Bachman lies, again

arthurdent

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/michel ... about-debt

Michele Bachmann lies. That's no surprise. But in this case, her lie is so insidious and stupid that it just has to be debunked.

When asked about the debt-ceiling, she said she wouldn't have raised it because Congress had an opportunity to cut spending and ducked it. Of course, she doesn't say that the debt-ceiling relates to debt already authorized by Congress, the funds have been appropriated, and whether she voted for those appropriations for that or not, it's what they've done. A refusal to honor that debt and invite default (either on payments to the debt or promised spending) is the dishonorable claim of a deadbeat.

But wait, there's more. Bachmann once again refers to the $2 trillion-dollar "blank check." Maybe it's just me, but blank checks usually don't have amounts on them, right?

Now we get to the real lie. Here it is:

BACHMANN: I think we just heard from Standard & Poor's. When they dropped our credit rating what they said is we don't have an ability to repay our debt. That's what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling and instead, we should have cut government spending, which was not done and then we needed to get our spending priorities in order.

That's a pants-on-fire moment for Bachmann. Here is a direct quote from a Standard & Poor's conference call yesterday:

Finally, there is the political analysis, which is an important element of our sovereign criteria, and you have to remember of course that with sovereigns, unlike most issuers, the question is not only of ability to pay but also willingness to pay. It's quite an important one because no one can force a sovereign to pay its debt, cannot force a sovereign into bankruptcy.

So we have to look at the willingness and that's done primarily by analyzing the politics. You look here at how important, from a policy perspective, paying the nation's debts are, and also how much pro-active and effective and stable policy-making is there to ensure fiscal sustainability over the long term.

So we think that this also has deteriorated, in recent years compared to other AAA countries, and that was why we moved to a negative outlook in April. Both fiscal and the political realities. And as we watched the fiscal debate going on intensely for many months this year and we noticed how little progress was being made in terms of bridging the gap between the two sides -- one very focused on revenue measures to address the deficit issue and the other very focused on expenditures and not very much common ground between them -- we noticed that there was not much moving together despite many months of debate.

And in addition to this, we also had serious questions being raised about the debt ceiling and yes we've raised the debt ceiling many times in the past 50 years but we believe that the debate that was had this year was even more contentious and unproductive than previous ones. And the fact is, you know, we had a large proportion of not just anyone, but elected officials who seemed to be seriously advocating that paying US government debt in full and on time was less important than other domestic priorities that they advocated.

That's something that you don't see happen in AAA countries.

As a result of that and as a result of the continued what we view as very slow progress in addressing both the medium term and the longer term fiscal issues we view the politics in the U.S. as moving away from what we expect in a AAA country.

So let's review here. The prime factor that's different now from the last ratings cycle is that we have batsh*t crazy politicians like Michele Bachmann casting doubt on our WILL to pay. Not our ability. Our WILL. And it all started when Bush took office and gave away the tax cut store, screwed up the plan to be deficit-free by 2012, and put a couple of wars on the credit card.

Yes. Michele Bachmann lied. And this one was a whopper the size of Moby Dick, because it's people like her who are the reason we can't have nice things.

Chris Desi

With a little hard work she might catch up with our current president and his acolytes in the press.

polaris_x

this is what i was saying in terms of the role of the tea party and the downgrade ... but the right have tunnel vision and amnesia when it comes to obama ...

it's pretty obvious the two main culprits in this economic disaster is partisanship and corporatized governement ...

inlet13

arthurdent wrote:

BACHMANN: I think we just heard from Standard & Poor's. When they dropped our credit rating what they said is we don't have an ability to repay our debt. That's what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling and instead, we should have cut government spending, which was not done and then we needed to get our spending priorities in order.
[/i]

Umm... yeh, I think she's not wrong here. S&P looks at the Debt/GDP ratio and forecasts it out a bit. Basically, they saw this rising too much.... or in other words, we weren't going to be able to pay our debt, which is what she was saying.

Her position to deal with this was to decrease the debt component by cutting spending. She felt as though a crisis now, would force government to do that.... Rather than giving out more candy (money) to the screaming baby (government), every time it screams for more (which I, myself, believe will happen again before the election). That may have been the wrong approach, but the truth is it was a long-term idea, and it may have worked long-term. There's no way to tell because it didn't happen.

Nothingman54

arthurdent wrote:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/michele-bachmann-once-again-lies-about-debt

Michele Bachmann lies. That's no surprise. But in this case, her lie is so insidious and stupid that it just has to be debunked.

When asked about the debt-ceiling, she said she wouldn't have raised it because Congress had an opportunity to cut spending and ducked it. Of course, she doesn't say that the debt-ceiling relates to debt already authorized by Congress, the funds have been appropriated, and whether she voted for those appropriations for that or not, it's what they've done. A refusal to honor that debt and invite default (either on payments to the debt or promised spending) is the dishonorable claim of a deadbeat.

But wait, there's more. Bachmann once again refers to the $2 trillion-dollar "blank check." Maybe it's just me, but blank checks usually don't have amounts on them, right?

Now we get to the real lie. Here it is:

BACHMANN: I think we just heard from Standard & Poor's. When they dropped our credit rating what they said is we don't have an ability to repay our debt. That's what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling and instead, we should have cut government spending, which was not done and then we needed to get our spending priorities in order.

That's a pants-on-fire moment for Bachmann. Here is a direct quote from a Standard & Poor's conference call yesterday:

Finally, there is the political analysis, which is an important element of our sovereign criteria, and you have to remember of course that with sovereigns, unlike most issuers, the question is not only of ability to pay but also willingness to pay. It's quite an important one because no one can force a sovereign to pay its debt, cannot force a sovereign into bankruptcy.

So we have to look at the willingness and that's done primarily by analyzing the politics. You look here at how important, from a policy perspective, paying the nation's debts are, and also how much pro-active and effective and stable policy-making is there to ensure fiscal sustainability over the long term.

So we think that this also has deteriorated, in recent years compared to other AAA countries, and that was why we moved to a negative outlook in April. Both fiscal and the political realities. And as we watched the fiscal debate going on intensely for many months this year and we noticed how little progress was being made in terms of bridging the gap between the two sides -- one very focused on revenue measures to address the deficit issue and the other very focused on expenditures and not very much common ground between them -- we noticed that there was not much moving together despite many months of debate.

And in addition to this, we also had serious questions being raised about the debt ceiling and yes we've raised the debt ceiling many times in the past 50 years but we believe that the debate that was had this year was even more contentious and unproductive than previous ones. And the fact is, you know, we had a large proportion of not just anyone, but elected officials who seemed to be seriously advocating that paying US government debt in full and on time was less important than other domestic priorities that they advocated.

That's something that you don't see happen in AAA countries.

As a result of that and as a result of the continued what we view as very slow progress in addressing both the medium term and the longer term fiscal issues we view the politics in the U.S. as moving away from what we expect in a AAA country.

So let's review here. The prime factor that's different now from the last ratings cycle is that we have batsh*t crazy politicians like Michele Bachmann casting doubt on our WILL to pay. Not our ability. Our WILL. And it all started when Bush took office and gave away the tax cut store, screwed up the plan to be deficit-free by 2012, and put a couple of wars on the credit card.

Yes. Michele Bachmann lied. And this one was a whopper the size of Moby Dick, because it's people like her who are the reason we can't have nice things.

And your point?

arthurdent

Nothingman54 wrote:

And your point?

that Michelle Bachmann is a gibbering idiot. I thought we established that already.

RFTC

arthurdent wrote:

Nothingman54 wrote:

And your point?

that Michelle Bachmann is a gibbering idiot. I thought we established that already.

bachman is done, she's been outed as a hypocrite and ineffectual legislature. it's really sad as being the poster child of the TB's, it would have been gold political theater seeing her crumble on a natl stage. next up, Rick Perry!!!

gimmesometruth27

RFTC wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

Nothingman54 wrote:

And your point?

that Michelle Bachmann is a gibbering idiot. I thought we established that already.

bachman is done, she's been outed as a hypocrite and ineffectual legislature. it's really sad as being the poster child of the TB's, it would have been gold political theater seeing her crumble on a natl stage. next up, Rick Perry!!!

no she will stay in. i think she will win iowa and then everyone is going to gang up on her. why do you think palin is sitting out at the moment? she would be the low hanging fruit and the easiest one for them to get eliminated. she is going to enter the race towards the end of the year after guys like santorum and gingrich and maybe even bachmann have imploded...

and wait for them to go to town on rick perry for the light up texas issue. he took millions of dollars out of a pool of money collected on everybody's electric bill to help the poor and elderly keep their power and air conditioning on. he applied millions of dollars from that fund to the 27 million (or billion, i forget) budget shortfall this year. and as a result he has had to cut hundreds of teachers and other programs. the unemployment rate in texas is only 1% less than the national average, so that is not all that stellar either. there was a nice piece on the cbs evening news about him...

RFTC

she won the straw, kiss of death. good night now...

it's gonna be perry, let's not kid.

Nothingman54

They all lie. That's what these guys do. I hate them all.

Prince Of Dorkness

It's most likely going to be Mitt Romney.

That business suit, big hair and cowboy boot bullshit plays well in Texas. But nowhere else.

RFTC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It's most likely going to be Mitt Romney.

That business suit, big hair and cowboy boot bullshit plays well in Texas. But nowhere else.

eh, not so sure. perry is a cash generating machine that will further galvanize the far right.

it's a long way to go and perry is going to have to speak off script a couple hundred times, there will be some highly entertaining quotes coming from him pretty shortly...

Parachute

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It's most likely going to be Mitt Romney.

That business suit, big hair and cowboy boot bullshit plays well in Texas. But nowhere else.

I think you're wrong. Perry will win the noination and the Presidency. When he does, I'll remind you of all this.

fife

Parachute wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It's most likely going to be Mitt Romney.

That business suit, big hair and cowboy boot bullshit plays well in Texas. But nowhere else.

I think you're wrong. Perry will win the noination and the Presidency. When he does, I'll remind you of all this.

i actually agree with you. i don't think Perry will win the presidency but i can see him winning the nomination. too bad too. i thought Jon Huntsman would have been better

Prince Of Dorkness

fife wrote:

i actually agree with you. i don't think Perry will win the presidency but i can see him winning the nomination. too bad too. i thought Jon Huntsman would have been better

As much of a disappointment as Obama has been (and to be fair, I think he's done much better then the general public gives him credit for), I honestly don't see the swing voters going for some loud-mouth Texan Long horn who insists on teaching teens to not have sex, goes to Craig prayer meetings with anti-semetic speakers, clearly cares more about social issues and just kinda has that schoolyard bully style.

Parachute

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

fife wrote:

Parachute wrote:

i actually agree with you. i don't think Perry will win the presidency but i can see him winning the nomination. too bad too. i thought Jon Huntsman would have been better

As much of a disappointment as Obama has been (and to be fair, I think he's done much better then the general public gives him credit for), I honestly don't see the swing voters going for some loud-mouth Texan Long horn who insists on teaching teens to not have sex, goes to Craig prayer meetings with anti-semetic speakers, clearly cares more about social issues and just kinda has that schoolyard bully style.

I didn't say this: i actually agree with you. i don't think Perry will win the presidency but i can see him winning the nomination. too bad too. i thought Jon Huntsman would have been better


I said this: I think you're wrong. Perry will win the noination and the Presidency. When he does, I'll remind you of all this.

Its difficult to quote such brilliance correctly, I know....

81

Parachute wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It's most likely going to be Mitt Romney.

That business suit, big hair and cowboy boot bullshit plays well in Texas. But nowhere else.

I think you're wrong. Perry will win the noination and the Presidency. When he does, I'll remind you of all this.

duly noted

Prince Of Dorkness

Parachute wrote:

I think you're wrong. Perry will win the noination and the Presidency. When he does, I'll remind you of all this.

Its difficult to quote such brilliance correctly, I know....

Meh. The same people saying that are the same ones who said that there's no way Americans would vote for a black man before a war "hero" that they all love.

unsung

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/1 ... =fb&src=sp

fife

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

fife wrote:

i actually agree with you. i don't think Perry will win the presidency but i can see him winning the nomination. too bad too. i thought Jon Huntsman would have been better

As much of a disappointment as Obama has been (and to be fair, I think he's done much better then the general public gives him credit for), I honestly don't see the swing voters going for some loud-mouth Texan Long horn who insists on teaching teens to not have sex, goes to Craig prayer meetings with anti-semetic speakers, clearly cares more about social issues and just kinda has that schoolyard bully style.

i agree with you. i do think he will win the nomination but not the white house. yes , texas has a lower unemployment number but many of those jobs have been showed to be more government jobs than other jobs. not something that a person who believes in smaller government should be happy about.

Parachute

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Parachute wrote:

I think you're wrong. Perry will win the noination and the Presidency. When he does, I'll remind you of all this.

Its difficult to quote such brilliance correctly, I know....

Meh. The same people saying that are the same ones who said that there's no way Americans would vote for a black man before a war "hero" that they all love.

I don't know anyone who said that. I don't hang w/ racists.