\ jimmac, it would be nice if you had any idea what you were linking to. The Media Research Center (your link) is a conservative organization that looks into liberal media bias. The story exists because MRC is using it as an example of liberal bias.
Rather than confirming Today's report, they are criticizing it.
O'Donnell continued to pile on criticism of the plan: "More trouble came from an agency that rates the country's credit. Appearing on CNBC Tuesday night, Standard & Poor's was critical of the Boehner plan's two stages for raising the debt limit."
O'Donnell...as in Lawrence O'Donnell? He's a liberal, too. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're arguing. No one is claiming the Boehner plan was great. No one is claiming it would have prevented a downgrade...at least I'm not. What I (and a few others here it seems) are saying is that the Republicans were the ones pushing for more cuts. How can they be held responsible for not cutting enough?
As you can see once again things just aren't exactly as you paint them.
I'm not painting at all. I was offering cold, hard facts. Specifically, I offered that there was no written plan by the WH, other than the FY2011 budget which was voted down 97-0 in the Senate. You claimed there were multiple plans, which is demonstrably false
S & P gave the downgrade because of the level of brinksmanship in the negotiations not because of a specific paln and they even said so.
That was one
reason. We'll get into the others in a moment. The thing is that you're blaming Republicans and Republicans alone for that "brinkmanship." You're claiming that it was their suborn refusal to raise taxes on "millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations" that was the problem. In reality, this is bullshit. There were trillions in new taxes which we cannot afford in a recession. And many of the cuts proposed by Reid (the only actual
Dem plan) were things like "cuts" due to already planned troop reductions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, they were mostly bullshit.
It seems to me that you cannot stand the thought of principled opposition. The GOP did not want tax increases or what Obama called "a balanced approach." They felt that tax increases would harm the already anemic economy. They also believed rightly that the proposed closing of "loopholes" would amount to very little money. This was their position, and they have a right to fight for it. You simply cannot accept that this has occurred. If only they had folded and given the Democrats what they always want (promised cuts that never occur and big tax increases), you'd be pleased. But they didn't do that, and it makes you nuts.
And tell me, jimmac..where was President Obama in all of this? Where was his leadership? Shouldn't he have taken the reigns and presented a plan? The reason he's taken such beating in the polls over this (and he has) is that he was perceived as weak, ineffectual, aloof, frustrated and condescending. As President it was his responsibility to at least present a plan. He should have taken the lead. He failed.