out, even as the world is burning. They seem to think they are helping, when in fact, they are helping the socialist/communist/globalist cause.

  • Login to post comments

Excellent article. Well

Submitted by kg on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:34am.

Excellent article. Well researched analysis and to the point. The MSM has been a thorn in the side of the American people much too long.

 

"DumbAssity of Dope"

  • Login to post comments

Are you saying that the members of the media are

Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:35am.

like dogs that all pee on the same bush, one after another. One reporter goes first, lifts a leg, and sprinkles a little dew to mark the meme. Then all the rest of the reporters sniff the same meme, like it, and add their damp contributions. It's, like, a natural instinct with reporters.

  • Login to post comments

The Rights of the Bondholders

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:45am.

When S&P put America's debt on it's potential downgrade list, any responsible President should have spelled out in no uncertain terms that the Treasury Department will pay the interest and principal of that debt first, prior to any other financial obligation owed by the United States.  If needed, Obama could have issued an executive order directing the Treasury Secretary to do just that.

Instead, Obama continuously beat the drum about how his opposition was leading the country down the road to a possible default.  His defenders will say that Obama never said "default on our Treasury bonds", but instead was only talking about other obligations of the United States.  If that's what he meant, however, then that's what Obama should have said.

But in hindsight, how can we be surprised?  This is the same President that engineered an abrogation of the rights of the debt holders regarding the GM "bankruptcy", so he could oversee a transfer of wealth from the then current bondholders of GM to his supporters in the United Auto Workers.

Obama has no regard for the rights of any owners of capital, when it suits his purpose.  I think that the people in charge of rating United States debt obligations at S&P understand this.  There was a very good possibility that, given the choice between sending out free SNAP cards vs. paying what is owed on Treasury Bills, that Obama would authorize the payment of the SNAP cards prior to paying our debt obligations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

  • Login to post comments

The market today

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:08am.

Does that explain what's happening with the market this morning?  Right now it's up 200 or so points (at this time) and I'm guessing that the Fed is doing something with the futures or something along those lines.  Kinda like trying to convince people that things are really ok, even though they aren't and in a devastating way.

What scares me is how hard this bogus potus and his administration is trying so hard to fool the people even to the point of blaming the wrong groups(tea party, S&P, etc) and threatening actions of one kind or another in a way that it would make a tin-plated dictator proud and people aren't reacting to that.  And you have loud-mouth blowhards out there calling for the arrest of the head of the S&P like Michael Moore and Larry O'Donnel who are trying to convince people that their way is the right way(which it never is).

I'm not a little concerned that if people start "rising up" that it'll be for the wrong reasons but this bogus potus and the bogus admin are masters of manipulation and they still have a lot of resources behind them, particularly one billionaire named Soros.

Am I reading this messed up situation wrong or missing something?

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Since you asked.

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:27am.

Maybe your question about the market was rhetorical.  But since you asked I'll try and answer.  Nothing bugs me more on NB then when people pose direct questions to someone, and the original poster never responds.

My comments about Obama and his regard towards bondholder rights have absolutely nothing to do with day-to-day stock market fluctuations.  They may influence the market over the long term, though.

The Fed does nothing directly with stock market futures.  That would be too easy to trace, even if they were inclined to do so.  The Fed, through using the repurchase market along with the cooperation of primary broker dealers and banks, facilitates the issuance of massive amounts of government debt in the form of Treasury Bonds.  Because these financial institutions make the spread on the repo rate, which is close to zero, and the coupon on the bond, which is between two and three percent, and they leverage these transactions to a considerable degree, the banks and primary dealers make a ton of money, and at the same time, they facilitate the Fed in expanding it's balance sheet.

This is what the Fed did in QE2, which inflated commodity and asset prices, and facilitated the rise of the stock market.  Same commodities, same companies, higher commodity prices, increased corporate earnings, higher stock prices.

Today's stock market move is the typical bounce you get after a huge one day sell off.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

  • Login to post comments

Thanks, Kingfish

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:41am.

I had failed to connect this Administration's abject disrespect for legitimate bondholders in the Chrysler Heist and this same Administration's expectation that purchasers throughout the world should now trust him.

  • Login to post comments

Probably should have specified more

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:53am.

I probably should have expanded more on what I was saying, but was trying to avoid a lengthy post.  Oh well.

I know you weren't really talking about the day to day fluctuations, but was referring to the government manipulation of the market, though sometimes those backfire like yesterday when Soetoro was talking and the market tanked even more.  Not to mention that in your example of GM, they own GM at this point which is their "skin in the game" (along with banks and etc) and that would affect how their stock's worth works, if I understand it.  Another example of it would be how Pelosi tried to get the green stuff going and she had stock in the company(or companies) that were going to build those windmills that T Boone Pickens tried to get going before that fell apart.(Thank God!)  Both ended up losing a lot of money from that.

I realize this is all over the place and I'm still trying to understand how some of these things work.  But that was pretty much the jist of what I was trying to say and I probably said that wrong as well.

Thanks for your response though.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Yes you are

Submitted by Lamdog on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:49pm.

This market has been sideways for close to two years. Can't seem to maintain any momemtum above 12500. You have companies sitting on large pile of cash.
Reason: unsure of the investment climate.

Market started to rally after it was announced that the President has cancelled his news brief.

He has manage to achieve something not even Jimmy Carter could have dreamed of. Credit rating of the U.S.A lowered not since 1917.

He has a Cabinet who private sector work experience is 9%. The previous low of any administraton was 30%.

You have a president that every other word is tax increase.

  • Login to post comments

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:43am.

Will anyone else notice?

"There... Are... Four... Lights!"

  • Login to post comments

OBAMA: ANOTHER SOCIALIST FAILURE

Submitted by reelman46 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:01am.

Brace yourself for a hurricane of distractions, lies and smears as they avoid talking about the results of Obama’s toxic socialist nonsense policies. He signed those huge spending bills!!!

This clown is toast regardless of the mountain of lies and the pawn media changing his diapers…

J. Carter Obama is just another arrogant socialist failure the world had to painfully endure…there will be other arrogant lying apostles of utopian socialism in our future.
Will American voters learn from history this time???
=====
BARACKALYPSE NOW…
his books told America what he would do but he was soooo historic….

J. Carter Obama, as I posted July 29th, is TOAST…this arrogant apostle of utopian socialism is what he is…not bright at all…socialism has failed for decades all over the globe but the dimwitted dems ram it down our throats…well, he is out of excuses, out of demons and out of money…what a clown!

He ignores all Economic Laws and history…that is simply dumb…and he thinks voters all have the brains of an oyster…maybe many did since they believed a bold lying no-achievement scam artist.

NOW his Party has egg, mud and reality all over its face…so what is blamed? The Tea Party…lol…the only folks with a public Plan said to avoid the downgrade and get us back to sanity…as I heard on the radio years ago…Liberalism is a mental disorder! They live in this Oz where up is down…and a place where distractions, lies and smears must be used to sell their toxic policies…they learned nothing from Carter…nothing…because they are the apostles of socialism.
=====
a post on Bill O fit here:
There’s no denying such outcomes are in the radicals’, progressives’, and super rich influencers’–like Soro’s–playbooks; such as Rules for Radicals, The Coming Insurrection, etc.
But, in his own books Barak Obama said that he sought out the most radical individuals and educators to teach and influence him. The only question is, does Obama know what he’s doing or is he just ignorant that these outcomes would be the result of those doctrines and policies he’s put in play–and people he’s surrounded himself with?
-----
http://theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com

 

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish<

  • Login to post comments

Right On. You should go a

Submitted by buddyc on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:19am.

Right On. You should go a step further and name the worst.

Even more than progressives I blame the media for the downgrade.

  • Login to post comments

Very good article! We need a

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:28am.

Very good article! We need a candidate that calls out the media for their bias. If I were republican candidate for president, I would say publicly during the presidential debate exactly what was written in the first half of this article. Call them out specifically ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,HLN, MSNBC news organizations not only are sympathetic to the democrat party but feel that their duty as journalists is to explain and promote the democrat agenda. The white house does not need jay carney, they have Bob Scheifer, they don't need Robert Gibbs, they have Brian Williams and George Stephanopolos. This at the very least would put the media on defense and cause the American public to be skeptical of their reporting.

  • Login to post comments

Dad-Gummit, Noel

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:30am.

Might one opine this is a subject about which you are (somewhat) passionate?

In a departure from parsing a single offering from the latest looney-bin soundbite, it appears you've done lots of homework, and rounded up the usual, as well as unusual suspects for some serious upbraiding and ridicule.

Bravo, Mr. Noel.

  • Login to post comments

Noel....

Submitted by dbo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:30am.

I think you should put this in your Greatest Hits Collectors Edition package. Great stuff!

  • Login to post comments

Is it possible

Submitted by packman on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:47am.

that this administration will ever take responsibility for anything?

"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson

  • Login to post comments

Doubful but....

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:55am.

Only if it meets their goals or if the incident/event was something that was opportune for them, such as the killing of bin Laden.

To them, failure is someone else's fault.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Great job! I hope they keep it up.

Submitted by JLin on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:53am.

The fraud is so transparently flagrant that next year every voting taxpayer will be voting Republican. The only downside is that Obama is likely to be primaried and the Dems will put up a "centrist" like Hillary.

  • Login to post comments

Call the Media Out

Submitted by sherlock1 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:58am.

This article says what I have been waiting for a Republican to say for a long time, and I hope Sarah Palin will throw her hat into the ring and say it again. We need a candidate that will throw down the guantlet and state clearly that the corrupt media is the enemy of the US democracy, and that she will first defeat it, and then mop the floor with the Democrats when they are forced to actually defend their policies before the public.

  • Login to post comments

The only people responsible

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:14am.

The only people responsible for the downgrade are past and present members of Congress.

And Noel, you should get the facts; the BBA did nothing to cut spending, and it included raising the debt ceiling, which are the two things that led to the downgrade.

  • Login to post comments

BBA

Submitted by Wineguy13 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:50pm.

When did the author suggest that it did? I suppose I could have missed it.

  • Login to post comments

"As House Republicans put

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 4:44pm.

"As House Republicans put together a Cut, Cap, and Balance bill that would solve the debt ceiling impasse while significantly trimming spending..."

  • Login to post comments

Which is it?

Submitted by Wineguy13 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:34pm.

Your charge to Noel was on BBA which I took to mean Balanced Budget Amendment. However, just now you cite Cut, cap, and balance (CCB). If you meant to say that CCB didn't cut spending, it does (or would have if enacted), using the baseline numbers. Trust me, if it didn't it would not have been so reviled by the liberals. I have no argument with your original point that congress (past & present) are responsible for the downgrade. The desire to make oneself feel better, and keep a job all while spending other people's money is hard to resist. Unfortunately, members from both parties didn't try to resist very hard.

  • Login to post comments

Yes, I typed BBA instead of

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:15pm.

Yes, I typed BBA instead of CCB, although the "B" stands for BBA. Regardless, there was no cutting of spending in the CCB and BBA legislation.

  • Login to post comments

The troll trolls again.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:49pm.

Everyone enjoying the troll?

Yippee. Happy fun troll day. Today. Tomorrow. And the next day. And the next day.....

  • Login to post comments

Wrong

Submitted by Wineguy13 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 12:01am.

You are uninformed, read the bill (as passed in the house). HR2650 (look it up for practice). You will see in section I it lays out cuts to discretionary spending. As for the BBA legislation you reference, that never existed... You are probably thinking the 'B' in CCB was a balanced budget amendment. You would be wrong. You can't put a constitutional amendment in another part of a bill, the rules call for a different procedure since the thresholds and mark-ups are completely different. However the CCB did call for the congress to deliver an amendment (requiring outlays not to exceed receipts, a percentage of GDP not to be exceeded by the budget, and tax increases to be approved by 2/3 of the congress) in order for any more debt ceiling increases. SO...you were wrong on the CCB cutting spending (it would have), AND you were confused about some BBA legislation being extant. I wish a BBA were being marked up and run through some committees but that isn't to my knowledge, happening.
So really, I don't care about the typo, but you can't have your own facts, and the galling part of it is you tell Noel to check his facts, when you are wrong, and the PDF of HR2650 tells the tale. It is only 10 or so pages, and super big type. It takes less than 5 minutes to read, if you so choose.

  • Login to post comments

Unfortunately, CCB sounded good but was a stupid idea which

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:07am.

the more discerning conservatives recognized was filled with hidden landmines and replete with contextual ambiguities assuring endless judicial challenges and causing one gigantic migraine constitutional headache. Thankfully, the bullet was dodged.

 

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Dude?

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:18am.

I was reading until I came to this --- the authors of the bill unwittingly invited the courts to strike down any BBA so proposed --- Huh? I coulda swore an amendment became part of the constitution once approved by way of the amendment approval process as stated in the constitution itself.

So how can the courts strike down part of the constituton?

Iz confused. Iz confused by Uncle Jer's link to what is supposed to be a guy smarter than Uncle Jer and The Vet.

  • Login to post comments

Explained in the ensuing paragraph, Vet...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:47am.

"The problem is that the courts have held that during the Constitution’s amendment process all proposing, applying, and ratifying bodies act as “Article V assemblies” (my phrase), and not in their normal legislative capacities. Moreover, within their assigned agendas, Article V assemblies must enjoy freedom of deliberation. If the debt limit rule (adopted by Congress and the President in a legislative capacity) puts pressure on Congress (in its Article V capacity), then arguably the discretion of the proposing body has been unconstitutionally infringed. If this argument were accepted, the proposed BBA would be void. (I explain the cases in another context in this Goldwater Institute paper.)"

 

In other words, the judicial challenge would be lodged at some stage prior to any eventual ratification and thus would not be striking at the Constitution itself or any amendment to it. At least that's what I infer from his argument--one which I would never have foreseen. Also, there would no doubt be a spate of cases raising questions requiring judicial interpretation of the effect of even an adopted BBA amendment under various factual scenarios.

 Jer

  • Login to post comments

Ok. I think.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:53am.

I would ask how the debt rule puts pressure on Congress but since this whole thing never got anywhere anyway, I no longer care.

  • Login to post comments

No, it is you who are

Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:22pm.

No, it is you who are uninformed, and I am familiar with the amendment process. It seems you just like to hear yourself talk, as well as making some gross assumptions.

The CCB did not and would not have cut spending.

  • Login to post comments

Interesting article from

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:33am.

Interesting article from RedState:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/08/08/what-if-barack-obama-is-right/

  • Login to post comments

Bal,

Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:49am.

Yes - I had a long discussion with my wife about this, she is much more practical about the financial state of things (less political). S&P made a mistake in that they failed to be consistent with, in their line of business, may be catastrophic to their reputation.  Unfortunately, what they failed to do consistently was to give political passes to governments that have large enough GDPs to weather temporary problems if there is no public outcry.  An outcry that could be caused by a downgrade - making the fact that they rarely downgrade a political and not economic decision.  With all our economic problems the US is still one of the most sound investments in the world but the the signs that it won't last forever are accumulating and an exponential rate.

Debt as investment is something that the US has thrived on for decades.

Debt from borrowing to pay for spending is accumulating and is driving all the bad economic omens on the economy. 

Like the article asks, why did Axlerod blame the TEA Party if the administration is so sure that it is only an S&P mistake.  While S&P may have over-stepped they weren't not wrong on their reasoning.  They were simply inconsistent - not incorrect in analysis of where the US is heading.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

The Daily Show really went

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:53am.

The Daily Show really went after S&P last night, with its list of AAA-rated countries, and the fact that it apparently graded a lot of poor loans highly (don't know if that's true or not). Seems S&P is playing their own game.

  • Login to post comments

S&P

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:24pm.

S&P is still trying to polish a severely tarnished image, having rated ENRON a AAA just days before its downfall. Lehmann Bros, and maybe even Fannie and Fred.

Yep, if I wanted to stay in the ratings business, I think I'd be taking a second look at my methods as well.

Just one niggling detail fails to come forth from all this Monday-Morning-QB-King.  How did Moody's rate these entities before they fell?  When that answer pops out, we can better assess whether S&P is spitting sour grapes, or trying a completely new approach, that of refusing to wilt under pressure of Goliath, and the lackeys who still rate him so highly.

Just my two cents.  Ain't worth much.

  • Login to post comments

CA,

Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:47pm.

The major rating companies have long since become political tools and have released themselves from the restrictions of good economic analysis. They are tools because the media and politicians use them as such without any regard to the quality or the depth of their accuracy.

About the rating of AAA for Enron, Fannie, Freddie and others that did not deserve the rating - they received those ratings for two reasons (imo):

1) Too big/too connected to fail

2) The companies that do the ratings take the word of their cronies over economic indicators

These company's opinion is revered because they listen to people like Timothy Geithner (with his Asian Studies background) and Henry Paulson.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

balboa

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:50am.

I don't have any problem with that version being the way it all fell out. The money quote to top all money quotes is this from the article

  • By Friday afternoon, the Treasury Department told S&P it had made a $2 trillion math mistake.

Now, I'm no economist, but forcefully cogent to the utter extreme, should be a nagging question "HOW TRUSTWORTHY IS AN APPLICANT WHO CAN LOSE TWO TRILLION DOLLARS?"

It certainly doesn't help that the Administration has played "Hide the Trillion" on more than one occasion, with varying degree of success, against most notably, Congress and the American people.

  • Login to post comments

Another Attempt at getting a straight answer from balboa

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:49pm.

I'll comment on your post, balboa, and make yet another of my numerous requests to get you to reply to a direct question.  I know the chance of getting you to issue a forthright response is about as good as S&P reversing their decision to lower the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+, but I'll give it a go anyway.

I've spent close to 35 years working in the financial markets.  Most of that time has been related to the bond markets.  A rating of AAA is the best you can get from a rating agency, regarding a corporation or other financial entities long-term debt.  When a corporation issues debt, it actively seeks to get a credit rating.  In fact, they pay the rating agencies to get a credit rating, even though the credit rating is suppose to be impartial.  A corporation is not capable of issuing debt without a rating, because buyers of long-term debt will not purchase bonds without a credit rating.  Very few companies get a AAA rating. (IBM is one that comes to mind.)

When it comes to debt issued by the United States, it's an entirely different matter.  The United States does not seek to get a credit rating from S&P or Moody's Investor Service or any other ratings agency.  The debt issued by the United States has always been regarded as more highly rated then any AAA rated corporate debt.  Even today, IBM cannot issue bonds that have a lower interest rate then Treasury Bonds, even though IBM has a AAA rating and Treasury Bonds have a AA+ rating.  That's how screwy the ratings are.

The difference?  Bonds issued by the United States are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.  As long as the bonds are denominated in dollars, we could just print more paper money to pay the bonds off.  Theoretically, it's impossible for the United States to default on it's bonds, with one caveat:  THE GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE THE DESIRE TO ACTUALLY PAY THE INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON THE BONDS!

Again, and this is theoretical, an executive administration of the United States Government could conceivably default on our debt.  Sure, the default would probably go to court, but the financial turmoil would be incredible.

So my personal opinion is that United States Treasury Bonds do not need a rating.  The rating is meaningless.  The debt issued by the United States, as long as it's in dollars, is backed by the full faith and credit of the Treasury, and will be paid off as long as we don't have an administration that refuses to do so.  Sure, the dollars that pay off the bonds may be worth a lot less then when the bonds where purchased.  But that is an issue of inflation, not of credit rating.

So now my question to you:  Do you think that Obama should have stressed to the debt markets, as I pointed out above, that the United States would stand behind it's debt obligations first and foremost?  Why did Obama act like there could have been a potential default on the debt obligations issued by the United States?  And what are the odds that you give me as straight an answer as I just gave to you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

  • Login to post comments

I apologize if I've missed

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:50pm.

I apologize if I've missed previous questions from you.

1. Yes.

2. For political reasons, probably, to scare people into an agreement that he wanted.

3. You tell me. How'd I do?

  • Login to post comments

Thanks

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:52pm.

I thought your answer is honest and straightforward.  Much appreciated.

And regarding Obama using the debt default to scare people.  If that's what he really did, it's one of the worse things a President of the United States could ever do regarding a financial matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

  • Login to post comments

Dude! you OWN the Media!!

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:37am.

How could this be their fault? The media are useful idiots for you. So you are bashing your only supporters now? Excluding of course imbeciles and couch potatoes who get their political opinions from re-runs of Law and Order, Jersery Shore, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Current TB?
Grow up and find a pair! Sheesh!!

Obama 2012! The USA needs the pain!
  • Login to post comments

Media only exacerbates the problem.

Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:25pm.

If there is a 'problem' with "Entitlement Spending" then Congress is to blame, because congress CREATED 'entitlement spending' to buy votes.  First by the democrats, then, when found to be so successful, by the 'republicans'.

IF there is a problem with "healthcare spending", then congress is the group that created the problem with excessive, special interest, rules, regulation and laws.

IF there is a problem with 'deficit spending' then the fault belongs with congress for spending more of the TAXPAYERS money than it had to spend.

IF the military does not have adequate armaments, then it is the fault of congress for spending TAXPAYER money buying votes instead of weapons.

IF (pick you favorite subject), then the congress is to blame.

No president can do much without the 'consent' of congress.  Even 'executive orders' can be overridden by a RESPONSIBLE congress.

Any president can get away with murder, as long as it's not the elitist members of congress that end up dead.

"The problem with Americas education system. http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375

Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379

  • Login to post comments

This is just Obama continuing

Submitted by celator on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:38pm.

This is just Obama continuing his argument that the earth really is flat, and that those who have a different opinion are his enemies. Same old, same old.

"This is not your mother's Democratic Party"--Andrew Breitbart, CPAC, February 2012
  • Login to post comments

The S&P did us a favor by

Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:07pm.

The S&P did us a favor by sounding the alarms regarding this administration's runaway spending and validates the Tea Party's viewpoint. But unfortunately what we have in the WH are nothing but idealogues who are hell bent on following their dead theories no matter who gets hurt in the process.

The volitility in the market alone should be an indicator of investor's unucertainty. What we're seeing now is people looking for discounts.

-----Obama is the reason why stupid people shouldn't vote.-----
  • Login to post comments

The media is just trying to

Submitted by Dave81 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:27pm.

The media is just trying to help him concentrate on his golf game. We don't want him to shank one into the woods and make the country look bad!

----- "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson
  • Login to post comments

You Spiked It!

Submitted by Avitar on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:37pm.

The media maneuvered the country into this. It is pumping out a smoke screen to keep the country going in the direction that it is and to hide the cliff ahead from having debt greater than a year of GDP.

If we don't start holing the Government licensed media responsible for what they are doing we may be sunk. There is nothing to stop the newspapers from publishing what they want except that the FBI does not need to enforce their copyright.

  • Login to post comments

Not tea party for sure

Submitted by Wineguy13 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:46pm.

The media are to blame for either being ignorant or for deliberately misleading about default. Default is a legal status, and would only be entered into under specific circumstances. When the media intimates or flat out states as they did repeatedly that we go into default if we don't raise the debt ceiling they are guilty of journalistic malpractice. Essentially, if that assertion were true, you would be in effect saying that unless they increased your credit limit, you couldn't pay the interest on your credit card. It is a bad place to be when you have to borrow the vig to pay your loan shark.

I believe S&P was very clear, they all but promised a AAA rating if there was a 4T dollar cut (which could have been accomplished without cutting an actual dime) in spending in whatever plan emerged (the GWB administration did this a few times). However, even that was not possible in DC, and S&P did what they promised to do, and Wall St. acted surprised, and Geithner was petulant, and Buffet was indignant, and Obama was clueless. The fact remains that the can was kicked down the road, and the TEA party are patriots who stand on principle. They will be judged by history as the voices crying out in the wilderness I hope.

  • Login to post comments

Media did talk about it: Fox news encouraged default/downgrade

Submitted by hayate1 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:19pm.

"I Say Let Them Default": Fox Encouraged Default, Downgrade

Bolling: "I Say Let Them Default." As a guest co-host on Fox & Friends, Eric Bolling told Fox Business host Stuart Varney, "I say let them default. ... What's going to happen?" Varney replied, "Armageddon is going to happen." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/13/11, via Media Matters]

Cavuto: U.S. Among Countries That "At Face Value Don't Deserve" AAA Rating. Fox News host and senior vice president of business news Neil Cavuto listed the United States as among several countries that "at face value don't deserve" a AAA credit rating, adding that a downgrade is "feared and sort of like the great financial Godot people have been waiting for ... but it's gonna come." Cavuto also said: "I think the better part of valor is actually go ahead and downgrade. We don't deserve a AAA rating." [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 4/18/11, via Media Matters]

Cavuto: "I Would Welcome A Downgrade. ... I Think It Would Be The Pain From Which We Have A Gain." On Your World, Cavuto said: "I would welcome a downgrade, I really would. I think it would be the pain from which we have a gain." [Fox News, Your World, 7/27/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Napolitano Argues U.S. Doesn't "Deserve" Top Rating Because "We Don't Pay Our Debts From Our Wealth, We Borrow Money." On his Fox Business show, Andrew Napolitano asked a guest: "Don't we deserve ... a bond rating lesser than AAA? I mean, we don't pay our money back from our wealth, we don't pay our debts from our wealth, we borrow money in order to pay our debts. How could any bond raters give us a good bond rating when that's been the habit and practice since World War II?" [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 7/27/11, via Media Matters]

Varney "Absolutely" Agrees With Napolitano That U.S. Doesn't Deserve AAA Rating. When Napolitano asked Varney if they could agree that "the government of the United States of America does not deserve and ought not to enjoy a AAA rating and shall lose it shortly," Varney responded, "Absolutely. ... We have spent ourselves into an extraordinary deficit situation. We do not deserve a AAA reputation." [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 7/29/11, via Media Matters]
Fox Dismissed Default Worries, Complained Of "Fearmongering" Over Consequences

Hannity: "I Would Not Vote To Raise The Debt Ceiling." During a panel discussion on the April 12 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said, "If I was in Congress, I would not vote to raise the debt ceiling." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/12/11, accessed via Nexis]

Hannity: "I Just Don't Have The Great Fear" That Potential Default "Is Going To Be A Calamity." Hannity said, "You know, is it worse that we default now and get our budget balanced or that America keeps continually taking on trillion in debts? It's a very dangerous scenario, as evidenced by the S&P this week. And I just don't have the great fear that others do that this is going to be a calamity." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/21/11, via Media Matters]

"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."

  • Login to post comments

That might be relevant

Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:28pm.

had there been a default and were downgraded because of it. But since we did not default, all of the above is meaningless.

We were downgraded because we're facing $211T in unfunded entitlement liabilities. Which side is against reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security again?

Now run back to MM and ask them how to respond.

  • Login to post comments

Shhhh. Look at this boys and girls.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:37pm.

The troll once again attempts to lay out the mating call and once again goes home disappointed. Female trolls have very very short attention spans and will wander off shortly into the troll screed. It is a wonder they reproduce at all.

No. No. Don't throw rocks boys and girls. The troll will mistakenly think it is raining and wonder off. Yes. Yes. It is quite the dense species.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

  • Is liberalism dead? (Roger L. Simon)
  • The media's next move on same-sex marriage (Get Religion)
  • Senate Dems pay women staffers less than male staffers (Washington Free Beacon)
  • Left targeting Chief Justice Roberts in attempt to save ObamaCare (IBD)
  • Walker's chance of defeating Wisc. recall looking great (Ace of Spades)
  • Ex-prez Bill Clinton poses for pic with porn stars (Fox Nation)
  • Protests against conservative group ALEC draw pitiful numbers (YouTube)

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB
Scott Rasmussen
Rasmussen Column: 'Austerity' Talk Is Just Political Cover for More Government Spending
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter Williams Column: Should Black People Tolerate This?
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: The Media's Religion Deficit
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: IRS Gives Billions in Tax Refunds to Illegals
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin Column: How the Gay-Marriage Mafia Slimed Manny Pacquiao
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • I can think of only one thing to say at the moment in regards
    2 min 17 sec ago
  • Yes motherbelt*
    6 min 45 sec ago
  • Amen..
    11 min 11 sec ago
  • Oh, gramma!
    12 min 20 sec ago
  • Too Late, already happened!!!
    16 min 14 sec ago
More >

More Like Farcebook
more cartoons
  • Howard Stern Hasn't Been 'King of Prime Time'
  • All Purpose Weekend Open Thread
  • NPR Celebrates Transgender Olympics Hopeful as Hammer-Throwing 'Jackie Robinson'
  • Bashir to Facebook Co-Founder: Go 'Play with the Traffic'
  • Piers Morgan Whacks 'Little Wretch' Who Says He Taught Phone-Hacking
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.