Let's agree on one basic fact: the US spends more than it takes in.
Now, whether your solution to resolve this is "take in more" or "spend less", I think the basic fact is true, yes? We can agree on that?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the entire recent crisis, this basic fact was conflated with another: if the credit rating agencies start to feel that there is a reasonable risk that we can no longer continue to juggle the books and keep paying our debt service, they will downgrade our security rating.
So there was the budget shortfall, and then there was an information question.
The 'deal' between the parties was essentially us 'proving' (we thought) that we could continue to juggle. There was no ACTUAL immediate cut in any significant amount, nor any increase in revenue.
So S&P nevertheless downgraded the rating of the US.
On the right, they assert that the continuing, flawed economic state of the US is the reason for this. They point to the root issue.
On the left, they assert that mainly it was about the information issue. If Teabaggers hadn't caused such a fuss, the credit agencies would have continued to ignore the basically un-sound financials of the US (as they have for decades).
I don't know who's right. The Left could have been correct - S&P seems so bunkum-stupid, they very well may have continued "what me worry" ratings-as-usual.
But it seems to me that it's pretty damn disingenuous for the Left to point to the Tea Party and say that they CAUSED this issue - that's simply attacking the guy who's pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It may have been inelegant and uncomfortable for him to do so, and to make a stink about it, but you can't really say he was wrong.
As far as I can tell, the left's argument is that we should have just kept pretending, then there wouldn't be a hassle, and the party could continue?
