America’s Credit Rating Downgraded – The Tea Party Was Right

The Tea Party movement warned that failure to address our massive government debt as part of the recent debt ceiling debate could result in downgrading of America’s credit rating.

Instead of making tough decisions and real spending cuts, progressive Democrats attacked the Tea Party as being racists and terrorist. The Obama administration refused to cut spending and instead chose to play partisan politics, which has now resulted in the S&P downgrading America’s credit rating for the first time in history.

A cornerstone of the global financial system was shaken Friday when officials at ratings firm Standard & Poor’s said U.S. Treasury debt no longer deserved to be considered among the safest investments in the world.

S&P removed for the first time the triple-A rating the U.S. has held for 70 years, saying the budget deal recently brokered in Washington didn’t do enough to address the gloomy long-term picture for America’s finances. It downgraded U.S. debt to AA+, a score that ranks below Liechtenstein and more than a dozen other countries, and on par with Belgium and New Zealand.

The GOP placed multiple plans on the table and passed three bills though the House which would have averted this downgrade. Instead of supporting and passing these bills, Harry Reid and his progressive allies in the Senate held a gun to the head of senior citizens and proclaimed that Grandma would be tossed off a cliff if any of these spending cuts were enacted.

This epic failure by the president and the progressives in Congress could be very damaging, causing interest rates to spike and making it more difficult to get a loan. It’s not those in the Tea Party movement who are acting like terrorists, it’s those who refuse to address the out of control spending and debt. The entire economic system will explode and come crashing down around us if America doesn’t change direction, and soon.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


  1. Richard says:

    I notice you dont have the integrity to mention that one of the reasons S&P downgraded the U.S. was the Bush tax cuts.but since when have goobers been known for that?

    • Scott says:

      You mean the Obama tax cuts? ;)

      If you think that taxing those who make over $250K a year an additional $800 billion over the next 10 years would have kept America’s credit limit from being downgraded, you need to do some more research and check your numbers. The latest debt ceiling deal is projected to increase the debt more than $7 trillion over the next 10 years.

      Engaging in pure class warfare and pretending that taxing small businesses will solve our fiscal problems is totally irresponsible. Try doing some basic math. :)

  2. Richard says:

    No I didn’t mean Obama tax cuts I meant what S&P said in there OWN statment on why they downgraded the U.S. Quote
    “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Repulicans continue any measure that would raise revenues”

    thats not my words it’s S&Ps reason for doing so.

    Now its going to take a little integrity on your part not to change the subject again . but I really don’t expect any.

  3. Richard says:

    CORRECTION OF Quote “We have changed our assumption because the majority of Republicans continue to resist any measure to raise revenues”

    • Scott says:

      First, Obama is the one who extended the tax cuts. He signed the bill into law. He could have vetoed it. He didn’t so now HE owns it. Bush wasn’t president at that time so he can’t be blamed. Obama actually did the right thing, for once. It would have been stupid to increase taxes during a recession.

      Second, that quote is from S&P upside and downside scenarios. You are taking it out of context when you suggest that it’s the reason for the downgrade. It is not.

      The S&P downgrade had nothing to do with any specific policy. In fact, S&P says..

      Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.

      The fact of the matter is that S&P wanted (at minimum) a $4 trillion dollar plan and the Tea Party backed “Cut, Cap & Balance” was the only plan on the table that did that.

      Also, I find your ad hominem attacks typical of those who have no logical positions to use when debating issues in the marketplace of ideas.

      • Richard says:

        There called the Bush tax cuts in case you were out of town when that happend and it was the Republicans who fought to keep them in place. As far as S&Ps stating not to take a position on the MIX of spending and revenues, How you
        came to the conlusion that that let the Repulicans off the hook only affirms my integrity comment.
        The downside scenario you speak of was that the Bush tax cuts would be in place in 2013. how that’s not a policy issue can only be rationalized
        by people who listen to Fox news and get there truth from a drug pig like Rush.

        • Scott says:

          “There”? You mean, “They’re”? :)

          You can call them whatever you want. That doesn’t change the fact that Obama extended them. Why don’t you blame him for that? He did it!

          I’m not letting anyone off the hook, as you are. I’m actually praising Obama and the GOP for keeping taxes low. We don’t have a tax problem. We have a spending problem.

          I understand you now. You have no real arguments to support your position. You simply parrot nonsense from far left-wing media and attack those with whom you disagree, which is typical from posters of your ilk.

  4. Lyle says:

    The only saving grace we have as far as an increase in interest rates is concerned is our bad economy. In that I agree with Neil Cavuto. Who would have thought a bad economy would be a good thing. Sad for sure. I posted this elsewhere but BO is even worse then JC; even under JC, we never lost our AAA rating. It’s going to hurt, but we need to get at the root cause of this complete fiasco starting with What Clinton and the Republican’s did back I believe Christmas of 1995. We got to either repeal or renegotiate NAFTA/GATT (bring the tariffs back). I agree that we need to bring in more revenue, but not in the form of direct taxes, but tariffs. Yes, things will start to cost more, but ultimately the companies that want to sell us their goods will be forced to hire here since the pain to sell their goods made outside the U.S. will be too unbearable to them. Inflation will happen anyway, now that our rating is going downhill; bite the bullet now. Also, we got to rid ourselves of the IRS by passing a national sales tax. FEDs gotta go too. You can’t print your way out of our predicament; got to control spending. D.C. has no discipline so it has to be forced on them (i.e., balanced budget amendment). If they were good stewards with our money, we wouldn’t need this nor would we even be in trouble in the first place. I have a lot of other things to say, but I better stop venting before I start sounding like a flaming idiot. lol


    • Scott says:

      An increase in interest rates is a double edged sword. One big problem is that the interest payments on our national debt would increase if the interest rates tic up. That will just drive us further into debt, much faster. That is definitely where we are headed if we do not stop the out of control “tax and spend” mentality in Washington.

      It makes you start to wonder if some progressives are actively seeking to bring down the economy and destroy the capitalist system, a system they seem to have such antipathy for.

      • Richard says:

        Here Im being acused of Parroting The media by a guy who uses ‘we dont have a tax problem we have a spending problem”
        and “tax and spend mentality” and good luck pinning The Bush tax cuts for the rich Oh excuse me the “JOB CREATORS”
        on Obama and the left.

        • Scott says:

          Your main assertion has been shown to be incorrect. You can cry, whine, deflect and attack all you want but that doesn’t change the fact that your initial point has been debunked by S&P’s own words.

          Do you have anything else to add that can further the conversation? If not, why don’t you just move on and maybe you won’t embarrass yourself anymore than you already have.

          • Richard says:

            Embarrased? I’m not the one who belongs to a party where canidates have to assure you they are not witch and bigot biscuit eating gobbers who belive their ancestors rode dinosaurs.I’m sure you”re not a bit embarrased of that. I’m positive your in the right party

    • Lyle says:

      Looks like Soros’s paid lunes are even visiting your site here too Scott. Sad.

  5. Al says:


    You seemed to stay up awful late just to defend DNC talking points. Scott made his point very well and you do seem to have a problem debating the facts. As usual, when you have no logic or reason behind your argument, you resort to the typical progressive game plan – name call and demonize. I am disappointed you didn’t pull out “Tea Party Terrorist”, Tea Party Taliban”, or “Tea Party Racists”.

    I would love to debate the fact that the Tea Party is only seeking to put American back on-track to fiscal soundness and take away the unchecked power from both the left and right as they inundate us with their new American “Progressive” utopian” dream. However, you prove after your first paragraph that you live in “lala land”. Therefore, you are not worth debating, but worth criticizing.

    • Richard says:

      How about Tea party white trash culture? or country bumkin inbreds,or biscuit eating rednecks?or the original euro trash?take your pick.but Im sure somwhere down the line you have an aunt Pearl who has a dog named Blue.

    • Scott says:

      This guy has nothing to add that can elevate or further this discussion. Lame personal attacks are the bane of those who have lost the debate and can’t defend their position. They just don’t realize how foolish they look. Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and confirm it. ;)

  6. JackT says:

    America cannot solve this problem with spending cuts alone.

    The GOP knows this. Despite all of the Tea Party rhetoric, the spending problem is not solely related to President Obama:

    President Bush (fiscal years 2002-2009)

    Iraq, Afghanistan and defense $1.4 trillion
    Bush tax cuts $1.8 trillion
    Non-defense discretionary spending: $608 billion
    TARP $224 billion
    Medicare drug benefit $180 billion
    2208 stimulus $773 billion

    Total $5.07 trillion with no corresponding increase in revenues

    President Obama (fiscal years 2010-2017)

    Stimulus spending $711 billion
    Non-defense discretionary spending $278 billion
    Stimulus $425 billion
    Health care reform $152 billion

    Total $1.44 trillion

    Source: Congressional Budget Office

    Presidents are responsible for spending for the upcoming year. Much of the spending in 2009 dates from 2008.

    The lies need to stop. The spin is unhelpful.

    The National Debt doubled from 2000 through 2008. For the first time in the post-war era, we fought a war without increasing taxes – in fact, we cut them.

    And now people are focusing on spending cuts to offset the spending? That is patently absurd.

    The world knows it. We are just being willfully ignorant of a situation which is spinning out of control.

    It is time for GOP insiders to come clean with the American people and reveal what they have been discussing for months: revenue increases are not only planned, they are required to restore American prosperity.

    The markets are about to respond. We’ll see how the GOP responds in turn.

    • Scott says:

      I agree with you, in that both parties are to blame for the massive debt and deficits we now have. The Tea Party movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the the GOP and the TARP bailout. Contrary to your assertion and to what is usually reported in the media, the rise of the Tea Party movement had nothing to do with Obama. I know because I was at the first Tea Party rallies, were the audience booed and turned their back on those in the GOP who were responsible for TARP.

      Bush increased the national debt from $6 trillion to over $10 trillion during his eight years in office, an increase in the debt of over $4 trillion, which is outrageous.

      Obama has increased the national debt by $4 trillion in less than four years and is now increasing the debt by $1.5 trillion a year. At that rate, Obama will have increased the national debt by more than $10 trillion in an eight year period, which is even more outrageous.

      So, instead of correcting our debt problem, Obama has doubled down on the debt. At the current rate of spending, by the end of two terms, Obama will have incurred more debt than all of the previous presidents combined, including Bush.

      Your statement; “And now people are focusing on spending cuts to offset the spending?” doesn’t even make any sense. If you spend too much, you cut spending. That’s common sense.

      The idea that increased revenue would be used by politicians to pay down the debt is what is really “patently absurd”. Any increased tax revenue will be used to maintain and grow government. That’s the real truth.

Leave a Reply