The problem is "fiscal and debt matters", and that makes sense. We spend far more than we bring in and our current situation is entirely unsustainable.

So, how the hell are they pointing to an agreement to go deeper into debt as a positive? "Notwithstanding the June bipartisan agreement to suspend the debt limit until January 2025"? Are you out of your f-ing minds? THAT is what should have signaled to Fitch that our credit rating is too high.

Holding to the debt limit would NOT have meant defaulting on debts. That's a lie. The law that created the debt limit says that if we hit it, then every penny of revenue has to be used to pay existing debts. The opposite of defaulting.

That BS claim is made on the basis that we would default on new obligations we haven't put money into yet. That is, if new spending was mandated in the last omnibus bill and slated to start after the limit was reached, it won't happen. That's not defaulting on our debts, that's postponing new spending. The consequence of idiots deciding to spend more than they knew they were allowed and getting smacked down by their marginally wiser predecessors.

Of course, Yellen is going to be completely dishonest on the matter, she shares the burden of responsibility for this mess. She runs the Treasury and ran the Fed. She is a key figure in, "the erosion of governance".

It's not the political infighting that is to blame. It's the fact that the US Congress passes those idiotic omnibus bills, where every Congresscritter gets their favorite pork project funded. In the end, no one dares vote against such a bill, because they would be voting against everyone else's pet projects.Moreover, the bills are so long and complex that literally no one can possibly read them. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." - seriously?

The solution is simple: a bill must have a single purpose. Fund X. Buy Y. Subsidize Z. That makes it possible to vote against a bill.

Centrally planned economies have such a great track record. I suppose they do limit climate change in that they're so terribly ineffective that don't produce as much. If the types of jobs that Bernie were proposing were viable, the private sector would already be rushing to provide them. But every job that gets created by some make-work federal program is one job that can't be filled elsewhere and no doubt needs to be supported by all of the other productive jobs that people are willing to pay to support without coercion. If you really want to fight climate change create economic incentive to do so. Give companies tax breaks for lowering energy use or for any inventions which result in less pollution or fewer emissions. Implement a market-based system for pollutants so that inefficient industries and processes are replaced faster, just like we did with sulfur dioxide to reduce acid rain. I think it really says something about how bad Bernie's policies are when the Democrats would rather get behind someone with dementia or some other form of severe cognitive decline.

Nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. I just hope that enough seats flip in Congress to prevent Republicans from obstructing Hillary for the next eight years the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.

Not even the fact he considers failure (i.e bankruptcy) his first option rather than the last will dissuade those who are pissed a black guy is in office, the stock market is at its highest levels ever, all the jobs lost by the last president have been recovered and then some and gas prices are low. All they want to hear are platitudes and bloviating from a white guy who is on his third marriage.