Just watched NBC Nightly News "explain" the downgrade

[spedtr90]

Despite the fact Standard & Poor mentions raising revenue and taxes many times in their press release, those words were absent in this "in depth" explanation.

They said the downgrade was because we need $4 trillion in cuts.

The only direct quote in the piece was about the less stable, effective, predictible governance.

Anyone watching this pathetic reporting was simply told not enough cuts were made.

[rsmith6621]

1. Or We Need To Raise 4 Trillion in Revenues....

..thats another way to look at it.

[Tennessee Gal]

2. No surprise there.

[Lifelong Protester]

3. good 'ole NBC...

helping to trot out the repub talking points?

[Gregorian]

4. Well duh. Anyone knows that when you run out of gas, the first thing you do is start throwing pieces

of the car out the window.

Because filling the car back up with gas would take cash. And the only people with the ability to buy more gas are the ones who don't need the car.

[Horse with no Name]

5. At the end of the day...they are still owned by GE.

A corporate welfare whore who wants to keep their tax cuts. They have a vested stake in keeping the tax cuts on the table and a vested stake in keeping the misinformation out there.

[Purveyor]

6. The 'talking heads' will be in fine form for tomorrow mornings news shows. eom

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spedtr90]

10. press release

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/

Are cuts mentioned? Yes
Is decreased spending mentioned? Yes
Are revenue and Bush tax cuts mentioned? Yes.

All valid pieces of the solution. All taken into consideration in the downgrade. All should be mentioned in a news report.

"we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process"

"our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

"It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options."

"Our revised upside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the ‘AA+’ long-term rating being revised to stable–retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.

[Chipper Chat]

8. From GE's lips to the Anchor Desk.

Maybe Fox News will rebut it. :rofl:

[Major Hogwash]

11. Damn, I missed it. I can't believe NBC anymore. Brian Williams makes me gag.

There, I said it. And the thing is, it's true.
I know a lot of people like him, but I don't.

[progressoid]

12. Yeah, that darn librul media is at it again.

:eyes: