posted April 14, 2011 11:12 AM            

As the very quick negative response yesterday from the House GOP showed, the White House was never going to get even a reluctant, grudging admission from the Republicans that the Obama administration did something even marginally positive on the budget when it announced it’s new deficit reduction plan. After beginning their complaints on February 14th — the day the Obama 2012 budget was sent to Congress — that the White House wasn’t leading on fiscal issues, there was no expectation that House Republicans would do anything but drop the “refuses to lead” line and instead start using “we don’t like what he’s proposing” mantra.

That’s almost certainly why the GOP was not the intended or targeted audience for either the plan or the speech the president used to announce it. The targeted audience also didn’t seem to be the Democratic base. Even though there was likely to be (and, in fact, was) some grumbling on the far left about what Obama proposed and what he said it to propose it, recent polls show that Obama gets an 80 percent approval rating from registered-and-likely-to-vote members of his own party. There was, therefore, little need to try to improve that number.

So if the plan and speech were never going to win over Republicans and there was little value in trying to get additional Democrats, who or what was the real target? The answer is independents, the increasingly large percentage of American voters who don’t identify with either political party and the group that made the difference in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

In that context the plan and speech make a great deal of sense even if it’s not likely to change the outcome of this year’s debate. As Pete posted a day or so ago, the prospects for a deficit reduction plan being enacted this year may now be greater than they were when the week began, but they are still relatively small. In fact, as yesterday’s almost instantaneous and totally negative Republican response demonstrated, once the “we-have-a-plan-and-he-doesn’t” charge was muted, the budget debate almost immediately retrogressed to the same issues that have made it almost impossible for any deficit reduction plan to be considered seriously in recent years.

The fact that the Obama plan provided some fresh red meat for the GOP on revenues and military spending is the best indication that the White House wasn’t trying to appeal to it. Instead, the administration put out a plan that substantively was likely to appeal to the independents. Equally as important, the plan offered a process by which negotiations could begin. The president offered himself as a facilitator, convener, and expediter and, given the independents’ past dislike of how the sausage typically is made in Washington, this likely will appeal to them.

It will be especially important to watch the polls in the coming days, particularly any indication of of how independents actually feel about what the president proposed yesterday and how he proposed it, and whether their view of the GOP has changed. Significantly heightened approval by the independents could spur the GOP to come to the bargaining table a bit more aggressively.
http://wallstreetpit.com/70911-obama-budget-plan-changing-the-debate-without-changing-the-likely-outcome

posted April 14, 2011 11:39 AM            

O'Bomber's target audience for this speech most certainly was the far left lunatic fringe of the demoscat party.

O'Bomber delivered a re-election speech to shore up his far left base.

The speech was pure warmed over Karl Marx fly blown rhetoric. Class warfare, soak the rich, expand the power, scope and reach of the federal government.

As a matter of policy, O'Bomber knew going in that his crappy Marxist Socialist nonsense isn't going to fly with a Republican House of Representatives.

posted April 14, 2011 12:57 PM            

Considering that O'Bomber had invited the Republican leadership to his "speech"; it..the speech was one of the most stupid things he could have done.

That speech was tantamount to raising the red battle flag...an appropriate color for O'Bomber...and playing El Degüello.

posted April 14, 2011 02:33 PM            

are you suggesting that because republicans were invited he should have cozied up to them and pretended that he is on board with their plans? no, he was appealing to those who have NOT PROFITTED from this recession, which is about 95% of the country.

posted April 14, 2011 04:20 PM            

Once again, it's clear you do not understand the Constitutional limits of the Executive Branch or the Constitutional Authority of the House of Representatives.

O'Bomber may refuse to sign off on the House Budget but there's nothing in the Constitution or laws pursuant thereto which requires the House to adopt O'Bomber's budget or viewpoints.

If O'Bomber and his Senate Comrades don't sign on to the House Budget then there would be no budget and therefore no money allocated to run the federal government...and therefore no authority for the Executive branch to spend a red dime after September 30, 2011.

posted April 14, 2011 05:40 PM            

Pardon me, but I thought the President had already submitted a budget, and that was just two months ago. Now he devotes another of his many "major speeches" to the budget and comes out with another policy makeover -- or the appearance of one. This time it is a budget that wrecks the country by raising taxes and cutting Medicare and defense instead of simply doing nothing, as was proposed in February.

In reality, nothing has changed, especially the President's faith in Big Government. As he repeated over and over on Wednesday, "there are some things we can only do together, as a nation." Not as individuals and not even as states but only by way of the federal government.

So Obama's plan for a balanced budget includes no cuts whatsoever in big expenditures for welfare, education, or green energy. It cuts nothing from the President's pet projects in high-speed rail or alternative energy or failed job training schemes such as Job Corps. It fails to deal with out-of-control Medicaid spending. It turns out that the President actually thought the spending cuts agreed to this week were "historic" in nature. That's $20 billion in actual cuts out of annual spending of $3.73 trillion, or 0.00536%. The only thing that's historic about those cuts is Congress's gutless willingness to go along with the President's ruinous spending proposals.

As Obama put it on Wednesday, "We need to use a scalpel and not a machete" to cut spending. How about a pin? Instead of across-the-board cuts, Obama's plan relies on tax increases, cuts in Medicare spending, and cuts in defense spending.

Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012. Not just that, as he has proposed in the past, he wants to reduce or eliminate tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. As the president pointed out, millionaires benefit from these deductions -- that is, by building new homes that add jobs to the economy and by donating money to churches and non-profit organizations. We wouldn't want millionaires to benefit from these deductions, even if society at large benefits as well. From the way Obama talked in this speech, millionaires don't have a right to keep any of their hard-earned cash. It all belongs to government.

As for cuts to Medicare, Obama made it clear that he was going to "protect" Medicare services for seniors. And he was going to do this by cutting more than $1 trillion over 10 years. Obamacare already reduces spending for Medicare by $1 trillion. Now he declares that his new "approach would build on those reforms." And how is that possible? By reducing "unnecessary spending" on health care for seniors.

What if these cuts to Medicare aren't enough to bring down the deficit? Obama says he would give a government commission "the authority to make additional savings," that is to say, more cuts. That's reassuring to seniors who were worried about death panels when ObamaCare was crammed through in 2009. They'll still be able to buy generics from the government commissary.

On the topic of cutting defense, Obama was about as cagey as he has been about closing Guantanamo. Eliminating "waste and inefficiency" would go a long way, he suggested. But then he plans to make other cuts as well. "I will make specific decisions about spending"...later. After a thorough review. After Secretary Gates has consulted with the Joint Chiefs. After the 2012 election.

So what if, after all this cutting, the national debt continue to balloon out of control? Here's the best part of Obama's budget plan: it contains a "debt failsafe." That an iron-clad pledge to raise taxes even more if the national debt continues to rise after 2014. No discussion, no deliberation. Just raise taxes.

Perhaps the most disingenuous quality of the Obama's speech was the way in which it attempted to shift responsibility for the ruinous level of spending of the last two years. And then to take credit for offering a "balanced" solution and claiming it's what Ronald Reagan would have done. Yes, Reagan! If that sounds like fantasy, welcome to the future. You'll hear it a lot in the upcoming reelection campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has increased the annual deficit to five times the amount of the largest deficit under George Bush. And yet Obama had the audacity -- which, to give him credit, he has a lot of -- to suggest that even now his deficits are George Bush's fault. Adding another $5 trillion to the national debt is no big deal. It would have been worse under George Bush. After all, Obama remarked, "a little credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary."

There was also something pretty troubling about the fact that once again Obama chose to present a major speech in front of a group of liberal college students. It's not just the sense that our nation's leader is straining to find a friendly audience -- one that will challenge nothing he has to say. It's that this President refuses to engage in serious discussion with anyone.

In line with the adolescent audience, Obama repeated over and over that his budget plan would "win the future." I'm not exactly sure what that means, but it sounds like the President is thinking about the budget as some sort of game. Maybe he just can't get his mind off basketball after his annual picks for the NCAA finals did so poorly. Or maybe he just had his signals crossed and meant to say, "Win the election." In any case, unless the President puts an end to his perpetual campaigning and starts showing some leadership, no one is going to win anything.

It seems like every time the mood of the nation shifts even by an iota, Obama is there with a new plan -- or at least the pretense of having one. This is not the kind of leadership one expects from a chief executive -- it is a spineless attempt to salvage his popularity by disguising his socialist agenda as if it were some kind of national consensus. But socialism will never be the national consensus, no matter how many times it is rejiggered and resubmitted. It will still be the destroyer of jobs, prosperity, and liberty that it has always been.

posted April 14, 2011 08:30 PM            

Voters hamstring agenda's predictably, you can set your watch after an election by it.

The current majority in the House may initiate, but they need Democrat support in order to pass anything.

The House initiates, the Senate is the bottom line.

Voters made sure that the Senate continues to be controlled by the Democrats, with the Executive also being a Democrat, unless Obama commits political suicide little in further concessions undermining and defunding the social safety net will be made for 2012. I fully expect some Jedi moves soon.

All Democrats have heard from their base, and constituents. Voting women are now fully aware of the attacks that have been made, and continue to be made. And the 2011 'cuts' were the parsley on the budget plate.
No one is cutting the full fat fried chicken are they? No, they have gone after the garnish, the parsley, the 2% on the plate.

Unfortunately that parsley, that budgetary garnish means little to the deficit, and means quite a bit to the poor, to the elderly, and to the diesenfrachised.

posted April 15, 2011 08:54 AM            

Independents abandoned O'Bomber precisely because of the expansion of government and the resultant gross spending and debt of O'Bomber and his congressional Comrade clowns.

There was nothing in O'Bomber's latest campaign speech...disguised as a debt and deficit reduction speech...which would appeal to Independents. Raising taxes and ignoring the debt bomb contained in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security...are not Independent issues.

Nor, was there anything satisfying to be found in O'Bomber's campaign speech which anyone whose mind tends to bi-partisanship. This was a partisan campaign attack speech and nothing more.

One more thing. Independents have heard all the bullshiiit rhetoric before. This campaign attack speech lacked any specific plans to get the budgets, spending and debt back under control. Independents remember...as do I...O'Bomber's rhetoric about going line by line through the federal budget to eliminate duplicate programs, programs which don't work and root out fraud and waste in federal programs. Independents know...as do I...that O'Bomber hasn't lifted his little finger to do any of that and instead, O'Bomber and his congressional Comrade clowns increased federal spending 24% in only 2 years...and, if you add in the money down the drain from the so called "Stimulus", it's almost 80%.

posted April 15, 2011 08:59 AM            

Over my 45+ years in the business community, both domestic and international, I have dealt with an overwhelming variety of people of all races and political philosophies. Men and women who were thoroughly honest and many who had no concept of honor and integrity. Among them were those who would do or say anything to achieve their ends and do so with a straight face and an air of self-confidence that would deceive the most gullible. It is only through painful experience that one is finally able to develop an antenna to quickly weed out those charlatans.

While I have always been wary of and have written about his dishonesty, after the speech the president delivered the 13th of April regarding the federal budget, one that was chock full of lies, deceit, and crass fear-mongering, it must be said that Barack Obama is the most dishonest, deceitful, and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed.

That performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call Mr. Obama what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation, those who oppose his radical agenda only adds to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by the sycophants around him, thus he is who he is and cannot change.

The question becomes is he a compulsive liar or a sociopath? By definition:

A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused -- it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.

A compulsive liar:

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.

I came to the United States as a survivor of the Second World War. I spent my early years alone on the streets of a totally destroyed city somewhere in central Europe. In order to survive I had to steal food where I could and lie in order to survive. I spent a good part of my life, even after coming to America and being adopted, battling those inbred impulses. It was a never-ending struggle with successes and failures, but I was able to finally defeat those demons.

What I say about Barack Obama I do not do lightly, but because I fear greatly for this country and can, not only from personal experience but in my dealing with others, recognize those failings in a person whose only interest is himself and his inbred radical ideology, which as its lynchpin desires to transform the country into a quasi-totalitarian state by any means possible.

In the United States there is great deference paid to the occupant of the White House. Justifiably so, as that person is not only the chief operating officer of the country but also the head of state representing the nation around the globe. The president's actions and demeanor set the tone for not only the political class but the country as a whole. Over the centuries there have many exceptional but also a few inept men to hold the office of President.

Today so much power is now vested in the Office of President of the United States that honor and integrity must be a hallmark of a president's character. It is not with Barack Obama; he may well be the most dishonest and disingenuous occupant of the Oval Office in history, and will do more damage to the nation than all his predecessors combined.

His failings can no longer be excused by this historical deference or timidity fostered by race, with the euphemisms of spin, obfuscation, fabrication, or politics being used to avoid the truth. Obama is extremely adept at exploiting the celebrity culture that has overwhelmed the society as well as the erosion of the education system that has created a generation or more of citizens unaware of their history, culture as well as historical ethical standards based on Judeo-Christian teaching.

While the future of the country depends on dramatically altering the economic and governing landscape, it cannot do so unless the opposition politicians and average citizens forcefully challenge and respond to the lies and machinations of Barack Obama and his allies without fear of what may be said about them or to them. As for me, I have already experienced far worse than anything that could be said or done to me.

posted April 15, 2011 07:52 PM            

i fear greatly for this country" etc ...

ring any bells with you jwhop? or "he wants to turn the USA into a stalinist gulag" for that matter? you do nothing but push fear - that we will all end up in concentration camps or worse!

look at YOUR OWN SELF lambchop. you are pushing the longest standing conspiracy theory of modern times, day in and day out. you appear to be so afraid of socialism that you will sell us out to the highest bidder and let them make all the rules...

and no, i don't remember hearing anyone say republicans want to kill women. i'm sure some idiot probably has. i've heard it said that republicans are only pro-life when it is in the womb, and don't care a fig about the child AFTER it is born, nor do they like the idea of a pregnant woman making her own choices about what goes on with her body and her life...slightly different. i don't really like to lump all republicans into one category. nor democrats for that matter. even the rad left and right have their differences, being made up mostly of people who want things done the way they see fit.

posted April 15, 2011 10:43 PM            

Conservatives are not afraid of O'Bomber and not afraid of O'Bomber's policies.

Conservatives are pis$ed over O'Bomber's Marxist Socialistic Progressive bullshiiit, pure and simple.

Btw, the idiot representative who said Republicans want to kill women is Louise Slaughter D-N.Y.

Oh wait, didn't O'Bomber declare a moratorium on using violent words? Guess I can't tell you who she is after all.

posted April 17, 2011 04:20 AM            

Who has the elderly on the chopping block at this very moment on the House floor???

After all of the Social Safety Net cuts, which are mere drops in the "discretionary"
spending bucket, the agenda continues:

quote:

---

....not in Paul Ryan’s America. Today the House of Representatives will vote to crush Medicare under its heel,

exchanging it for a program of vouchers that will pay a mere portion of seniors’ medical insurance instead.

They’ve already repealed part of health care reform, removing money from communities for preventative care. Both of these pieces of legislation will be vetoed if they pass through the Senate successfully, but they are the equivalent of shots heard around the world.

This is the vision of a Republican America — privatized, ruled by lobbyists at the behest of wealthy benefactors and completely for-profit. As pundit Ezra Kline asserts, the Righties work tirelessly to prove that “America is an insurance company with an army.”

---

And I don't think for a minute that the end of the planned parenthood issue is over either....they will continue on an assault against providers of much needed services, well care, and birth control counseling.

The extreme right scares the hell out of me.

A Republican instituted title 10, Way back in the dark ages of the 70's...can anyone imagine it happening today?

posted April 17, 2011 08:33 AM            

Republicans do not have the elderly on the floor...in the US House of Representatives or any place else!

This is the kind of bullshiiit rhetoric Americans are fed up with.

No one who is elderly...No one who is 55 or older would have any of their benefits under Social Security or Medicare change at all...for the rest of their lives.

"Republicans want to kill women", "Republicans want to throw the elderly out into the streets", Republicans want the elderly to eat dog food", "Republicans have the elderly on the chopping block"....this is the kind of lying bullshiiit leftist rhetoric Americans have caught onto and most, find it disgusting and contemptible...and those who spew the lies...like O'Bomber, Slaughter and others....just as disgusting and contemptible as their lying rhetoric.

posted April 17, 2011 11:32 AM            

but they're just getting started, remember?

and the right churns out just as much bullshite as the left OBVIOUSLY. "obama won't stop till he's DESTROYED this country" is the first example that comes to mind.

the repeal of the healthcare act is obviously a non starter currently, so hey, let's use the budget as a way of STRANGLING it, along with a bunch of other things that we and our payrollers don't like...

posted April 17, 2011 05:46 PM            

47% of American adults don't pay a penny of income taxes...that's right, 47% are along for the free ride and pay nothing. In fact, lots of those freeloaders in the no pay income tax bracket get a so called "earned income tax credit"...free money from taxpayers.

It's about time this 47% started paying their fair share of income taxes.

By the way, the lying hot gas rhetoric coming out of O'Bomber's lower orifice is contemptible. Since when is someone making $200K a "Millionaire" or "Billionaire"?

There are a hell of a lot of job creators in that 200K to 1 million group and most of them are small business owners.

posted April 19, 2011 03:51 PM            

Despite Government propaganda and manipulated statistics to the contrary, our economy continues to deteriorate. For every "green shoot" highlighted by the Government and its lackey media, multiple contra-examples are cited by independent analysts.

To continue to deny reality risks credibility. Perhaps that is why S&P, arguably a sock-puppet of Wall Street, on Monday made its announcement regarding the financial condition of the US. As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services Inc. cut its outlook on the U.S. to negative, increasing the likelihood of a potential downgrade from its triple-A rating, as the path from large budget deficits and rising government debt remains unclear.

Fitch and Moody's have not yet seen fit to change their ratings. Preservation of the little credibility the ratings agencies have left will force them to follow in the course of time.

The S&P judgment was as unexpected as a terminally-diagnosed patient finally reaching his final destination. Reaction by the political class to the "death" is likely to be characterized by the Claude Rains gambit: "I'm shocked, shocked!" How could anyone have seen this coming? Actually, the only surprise is why S&P waited so long to report on the obvious and why it didn't also remove the Triple A credit-rating of US debt. That downgrade of debt will follow eventually. Apparently S&P doesn't want to pronounce a corpse dead until it is put into the ground.

Some believe the timing of the S&P announcement was related to the upcoming political battle over the US debt ceiling. Monday's Dow was crashing, at one point down over 240 points. If markets are so easily rattled, the thought is one must raise the debt ceiling. Perhaps that played into the timing of the announcement, yet in a rational world this announcement should make it harder to raise the debt limit. After all, it is debt that is causing the grief. Why would more of it be considered prudent?

Economic damage over the last several decades is structural, yet decision-makers continue to treat the problem as a normal, albeit severe, economic cycle. The US economy and many other world economies are in a debt death spiral. That is showing up in numerous places. On Monday, yields on two-year Greek bonds exceeded 20%. Greece and Ireland reiterated that they want no bailout. Changes in the Finnish government may make it harder to push through a Portugal bailout.

European "bailouts" are charades of the first order. They merely move problems from sick countries to healthy ones, jeopardizing the survival of the Eurozone.

Academic economists fiddle with models and assumptions, looking desperately for something that will enable them to rationalize the situation. Ironically, it was John Maynard Keynes himself who said:

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

The irony is that it is Keynes' ideas that are responsible for the economic mess. He is the defunct economist he warned about. The average man in the street understands clearly the problem -- It's the debt, Stupid! He has an advantage over most economists who have been educated beyond their level of competence.

Academic economic nostrums are ill-equipped to deal with this problem. Structural debt problems are not part of their model. As a result Keynesians prescribe more spending (and more debt), further poisoning the economic patient. These economic charlatans know no other medicine.

In the meantime we spiral downward as life slowly ebbs from the economy. There is no way out except to recognize the level of debt is not supportable. Excess debt must be liquidated in order for the economy to recover. That requires pay-downs and defaults, not bailouts. There will be lots and lots of defaults. There is no other way.

Instead, the political class and their economic epigones insist on treating the problem as just another cyclical event. Easy money, stimulus and all the other Keynesian nostrums are useless. They are what brought us to this point.

Massive amounts of debt must be liquidated. But confidence also must be restored. Doug Casey characterizes our economic climate thusly:

We are in a financial no-man's land. "Investing" is problematic because of a deteriorating economy, unpredictable and increasing regulation, rising interest rates and wildly fluctuating prices.

Mr. Casey's negatives are enough to stop business investing, hiring, and growth dead in their tracks.

Contrary to the way that economics is taught, there is no such thing as an economic machine where a "pump can be primed" or the economy can be "stimulated." All there are millions of individuals all making decisions designed to enable them to navigate through life. For most, their primary objective is the financial and physical security of themselves and their families. In scary economic times, these decisions are affected.

In order to right the economy, the fear and uncertainty imposed by existing and future government mandates and actions alluded to by Mr. Casey must be removed. Doing so will not be easy, for more is in play than Mr. Casey's short quote suggests. There are at least five considerations that should be of concern to all of us:

1. An Incompetent President - The President is inexperienced and incompetent. He is likely a fraud, as evidenced by his guarded and unknown past. He is incapable of leadership, honesty, or management. Virtually every one of his policy initiatives has been harmful to the economy and country. His intentions are clear; the degree to which he will be able to drive us further down the Road to Serfdom is not.

2. An Incompetent Political Class - The political class attained power via Santa Claus economics, providing gifts to constituents in return for votes. Both parties are guilty. Politicians have conditioned themselves and their constituents to "free-lunch" governance. Few know how to govern in any other fashion. Most are indistinguishable from prostitutes -- vote for me and I will do "that" for you. Both parties want to preserve the welfare-warfare State, disagreeing merely on the means of doing so.

3. An Incorrect Paradigm - The Keynesian model of spend and spend has been good for politicians but disastrous for the economy. Over time, it has encouraged loose credit, overspending, and living beyond our means. The failures are obvious to all but Statists and so-called Keynesian economists. The political class cannot stop "free lunches" without suffering severe political consequences. Hence, the abuses will continue until resources are exhausted. Like Rome of old, we will soon run out of bread and circuses.

4. An Unhappy Ending - Current economic problems cannot be mitigated or solved without incurring another Great Depression. Whether it is preceded by a deflationary collapse or a hyperinflationary blow-off is moot. The ending is inevitable and as more people understand this ending, they take more extreme steps to protect themselves -- spending ratchets back, savings increases, and businesses refuse to engage in new investment or hiring.

5. A Dangerous Prelude to the Ending - Government is insolvent. It would be bankrupt without Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing. As a cornered, wounded animal will do anything to survive, so will Government. Does that mean confiscatory tax rates, capital controls, IRA investments forced into Treasury Bonds, "excess profits" taxes, a national sales tax, etc., etc.? It could mean any or all of these and more. Government will not roll over. It will do whatever it can to continue, regardless of how illegal, immoral, unethical, or harmful it may be for the country.

John Maynard Keynes referred to "animal spirits." Alan Greenspan used the term "irrational exuberance." Both expressions acknowledged the importance of expectations and anticipations. The five factors listed above are not universally known or accepted. As they become more evident, the dismal level of animal spirits and exuberance will sink even lower. There can be no recovery under such conditions.

The charade that government can solve this problem may continue for a while. So might the notion that the government cannot go bankrupt. Yet both beliefs are false and will be seen to be so. Spending, hiring, and investment will be unresponsive to anything the government may or can do.

posted April 19, 2011 11:40 PM            

A fact..the National Debt exceeds 14 Trillion dollars. Fear mongering?

S&P turns negative on US AAA credit rating. Fear mongering?