If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Math be damned, S&P downgrades US debt from "Great" to "Meh"   (money.cnn.com) divider line 779
    More: News  
•       •       •

11601 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2011 at 11:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



779 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-06 09:13:15 AM

CanisNoir: karmagirl: If they are earning 80-90% of the wealth, then yes.

So you're idea is there should be no reward for taking a financial risk? Only penalties? That doesn't seem to be an environment that fosters innovation. Instead of dragging risk takers to the guillotine for some good old French like class warfare, we should be attempting to find better ways of increasing revenues.
Ending prohibition would be a nice start.


And penalizing those who are already struggling does foster innovation? There are a lot of middle-class risk-takers out there, but why should they be subsidizing the uber-rich? They are the ones providing the majority of jobs, and if they take a risk that doesn't pan out, they can't recover as well as those billionaires, and may need to decrease their workforce. I fail to see how that helps any of us out.
 
2011-08-06 09:16:06 AM

karmagirl: And penalizing those who are already struggling does foster innovation? There are a lot of middle-class risk-takers out there, but why should they be subsidizing the uber-rich? They are the ones providing the majority of jobs, and if they take a risk that doesn't pan out, they can't recover as well as those billionaires, and may need to decrease their workforce. I fail to see how that helps any of us out.


Okay, excellent points. Let me ask you a serious question. If we had a fair tax (VAT, if you prefer) that was levied on exchange of dollars in sales and not income, would you favor it?
 
2011-08-06 09:20:14 AM

Xetal: I'm so glad that the economic terrorists in the Republican party decided to hold our debt ceiling hostage and refuse to raise revenue.


Don't worry, there is a way to get around the Tea Party not wanting to raise your taxes. You can send a check in on your own and gift the Federal Government money.

If you really believe that revenue is the solution, knock yourself out. Do what you like with your wallet, stay out of mine.

Gifts to the United States (new window)
 
2011-08-06 09:22:08 AM

karmagirl: And penalizing those who are already struggling does foster innovation? There are a lot of middle-class risk-takers out there, but why should they be subsidizing the uber-rich? They are the ones providing the majority of jobs, and if they take a risk that doesn't pan out, they can't recover as well as those billionaires, and may need to decrease their workforce. I fail to see how that helps any of us out.


There is no middle class anymore. If you've noticed the rhetoric, "The Rich" isn't just billionaires, but those people you consider "Middle Class" job creators. I'm fine with a minor hike in Capitol Gains taxes, but again, without *serious* spending cuts, it wont solve the problem and really only exacerbates it because if Government has shown consistency in anything, it's that they can always spend more than they take in. So we get a minor boost to revenues and we find ourselves right back here in a year or two with the same people calling for more taxes. There needs to be some serious reform and shouting "Kill the Rich cuz they be evil for having money when I don't!" isn't the answer.

The "Stimulus" would have been better spent if given to every American who could have then paid their mortgage (money going to the banks anyway) and buying some shait. (Giving producers something to do and retailers something to sell)

But no, we had to give it to campaign donors, you know, the ones who enjoy forking over 40K a plate for a Presidential Birthday dinner, or 70K a plate for a Presidential Non-Birthday dinner.
 
2011-08-06 09:29:33 AM

phenn: robhidalgo: You know, a lot of people act as though raising the debt ceiling every year is something akin to an American birthright - a no-brainer.

Can someone please explain to me - a middle class guy who lives well within my means - why we as a nation SHOULD continue to slide further into debt, and why we SHOULDN'T lose our AAA credit rating as a result? Honest question.

The short answer is we got what we begged for and it was many, many years in the making. Your government stopped advocating your interests a long time ago in favor of what creates financial health for a small group of cynical men we call central bankers.

This is, in my opinion, serfdom at its most naked.


Yes, it's the central bankers' fault.

"The gov needs to pay for birth control"

No problem, vote for me.

"The gov needs to subsidize farms"

No problem, vote for me.

"The auto industry is failing, the gov needs to bail them out"

No problem, vote for me.

"Poor people can't afford houses"

No problem, vote for me.

"The gov needs to rescue and rebuild an entire city"

No problem, vote for me.

"The gov needs to keep sending me checks. I've been out of work for two years"

No problem, vote for me.

"Poor people got screwed on their home loans we need to be subsidized"

No problem, vote for me.

"The house I got for $250,000 on an ARM and no down payment is only worth $75K now."

No problem, vote for me.

"Drugs are destroying our communities"

No problem, vote for me.

"We need more construction projects."

No problem, vote for me.

"We have to save the world from tyranny"

No problem, vote for me.

"We have to lock down the country to stop the evil terrorists"

No problem, vote for me.

"We need hope! We need change!"

No problem, vote for me.

"We have to save the world's climate at any cost!"

No problem, vote for me.

We can toss the Iraq war to the Defense industry. But the rest... you people are some GD needy farkers who expect the gov to do everything for you and you vote for anyone who promises it to you. How do they pay for it? First they raided Social Security for it. When it dried up, they just tacked it on to the debt and enjoyed the free ride you just gave them.
 
2011-08-06 09:35:10 AM

Nocens: Yes, it's the central bankers' fault.


I'm not disputing a word of what you said. Allow me to rephrase.

We, as consumers, voters and citizens have allowed our government to be over-run with inept people who are badly on the take and serve the interests of central banks over the interests of its own citizenry. This is a recipe for disaster. We all know it. We all tolerate it.

The banks don't stand a chance without advocacy from the federal government. The shiat brokers they cycle up every 2 and 4 years are all the same. And they don't work for you.

My only point.
 
2011-08-06 09:38:26 AM

CanisNoir: karmagirl: If they are earning 80-90% of the wealth, then yes.

So you're idea is there should be no reward for taking a financial risk? Only penalties? That doesn't seem to be an environment that fosters innovation. Instead of dragging risk takers to the guillotine for some good old French like class warfare, we should be attempting to find better ways of increasing revenues.
Ending prohibition would be a nice start.


if only they would take risks here and not just ship the money overseas you might have a point. and it's not anything near the percentage you're pushing. they pay and effective rate of about 18% at the most. mostly around 15% in taxes. the bigggest corporations pay zero and in some cases getting money from us. we subsidize the most profitable companies in the world like Exxon Mobil.

so shut up and quit lying.
 
2011-08-06 09:46:10 AM

Hobodeluxe: if only they would take risks here and not just ship the money overseas you might have a point. and it's not anything near the percentage you're pushing. they pay and effective rate of about 18% at the most. mostly around 15% in taxes. the bigggest corporations pay zero and in some cases getting money from us. we subsidize the most profitable companies in the world like Exxon Mobil. General Electric


Two can play the 'partisan' game by throwing up each sides examples.

so shut up and quit lying.

Someone doesn't like their position challenged... who's the intolerant and intransigent ones again? Wait, you *must* be a Teabagger with that attitude.
 
2011-08-06 09:49:29 AM

Bill Frist: Saturn5: So a $2.4 Trillion hike in the debt ceiling wasn't enough? Sounds like there's more to S&P's decision than how much we can borrow. We have to be able to somehow pay it back, too.

Oh, wait. I forgot this is FARK. Damn George W. Bush and his TEA BAG PARTY!! It's all his fault!!

If you actually bothered to read the farking article:

S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."


But diversity of opinion and ideals makes the world great and diversity in a group always leads to the optimal solution for everyone, right?
 
2011-08-06 09:49:50 AM

CanisNoir: Hobodeluxe: if only they would take risks here and not just ship the money overseas you might have a point. and it's not anything near the percentage you're pushing. they pay and effective rate of about 18% at the most. mostly around 15% in taxes. the bigggest corporations pay zero and in some cases getting money from us. we subsidize the most profitable companies in the world like Exxon Mobil. General Electric

Two can play the 'partisan' game by throwing up each sides examples.

so shut up and quit lying.

Someone doesn't like their position challenged... who's the intolerant and intransigent ones again? Wait, you *must* be a Teabagger with that attitude.


STFU, Gato Negro.
 
2011-08-06 09:51:24 AM

Trapper439: STFU, Gato Negro.


DIAF! I was here first - Gato is *MY* alt, not the other way around, retard!

/I don't have any alts, but I *was* here first.
 
2011-08-06 09:54:14 AM
for those not following along, it wasn't just about the debt ceiling, it was about the lack of a credible plan to deal with the out of control debt at a time of an economic slowdown.

Number of Credit Downgrades under various Presidents:

Obama: 1
Bush 2nd Term: 0
Bush 1st Term: 0
Clinton 2nd Term: 0
Clinton 1st Term: 0
Bush: 0
Reagan 2nd Term: 0
Reagan 1st Term: 0
Carter: 0

Obama was right, he is unprecedented and changey.
 
2011-08-06 09:54:23 AM
I actually have to thank the mods for toning it down in here since last night. That was getting a bit freaky.
 
2011-08-06 10:04:03 AM

T-Servo: I actually have to thank the mods for toning it down in here since last night. That was getting a bit freaky.


Freaky is that your post is number 666.

;-)

What did we miss from last night? Keep in mind that most people are cognizant that this hasn't happened before and are a little worried about the outcome for the average consumer.
 
2011-08-06 10:05:22 AM

WhyteRaven74: GreatGlavinsGhost: splain to me how any corporation can decide how valid/worthy America's credit is?

That's actually one of the issues that hasn't been dealt with. S&P isn't the only ratings agency around. And having any one do the rating alone is a bad idea. Furthermore there's the lack of consistency. They give France AAA even though if you go out looking around, the default swaps based on French bonds indicate France is a poorer credit risk than the US is. In other words, what S&P is saying, and what the market thinks, aren't one in the same.


Which is how you know this is a dumb fark political move by craven assholes who are probably playing the other side of the equation so when the pendulum swings back to something more sane, they will profit off their own dishonest rating.

Motherfarkers should go to jail, and then be eaten by wild dingoes.
 
2011-08-06 10:08:42 AM

tenpoundsofcheese:

Number of Credit Downgrades under various Presidents:



wake me when you show how much the debt ceiling was raised during each you traitorous scum.

and until you can tell me why the cost of our wars was off the books throughout the Bush years, don't you dare pretend you give a flying fark about fiscal responsibility, farkwit.
 
2011-08-06 10:09:27 AM

phenn: T-Servo: I actually have to thank the mods for toning it down in here since last night. That was getting a bit freaky.

Freaky is that your post is number 666.

;-)

What did we miss from last night? Keep in mind that most people are cognizant that this hasn't happened before and are a little worried about the outcome for the average consumer.


No kidding, what went on overnight?!?
 
2011-08-06 10:11:03 AM

CanisNoir: make me some tea: Regardless, the point I was making there was that with the rogue Tea Party element present, Congress was unable to compromise on anything reasonable or even workable to solve the problem, and now we all get to suffer. They are NOT a helpful presence. I hope that voters learn something from this by next year.

That is a short sighted analysis. The Tea party freshman came to power on the heels of first, a Republican government that spent too much money, and second, a Democrat government that spent too much money. They ran on pledges to hold firm to spending cuts and not caving. The Democrats had an opportunity to take this entire thing off the table when they were in power, but decided that it was a better 'political' move to avoid passing or even offering up a budget. Once Republicans were in power, the Democrats threatened to shut down the government because the Tea Party freshmen were holding out for spending cuts. The Democrats got the budget they wanted, except for "Those Pesky Bush Tax Cuts". Here again, both sides are playing political foot ball with the economy, but blaming it on 'teabaggers'.

The problem with the whole line of "Pesky Bush Tax Cuts" is that the rhetoric ignores the fact that they were needed when they were originally ushered in (right after 9/11 and we needed the stimulated action) and the over inflated class warfare constantly used to justify letting them expire. "Everyone needs to pay their fair share" - Well the Rich are already paying their fair share in the form of carrying 70% of the tax burden on their backs - at what point would the mob be satisfied? When they're paying 80-90% of the burden?

The situation is not helped by the fact that we're hemorrhaging jobs due to constant calls to raise the cost of doing business in the country (as well as regulatory pushes by the administration which drive small businesses under). Yes, added revenue would help, but letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire would not have *solved* anything, we'd still be downgraded because there aren't enough cuts.

Both sides would help themselves if they A) Talked seriously about cutting spending and B) Came up with better ideas for new revenue that didn't involve financially lynching everyone who took risks and succeeded.

If anything the Tea Party Freshman are the only politicians who have done exactly what they said they would do when they were elected.


Stop making sense. This is Fark
 
2011-08-06 10:13:18 AM

MFAWG: How long before tha balkanization begins? The folks what are paying the bills on the coasts need to drop the dead weight sucking of the federal teat.


It's more red versus blue than coasts vs. the center. Colorado, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nevada are all net contributors.
 
2011-08-06 10:16:16 AM

Xetal: You should read the report before you comment so that you don't look silly.


This should be in the header of every Fark thread concerning an economic analysis.
 
2011-08-06 10:18:03 AM

ravenlore: phenn: T-Servo: I actually have to thank the mods for toning it down in here since last night. That was getting a bit freaky.

Freaky is that your post is number 666.

;-)

What did we miss from last night? Keep in mind that most people are cognizant that this hasn't happened before and are a little worried about the outcome for the average consumer.

No kidding, what went on overnight?!?


Just potentially credible threats of violence. It wasn't like there were any goatse posts or anything.
 
2011-08-06 10:19:50 AM

gameshowhost: Xetal: You should read the report before you comment so that you don't look silly.

This should be in the header of every Fark thread concerning an economic analysis.


Seconded. And it needs to have an industry standard replacement for the "click here if you understand and accept these terms" checkbox.
 
2011-08-06 10:20:53 AM
From the Canadian business newspaper, The Globe and Mail.

You guys HAVE to raise taxes.

img708.imageshack.us
 
2011-08-06 10:24:10 AM
Punch a tea bagger - punch a tea bagger - punch a tea bagger today
Oh what fun it is to punch
a tea bagger in their face
 
2011-08-06 10:28:01 AM

T-Servo: Just potentially credible threats of violence. It wasn't like there were any goatse posts or anything.


That's farking horrible. I'm going to invoke the George Carlin doctrine here. They keep us hating one another whilst the elite keep farking us over.

Why has no one considered this nugget of wisdom on Fark?
 
2011-08-06 10:29:07 AM
What's weird is I just got home from driving down Hwy 401 North (Toronto to Barrie) and it seemed like every 3rd vehicle was American. Mostly trucks towing boats and cars full of camping equipment...and people. It was a tad unnerving. I've never seen so many American vehicles this far north. I can see it around Niagara Falls St. Catherine's, or Windsor...I wonder if were seeing the beginning of an exodus. I can imagine how the people in Texas-Arizona feel when they see car loads of Mexicans streaming north.
 
2011-08-06 10:31:07 AM
There was a political strategist on CNN last night that spun this as a great opportunity for someone (Dem, Rep, or Tea) to stand up and be a leader for the country rather than their party. So rather than point fingers and blame and scream that he/she would take the bull by the horns and fix this shiat.

It's so sad that we don't have any of those people in Washington.
 
2011-08-06 10:32:36 AM

relcec: HeartBurnKid: relcec: Pumpernickel bread: HeartBurnKid: FishInABowl: make me some tea: Not surprising.

So can we safely say now that "Teabagger" is the appropriate term for these assholes who farked this up?

Probably stumbling into troll bait but the criticisms of S&P, and the reason for the downgrade, is that the deficit deal didn't do enough to address entitlements, which is exactly what the tea party was trying to reform. Democrats blocked those changes.

That was only part of it. The rest was that we did not address revenue generation and the sheer difficulty of getting the debt ceiling raised.

In other words, still mostly the Republicans.

And they're already gearing up the attack ads against Obama for offering Social Security and Medicare cuts at all. That should tell you just how serious they were in the first place. All they really wanted was political ammo, one way or another.

Exactly, and S&P explicitly stated that in their downgrade. I spent most of my life as a Republican, but I can't help but think this is what the fringe right wanted all along, because in the end, they know the president will ultimately be blamed for this and I think a lot of them would rather see the country burn to the ground than see a black man succeed as POTUS.

not sure how you can blame the teabaggers for revenue generation. it was in the democrats hands last year. we had the same dire predictions of massive deficits for for the rest of the decade. the same doubling of the naitonal debt was predicited then as is now.
the democrats could simply let the tax cuts expire like they had been promising forever. there was literally nothing that the republicans could have done, nothing to even be filibustered.
that was the whole point of having those sunset provisions in those reconciliations bills.

but obama promised he would cut taxes for 98% of Americans or at least not raise them (jeez, just the whole farking country about, how are we ever going to get revenue generation when 98% of everyone in america can't be touched?), so we got tax cuts, again, after democrats spent a solid farking decade biatching about them. so the democrats had that revenue generation in their hands. the hated bush tax cuts you should never pass during 2, sorry, 3 wars now. and they passed them again, to get reelected. so sorry if I'm not gonna blame this all on the baggers.

So, who has been screaming "TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!" for the last 2-3 years now? Who just threatened to send the country into default rather than approve a plan that included revenue generation?

Extending the Bush tax cuts was a bad move, no doubt, but it's a mote in the Democrats' eye compared to the plank in the Tea Party's.

what do you mean? the tax cuts are all you've been talking about for a decade.
you said that fighting 3 wars while cutting taxes was suicide.
you said it over and over and over. you said it so many times you probably made yourself sick. I believed you.
the tax cuts were worth like 370 billion a year. a huge chunk of change.
something the market would really give a shiat about. we knew this boomer implosion was coming. we saw the economy deteriorating in 2007 before our eyes. we new the long term outlook was over 10 trillion in new debt over a decade. something that would make us long for the days of GWB's quaint spending spree.

but then when you finally got the white house it changed all of a sudden to NO NEW TAXES ON OF AMERICANS. and you cheered it on. you said taxed enough already obama! I know you can just veto the thing but do what you need to do politically, I need the tax break! we don't give a f*ck about the wars or deficit. disregard everything we said for the last decade!!! f*ck it all. it was all a lie!

that ain't no mote in the old eye. that's an asteroid on the head.


Wow, how insightful of you. You're right, every time I criticized Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts, I was really saying "TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY! GOBAMA GOBAMA GO!" And every time I criticized him for pushing for the Patriot Act extension, I was really saying "YES! TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM! PISS ON MY FACE! I WORSHIP YOU, MY MESSIAH!"

Give me a farking break. I will never claim to be a fan of everything Obama's fan, but if the alternative is the Tea Party, the complete idiots who try to push the country into default as they claim to be "fiscally responsible", I know who gets my vote.
 
2011-08-06 10:32:46 AM

gaslight: From the Canadian business newspaper, The Globe and Mail.

You guys HAVE to raise taxes.


I disagree. I think we HAVE to stop slaughtering people in other nations, reign in other contractor spending and impose a fairer system of taxation.
 
2011-08-06 10:32:51 AM

phenn: T-Servo: Just potentially credible threats of violence. It wasn't like there were any goatse posts or anything.

That's farking horrible. I'm going to invoke the George Carlin doctrine here. They keep us hating one another whilst the elite keep farking us over.

Why has no one considered this nugget of wisdom on Fark?


Because when people are in a panic they rely on emotion rather than logic.
 
2011-08-06 10:32:52 AM

phenn: They keep us hating one another whilst the elite keep farking us over.


Well, that was sort of my take on it. S&P, as someone mentioned above, is owned by McGraw Hill. The McGraw's have a long history with the Bush family, and the current head was drinking buds with GW in biz school.

This is a slap at the Tea Party, a blow to the White House, while the McGraws and Bushes probably shorted T-bills and are doing just fine, thank you. But the rest of you just fight amongst yourselves.
 
2011-08-06 10:33:38 AM

indarwinsshadow: I wonder if were seeing the beginning of an exodus. I can imagine how the people in Texas-Arizona feel when they see car loads of Mexicans streaming north.


sad thing is, those Mexicans are all streaming back south now. We've finally managed to solve our illegal immigration problem by making the odds of making a better life for your family be found in Mexico rather than here in America.
 
2011-08-06 10:34:22 AM

phenn: make me some tea: I was buzzed on bourbon when I said that, so it was a bit hyperbolic, sorry.

Regardless, the point I was making there was that with the rogue Tea Party element present, Congress was unable to compromise on anything reasonable or even workable to solve the problem, and now we all get to suffer. They are NOT a helpful presence. I hope that voters learn something from this by next year.

/haven't yet read the thread

Fair enough.

Here is my take: They consider themselves under a directive (by the people who voted for them) to change the rep/dem status quo. That itself is not the worst thing in the world. I believe the whole of the legislative body has acted rather poorly throughout.

I also said a couple of weeks ago, that the debt ceiling legislation would go fever-pitch and to the 11th hour so that line-item legislation could be passed that no intelligent lawmaker would ever sign otherwise. That, I feel, happened with the enactment of this super congress horse shiat.

History is an excellent early warning system. When you outspend what you have or can possibly hope to repay, you suffer consequences. The tea people didn't create those circumstances. Irritated the wound, perhaps.

This mess absolutely belongs to *everyone* in Washington. Including the President who Conyers reported was the only one calling for cuts to vital entitlement programs. There is a mobile-phone video of that on YouTube.

The whole farking thing is a disgrace. My 25-year old kid has a better grip on living a financially responsible life than anyone in DC.

Today, I wake up to hear 31 US soldiers are dead in Afghanistan. 10 years into this trillion dollar a year BS shiathouse mess and no end in sight.

I do believe we have a government that has either lost its way or its collective mind. And, I blame them *all*.


Oh yes, absolutely the Tea Party congressman heroically prosecuted their mandate given to them by their voters, that's not in question here. Individually I hold no congressman responsible here. The failure is upon the body of Congress itself to craft credible legislation, and by S&P's own words, that's the reasoning they've used to justify a loss of confidence. My take is that without the extremist-mandated folks we would've likely had much more credible policy passed.

The rise of all this extremist rhetoric the last few years is finally bearing fruit--and it's every bit as rotten as I thought it would be.
 
2011-08-06 10:34:44 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: for those not following along, it wasn't just about the debt ceiling, it was about the lack of a credible plan to deal with the out of control debt at a time of an economic slowdown.


So who shot down Obama's plan that would have addressed the out-of-control debt with a combination of spending cuts and revenue generation? Which is exactly what S&P wanted to see?
 
2011-08-06 10:35:01 AM

Slappajo: There was a political strategist on CNN last night that spun this as a great opportunity for someone (Dem, Rep, or Tea) to stand up and be a leader for the country rather than their party. So rather than point fingers and blame and scream that he/she would take the bull by the horns and fix this shiat.

It's so sad that we don't have any of those people in Washington.


Don't you believe it! We do have good people. Tons of them. They just aren't reps or dems, so they get deflated by the bleach-blonde idjuts on FOX and CNN. Look a little deeper. They exist.
 
2011-08-06 10:35:02 AM

Bfett20: Nuup: Any predictions on the markets Monday?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 364x227]

Pain.


Pain is progressive economics leaving the body politic.
 
2011-08-06 10:46:14 AM

Meatwad42: I still can't decide if Teabaggers are that stupid or just that destructive.

I suppose it could be both.


Thank you Tea Party. You won. America lost. Republican policies caused the First Great Depression. Here comes the Second. Bushed!
 
2011-08-06 10:49:56 AM

make me some tea: Oh yes, absolutely the Tea Party congressman heroically prosecuted their mandate given to them by their voters, that's not in question here. Individually I hold no congressman responsible here. The failure is upon the body of Congress itself to craft credible legislation, and by S&P's own words, that's the reasoning they've used to justify a loss of confidence. My take is that without the extremist-mandated folks we would've likely had much more credible policy passed.

The rise of all this extremist rhetoric the last few years is finally bearing fruit--and it's every bit as rotten as I thought it would be.


Politely, here: I don't think freshmen legislators wield as much power as we're being told.

Look, our 'servant' government is answering the call of corporate interests (particularly military contractors), destroying innocent human life overseas, passing ridiculous legislation that favors mega corporations and banks (look at the trucking laws coming into effect next year), strangling out our middle class and small business interests.

This is farking fascism, mang.

If these freshmen farks thought they could wrangle the process down for a year or two, God bless them. They were completely wrong. But, I admire pluck. So do you, I reckon.

It's over. It's farking over. We've have spent beyond any reasonable hope of reestablishment of prosperity. Social entitlement is really the least of our worries at this stage.

Until and unless we rethink the role of government, we will be caught in this downward spiral.
 
2011-08-06 10:50:55 AM
i.imgur.com
I think it's forbidden to suck on your Boehner like that.
 
2011-08-06 10:51:25 AM

robhidalgo: You know, a lot of people act as though raising the debt ceiling every year is something akin to an American birthright - a no-brainer.

Can someone please explain to me - a middle class guy who lives well within my means - why we as a nation SHOULD continue to slide further into debt, and why we SHOULDN'T lose our AAA credit rating as a result? Honest question.


Well, raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as borrowing money. We do borrow a lot of money, though, and both parties seem to agree that we need to do less of that. But the downgrade didn't occur because we raised the debt ceiling, it occurred because we almost didn't, or, rather, because a group in Congress threatened that we wouldn't if they didn't get their way.
 
2011-08-06 10:56:22 AM

Fark It: Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world: I can always count on the Fark crowd for my diurnal dose of "TEA PARTY EXTREMIST" rants and other bs.

The Tea Party wants the government to have a game plan to repay the debt the previous politicians accrued and oppose raising the credit limit. I'd love to hear the fiscal prudence plan that of all you morons would propose, other than just simply throwing more money at the government.

The Tea Party has kept defense cuts and revenue increases off the table. The plan that was passed was "98% of what Boehner wanted."

The Tea Party owns this fark-up.


#1 - that 100% did not answer my question, unless your whole debt resolution plan is to raise taxes and demolish the military.
#2 - why should the American people pay more taxes during a recession?
#3 - you're wrong about the defense cuts, the Tea Party wants to cut government spending across the board ... including social security and other entitlements that baby boomers feel they deserve.

I can't believe that this nation is full of adults that don't see a problem with granting permission to the government to borrow more money when they've consistently shown that all they will do is piss it away. You guys can blame the Tea Party all you want, but I think you all are just showing your ass.
 
2011-08-06 10:58:13 AM

phenn: gaslight: From the Canadian business newspaper, The Globe and Mail.

You guys HAVE to raise taxes.

I disagree. I think we HAVE to stop slaughtering people in other nations, reign in other contractor spending and impose a fairer system of taxation.


Well, and, I mean, call it what you will, we need to increase revenues. He said "raise taxes" and you said "impose a fairer system of taxation." What it'll mostly come down to is closing loopholes, I think, because that's a lot closer to something that both parties can agree on. But revenues will need to increase.

But that's only if our goal is a balanced government budget, and I still don't quite get how that became our goal. We were all worried about job creation and unemployment, and the recession, now all of a sudden we're worried about the government having money.
 
2011-08-06 10:59:54 AM

SouthParkCon: optikeye: make me some tea: So can we safely say now that "Teabagger" is the appropriate term for these assholes who farked this up?

Trust is the major thing..with the freshman teabaggers in congress. That trust is gone on the global markets.
there's no security in the USA anymore that we will do the 'right thing' to stop a meltdown. As the TBers want a melt down to take down the black guy..at any cost.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 460x475]

We can smell our own.....


On a quick scroll through the thread, i thought that pic was satire of a random poster's paranoia about the jooz. Works just as well on trolls though. I may have to steal that...
 
2011-08-06 11:02:58 AM

Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world:

I can't believe that this nation is full of adults that don't see a problem with granting permission to the government to borrow more money when they've consistently shown that all they will do is piss it away. You guys can blame the Tea Party all you want, but I think you all are just showing your ass.


Because they're already obligated to pay that money. Do you believe that people or nations shouldn't pay their debts? This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what just occurred and it's one that either comes naturally to conservatively minded people or one that was deliberately engendered by the GOP, because I've seen it a lot. If you have too much debt you do indeed need to work out a way to spend less. But what you don't do is start yelling about how you aren't going to pay the debts you already have.
 
2011-08-06 11:03:52 AM

T-Servo: ravenlore: phenn: T-Servo: I actually have to thank the mods for toning it down in here since last night. That was getting a bit freaky.

Freaky is that your post is number 666.

;-)

What did we miss from last night? Keep in mind that most people are cognizant that this hasn't happened before and are a little worried about the outcome for the average consumer.

No kidding, what went on overnight?!?

Just potentially credible threats of violence. It wasn't like there were any goatse posts or anything.


Against whom? Fellow Farkers? S&P? Teabaggers?
 
2011-08-06 11:05:09 AM

andrew131: bluehubcap: Are you usually so offensive, or is tonight a special occasion?

I wasn't attacking you, merely responding to your statement (which I found obnoxiously stated, but I digress). If you don't like people disagreeing with or opining on your comments, then don't post them. M'kay?

It's offensive to ask people to look up the definition of "investment grade"? I'm asking you to educate yourself before you start questioning other people.

Investment grade doesn't mean what you think it means hence the link. So again, I suggest you look it up. While there are some funds that invest in AAA only you need to realize that the S&P isn't the only US ratings agency. As it has already been stated, the other two, Moodys and Fitch, hold-fast the US rating at their top levels.

Obnoxious or not, your disagreement is invalid until you understand the actual facts of the current situation.


Some institutional investors HAVE TO have a percentage of their investments be AAA rating only. That's what I was saying. I understand most investors would consider AA "investment grade", but there's a chunk of important ones, like banks, insurance companies and mutual funds that will have to dump their US debt investments. HAVE TO. As in legally they must. I understand the argument I was making. Do you?
 
2011-08-06 11:07:23 AM

Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world: I can't believe that this nation is full of adults that don't see a problem with granting permission to the government to borrow more money when they've consistently shown that all they will do is piss it away.


You mean like on 2 wars that don't do shiat for us? You mean like on a $400,000,000,000 giveaway to drug companies that takes money out of the pockets of old people?

So are you a gullible sap, or someone who simply hates America so much you'd rather see us fail?

It's simply amazing how many people trumpet "fiscal responsibility" only when a Democrat is in office. I still can't tell if they are all dumb as farking rocks or simply traitorous scum.
 
2011-08-06 11:07:37 AM

ravenlore: Against whom? Fellow Farkers? S&P? Teabaggers?


Hey, first rule of Fight Club, or something like that.
 
2011-08-06 11:10:04 AM

ravenlore: T-Servo: ravenlore: phenn: T-Servo: I actually have to thank the mods for toning it down in here since last night. That was getting a bit freaky.

Freaky is that your post is number 666.

;-)

What did we miss from last night? Keep in mind that most people are cognizant that this hasn't happened before and are a little worried about the outcome for the average consumer.

No kidding, what went on overnight?!?

Just potentially credible threats of violence. It wasn't like there were any goatse posts or anything.

Against whom? Fellow Farkers? S&P? Teabaggers?


I was there for that goatse thing! Man, one of my proudest moments as a Farker. "This website used to be cool."
 
2011-08-06 11:12:22 AM

Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world: Fark It: Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world: I can always count on the Fark crowd for my diurnal dose of "TEA PARTY EXTREMIST" rants and other bs.

The Tea Party wants the government to have a game plan to repay the debt the previous politicians accrued and oppose raising the credit limit. I'd love to hear the fiscal prudence plan that of all you morons would propose, other than just simply throwing more money at the government.

The Tea Party has kept defense cuts and revenue increases off the table. The plan that was passed was "98% of what Boehner wanted."

The Tea Party owns this fark-up.

#1 - that 100% did not answer my question, unless your whole debt resolution plan is to raise taxes and demolish the military.
#2 - why should the American people pay more taxes during a recession?
#3 - you're wrong about the defense cuts, the Tea Party wants to cut government spending across the board ... including social security and other entitlements that baby boomers feel they deserve.

I can't believe that this nation is full of adults that don't see a problem with granting permission to the government to borrow more money when they've consistently shown that all they will do is piss it away. You guys can blame the Tea Party all you want, but I think you all are just showing your ass.


How are Boehner, Cantor and McConnell not terrorists and traitors?

They held Congress, America and the President of the United States of America hostage. They used fear and intimidation to further their own personal goals and seem hell-bent on destroying what once made America the land of opportunity. For the people, by the people. Not for the rich, by the rich at any cost.

If this were a truly just and fair nation these people would be facing a firing squad. I have never been more ashamed to be an American than I have the past two months.

GOP scored another victory in its war to destroy US economy.
 
Displayed 50 of 779 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report