Moody’s Investors Service warned Tuesday that it probably will lower the credit rating on five states ”” including South Carolina ”” if it downgrades the U.S. government’s credit rating.
The credit rating agency said it has placed on review for possible downgrade the triple-A bond ratings of South Carolina, Maryland, New Mexico, Tennessee and Virginia.
A triple-A rating is the highest for debt and tells investors an institutional borrower presents a minimal credit risk.
But, but, but…South Carolina is a conservative Eden, has no fiscal problems whatsoever, and wants nothing to do with “Federal revenues”…
RE: “South Carolina is a conservative Eden, has no fiscal problems whatsoever, and wants nothing to do with “Federal revenues ”
Not true — in fact our legislature is filled with blue-dog big State Republicans who have a similar foundational worldview and values regarding the role of the State, private property, the Constitution, and the free market as Alta Californian.
A real pity.
Hopefully the excellent governor can use the bully pulpit to publicize and shame the actions of so many Republicrats in our legislature, and the rest of us, aware of their adoration of Big State collectivism, can vote them out of office and replace them with actual conservatives.
Hope springs eternal!
I thought I could bait you into stereotyping me again. I’m charmed to discover I’m apparently a moderate Republican now.
Meanwhile, what a charming method of avoiding responsibility for any and all conservative policy failures, just claim that they weren’t conservative enough. Why even when you’re in control of a state at nearly every level you can’t be held responsible. The Democrats try that sort of thing here in California, blaming everything on Republican obstruction. How much more convenient when you can blame your own party for obstruction. One is left to conclude that Republican obstruction is a problem just about everywhere!
Out of curiosity, what Constitutional view do Alta Californian and SC Republicans hold in common?
RE: “How much more convenient when you can blame your own party for obstruction.”
Huh? I’m not a Republican. They’re far more of a failed party than the Democrats. At least the Democrats actually practice the collectivism, big State, and central planning that they purport to believe. The vast majority of Republicans in power do not practice what they purport to believe.
Thankfully, conservatives only have another 15 months before we can attempt to ditch more of those folks.
RE: “I’m charmed . . . ”
Sure — always happy to bring light to a darkened life.
Mitchell, ask Sarah, she knows more about my politics than I do.
I’m looking forward to the conservative experiment that Sarah wishes upon her own state. Perhaps the governor would be willing to make her own job voluntary and cut her own salary to begin with.
I also trust that perhaps SC could get rid of its universities and privatize them. By ensuring there are fewer educated workers, companies won’t have to go to Brazil, but can find plenty of poor workers to whom they don’t need to provide health care. Then, defund medicare. Just don’t pay for it. I’d like to see what happens! Perhaps true conservatives will bear the consequences.
I wish that the Democrats were half as successful as Sarah thinks they are. The “collectivists” (although, I know few people who call themselves that – they’d probably prefer the term, “socialist”) I know are sorely disappointed in the Democratic party. A socialist friend said to me that Obama was definitely not one of them. Remember – our Democrats make the conservatives in France and England seem like socialists. Many bailed out the banks; supported getting rid of Glass-Steagall; and supported NAFTA. If they’re collectivists, they’ve been very ineffective. The current president has just made a huge offer to the GOP that has alienated most of my liberal friends and confirmed to my socialist friends he’s a corporate Republican in a corporate Democrat’s clothing.
There was a time when conservatives had little time for ideology – that was for the marxists. The conservatives knew that character and virtue counted for more than the “rights” of the French Revolution. They understood that compromises were made because people were imperfect and imperfectible; they understood that children and adults were different, and that sometimes children needed to be coerced. They had a reverence for authority, even when they disagreed. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke would find the current definition of conservatism, with it’s mixture of Ayn Rand + the Left Behind Series: profoundly revolutionary, and most likely mistaken.
Alta, although Sarah is careful about what she says, I suggest you’ll find the “no true scotsman” argument interesting (I’m not suggesting you used it on this thread – I found your sentence compelling). It’s common – among both liberals and conservatives. Some use it to how the Obama isn’t a liberal (he is, but one who will negotiate with conservatives) because he’s supported policies no Democrat traditionally would. Some say the same about conservatives (say Lindsay Graham), who is clearly a conservative, but has the misfortune of also being someone who negotiates with the other side, and tries to understand the opponent’s argument.
Clearly some would argue no TRUE conservative would run South Carolina like the Republicans currently do (although I bet most of them would all themselves conservative). A TRUE conservative would run it just like Sarah would. It’s interesting, but one, I suspect, the great conservative Edmund Burke, at least, would find specious if not a dishonoring of the role of legislator. More likely, when a conservative gets elected, they learn that the world isn’t as simple as “Monday morning quarterback” conservatives do, and find they have to make different kinds of choices if they are to care, in any serious way, for their constituents, or for the Palmetto State.