Democrats/Mainstream Media On Debt Ceiling Negotiations: ‘Why Don’t We Just Start Telling Lies?’

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lied about his “plan” versus House Speaker John Boehner’s plan, saying that Standard & Poors had said that his plan would keep our AAA credit rating, but Boehner’s would not.

The DNC immediately packaged the lie for the press and sent it out to the world:


Contact: DNC Press, +1-202-863-8148,

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today on CNN, Erin Burnett reported that she spoke with an investor who talked directly with the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. According to the Standard & Poor’s source, John Boehner’s debt plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of U.S. debt by the ratings agencies, raising interest rates for all Americans. Harry Reid’s plan, however, would preserve America’s AAA credit rating.

Watch it:

SOURCE  Democratic National Committee

And then of course the mainstream media jumped in and immediately backed Harry Reid’s and the DNC’s lie.

I don’t know what the record is for a brand new CNN anchor to report lies as fact, but given that it’s CNN, it’s probably a matter of minutes.  New CNN anchor Erin Burnett reported:

Facts should never get in the way of a story that makes Democrats look good and Republicans look bad, so I almost hesitate to mention this, but … it wasn’t true:

And so legitimate media (i.e., sorry CNN and MSNBC, but you aint) began to correct the lie that Harry Reid, the DNC and the mainstream media had invented:

JULY 26, 2011, 4:07 P.M. ET.UPDATE: S&P: Reports That It Endorses One Debt Plan “Not Accurate”
By Stephen L. Bernard

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Standard & Poor’s said Tuesday that reports that it would endorse one of two competing Congressional frameworks to secure an increase the U.S. debt ceiling are “inaccurate.”

“Standard & Poor’s has chosen not to comment on the many and varying proposals that have arisen in the current debate,” the ratings agency said in an official announcement. The official statement echoes comments a spokesman gave to Dow Jones earlier in the day.

Ratings agencies have repeatedly said throughout the ongoing debt debate that they do not endorse any specific deals to cut long-term U.S. deficits.

Reports early Tuesday indicated that S&P was said to prefer Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) plan over the one being pitched by House of Representatives Speak John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling or else the U.S. could default on its debt. Politicians have tried to tie the increase in the debt ceiling to cutting long-term deficits.

Reid’s plan calls for a $2.7 trillion increase to the debt ceiling, while cutting spending by a similar amount. Critically, that would increase the debt ceiling by a high enough figure that it would give the government space to spend through 2012 and the next presidential election.

Boehner’s plan, by contrast, calls for a two-step process. The first would cut spending and raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion to get through 2011. Then another increase of up to $1.5 trillion would be sought via a bipartisan commission’s recommendations and would have to be approved in 2012 with an equal amount of spending cuts.

Democrats have argued that Boehner’s plan would introduce uncertainty to markets and drive up U.S. borrowing costs.

S&P has previously said that even if the debt ceiling is raised, it could still cut the U.S. government’s perfect “AAA” rating if a long-term deficit-reduction plan is not enacted.

Fox News also reported the facts and further corrected the record of Harry Reid’s unprofessional and disgraceful lie:

After Reid claimed Tuesday morning that the rating agencies had endorsed his plan – which cuts $2.7 trillion at most — S&P reiterated through a spokesman that it has not endorsed “any particular plan.”

There is so much dishonesty and so many lies coming from Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists that it is positively unreal.

Here’s more on the actual story without the Harry Reid/DNC/mainstream media spin:

Deal or no deal? US downgrade looking likely
By MATTHEW CRAFT – AP Business Writer | AP – 8 hrs ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Could the U.S. lose its top credit rating even if a deal is reached to raise the debt limit?

Market analysts and investors increasingly say yes. The outcome won’t be quite as scary as a default, but financial markets would still take a blow. Mortgage rates could rise. States and cities, already strapped, could find it more difficult to borrow. Stocks could lose their gains for the year.

“At this point, we’re more concerned about the risk of a downgrade than a default,” said Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Belton said the loss of the country’s AAA rating may rattle markets, but it’s “better than missing an interest payment.”

Even with a deadline to raise the U.S. debt limit less than a week away, many investors still believe Washington will pull off a last-minute deal to avoid a catastrophic default. Washington has until Aug. 2 to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit or risk missing a payment on its debt. President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans have failed to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and pass a larger budget-cutting package. Politicians have tied raising the debt limit and spending cuts together.

But at least one credit rating agency has already made it clear that unless that agreement includes at least $4 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade, the country’s AAA rating could be lost. Right now, the proposals under discussion cut around $2 trillion or less.

Standard & Poor’s warned earlier this month that there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a “credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden.” S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said.

And why will our credit rating get cut?  Because Obama and his depraved administration have been lying and fearmongering the crisis:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down. […]

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

Thanks, Barry Hussein and Turbo Tax Tim!

That’s right.  We’re going to get our credit rating downgraded – which will have disastrous long-term consequences – because of Barack Obama’s fearmongering lies.  Harry Reid reports something that isn’t even remotely true, and the DNC and the mainstream media pick it up like a symphony.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could get halfway around the world before the truth could even get its boots on.  But I think even that famous cynic would be amazed and apalled by the liberal media complex.

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Democrats/Mainstream Media On Debt Ceiling Negotiations: ‘Why Don’t We Just Start Telling Lies?’”

  1. Free Market Capitalist Says:


    Once again, great work. Many of us appreciate your efforts through this blog.

    Recently, I have been debating with the Marxists over this ongoing federal debt debate. Below, is a statement from one such Marxist himself:

    “I’ll stand by my conclusion. Reichstag fire. This is what they want. Otherwise you would have to believe that a huge chunk of the House Republicans would form a centrist coalition with the Democrats. Having observed the far right get more and more extremist over time, I can’t get there. They absolutely want a Constitutional showdown, because they control the Supreme Court. Kennedy would have to go over to the other side for them to lose. He will come under ferocious pressure to conform to the Triumph of the Will.

    So there won’t be a deal on the debt ceiling, and the choice will be either 40% budget cuts or Constitutional crisis. They are counting on Obama to use the Constitutional nuclear option, and they expect to win. In effect it’s a minority coup d’etat. They would have seized minority control of government policy via the egregious flaws in the Constitution that allows one party to control government policy through control of the Supreme Court. They’ve done it before, and they have every reason to believe that they can do it again.

    That’s why I don’t think that there will be a deal. I’ve become very cynical in my old age.”

    Anyway, I was just curious what your opinion is to the above statement, especially the one regarding the Supreme Court. I’ve always thought that the Supreme Court has gotten progressively liberal over the years.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Free Market Capitalist,

    I’ve written about this quite a few times. Here was one I particularly remember:

    Your Marxist is comparing the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party with conservatives? What on earth do we possibly have to do with them, other than the fact that dishonest socialists don’t want to deal with the plague that their own SOCIALISM has been?

    Is your Marxist “friend” so idiotic that he believed that Hitler wanted small, limited government like conservatives do??? Is THAT his thesis?

    I’ve asked Marxists to tell me how or why the Nazis were “right wing.” And the only three things I’ve EVER got from them was that 1) The Nazis attacked the Soviets, so they must be right wing; 2) the Nazis were militaristic, so they had to be right wing; and 3) the Nazis were racist, and therefore right wing.

    Well, as for 1) let me just say “Coke vs. Pepsi and Barbie dolls vs. Bratz dolls.” Nazism and communism were rival brands of SOCIALISM, and they competed for the SAME FOLLOWERS. Many communists enthusiastically supported the Nazis saying, “First brown, then red.” The primary difference between fascism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) was that one was nation-based and one was class based. Again, kind of like Coke vs. Pepsi. To 2) I point out the obvious fact to anyone who isn’t ignorant that the Russian Soviets, the Red Chinese, the communist North Vietnamese, the communist Cubans, the communist North Koreans and pretty much every other communist society was HEAVILY MILITARISTIC. That the Nazis were “conservative” because they were “militaristic” is is an utterly ridiculous argument given that the USSR had the largest and most powerful military in the world basically until its collapse. For 3) if you know anything about Soviet history you know they exterminated all their aborigines. They also exterminated tens of thousands of Poles (Katyn Massacres); they exterminated millions of Ukrainians (Holodomor); there was the mass deportations of the North Caucasian and Baltic Sea peoples. Among numerous other events. The Red Chinese are STILL persecuting the Tibetans. The North Vietnamese all but wiped out the various mountain peoples such as the Montagnards who were of racially different stock than the Viets.

    So I would simply reject his comparison out of hand. To compare the Nazis with the American conservatives is simply beyond ridiculous. I know that he’s got a bunch of leftists academics who make the same comparison, but that is an imbecilic appeal to authority which ITSELF is authoritarian. Particularly when we consider the fact that socialism thrives more on universities than anywhere else in America.

    That out of the way, your “friend” has some other large problems too. It’s the Republicans who want a shutdown? The Republicans to this minute are the ONLY party that have actually passed a bill that would solve the problem. And Obama threatened to veto it and Harry Reid refused to even allow it to come up for a vote. Just how is it that the Democrats who haven’t even bothered to offer any real plan AT ALL while they demonize Republicans not the ones who are demanding a shutdown???

    If Obama doesn’t want a shutdown (and he does, because his policies have now utterly failed, and his only hope is to find a straw man/scapegoat to demonize – because HE CAN’T RUN ON HIS FAILED RECORD) then WHERE’S HIS PLAN? Where is Obama’s template so that both sides can work toward something???

    Why does your friend believe that it is up to the Republicans to cave in to Democrat demands for a “deal”? Isn’t Obama the president? Isn’t he a Democrat? Didn’t Democrats blame the 2008 collapse on Bush because HE was president and therefore HE was responsible?

    Does your friend not remember the debt ceiling controversy in 2006, when not one single Democrat voted for a debt ceiling increase? Does he not know that Obama, Biden and Harry Reid all voted no on that increase while demagoguing Bush and Republicans? Where was his visceral anti-Democrat Party outrage then? Why wasn’t he saying the Democrat Party is the Nazi Party then? Other than the fact that he’s a total hypocrite?

    That’s what is on the top of my head as a response.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: