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.

(Marketwatch)   US Credit rating downgraded to Redneck Lottery Winner   (marketwatch.com) divider line 203
    More: Asinine, Redneck Lottery Winner, Egan-Jones, U.S., Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers  
•       •       •

13983 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Sep 2012 at 8:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 11:20:50 PM  

super_grass: Fed Audit Confirms Govt. Corruption In Solyndra Deal

Also America already spends a huge amount of money to help push American solar energy and manufacturing products overseas. It's a little thing called Corn Subsidies, have you heard of it?



There are many things I'd never learn if I didn't come to Fark.
 
2012-09-14 11:23:38 PM  
Decorn.
 
2012-09-14 11:32:19 PM  
Courtesy of williambanzai7 over at Zero Hedge

farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-14 11:37:53 PM  
Has anyone pointed out that Obama doesn't control the Fed? It's not a government agency.
 
2012-09-14 11:43:04 PM  

smitty04:

Too many people were getting houses they could not afford.


That was part of it. The other was that Wall Street found a way to get that risk off the lenders' books almost immediately, and to fraudulently sell the loans as investment grade. That took collusion from ratings agencies, and an incredible lack of oversight by federal regulators.

Not only did the executive branch look the other way while CDOs were cooked up, they failed to regulate the derivatives market. So for every dollar in mortgage debt, there was anywhere from $5-$10 in derivative - we'll never know how much, because derivative don't have a central clearinghouse of any time.

Put another way, someone puts 2% down on a home loan. That loan gets bet in in the derivatives market, and you can place a bet without owning the underlying security. Say it gets leveraged by a factor of 5. Now you have money sloshing around the stock market that is on margin with effectively 0.4% actual cash backing.

Doesn't take much to start a sell-off that turns in to a death spiral.

The government was pressuring mortgage companies to loan money to unqualified people.

Nope, complete myth. First, do you notice a similar housing crash in other countries - Ireland, Spain, etc?

You are probably thinking of the Community Reinvestment Act. Its used as a sort of dog whistle, to suggest that black people or poor people were getting mortgages, with banks forced by the government to lend the money.

Which is ridiculous. Subprime mortgages in their entirely were not enough to create this economic bomb. And it wasn't poor people flipping all of those houses and condos in the 'burbs.

All the CRA did was say that if you denied a loan, you needed a reason. You couldn't redline entire neighborhoods.

That many "banks" handed out no-doc liar's loans was not the government's doing. Banks chose to have poor underwriting standards. More regulation of that is a good idea, but the government didn't force them to do anything. It just didn't stop them.

Further, most of those loans didn't come from banks, as in something regulated as a bank. Most were from places like Countrywide - which took no deposits and therefore wasn't considered a bank. They just wrote anyone with a pulse a mortgage, bundled it in to a CDO, and sold it off.
 
2012-09-14 11:51:32 PM  

fusillade762: Has anyone pointed out that Obama doesn't control the Fed? It's not a government agency.


Let's not confuse anyone with the facts...

rense.com
 
2012-09-14 11:58:32 PM  

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: Related?


Since the yuan is pegged to the dollar anyway, doesn't that make oil in China still on the dollar, just now with an extra conversion step?
 
2012-09-15 12:02:18 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Oh hello America, my finance minister told me I should give a speech. Admittedly I was a bit surprised but here we are. Look don't worry too much, we won't change too much. I know we have the money now and can do a lot of stuff but you're cool. Let's just get some of the small business out of the way ok?

1.) hockey: Make it happen, this Bettman and Fehr thing? not cool, but we'll make sure you get up to speed.

2.) poutine: learn, it love it, eat it

3.) football: Good news, it's a growth opportunity. The NFL will be put on hold for a year as stadiums prepare to play on a proper 110 yard long 65 yard wide field with 20 yard deep endzones. Also only 3 downs and hello job creation... 12 players a side.

4.) dollar bills? gone.


We will have more later but you know what you should do for your new Canadian job creators...
 
2012-09-15 12:06:44 AM  
If they are lowering the rating on fears it could "hurt the economy" then they are "morons". A credit rating is supposed to mean one thing and one thing only: How likely is it the entity (person/company/nation/whatever) will be able to repay their debt in a given time frame? That's it. Same deal with your FICO score. The only thing it assesses is how likely you are to be able to repay debt.

Now that's a pretty useful thing to know, if you are considering investing. You want to know what the likelihood of you losing your investment is to decide if the risk is worth the reward. Hence why credit ratings are so common.

So if they are basing their rating on anything else, then what they are saying is "we are too stupid to know what this is for." It isn't a measure to say how much you like a decision, or if you think it is overall good for the economy, only if you think it hurts repayment chances.

This doesn't, in fact it makes them better. Low interest is easier for the government to pay. When it can borrow cheaply, and boy can they right now, it is't nearly as big a deal to pay off. Now the amount of borrowing the government does is another matter. However that's not what they are talking about.
 
2012-09-15 12:23:14 AM  
Oh, it will raise GDP all right.. but only because the dollar is worth less.

Pardon me while I don't get excited that the Dow is getting up there back to where it was, while a Big Mac meal costs 50% more than before.
 
2012-09-15 12:27:49 AM  
wait, wait, Eagan Jones knows more about what is going to harm the economy than the fed? Im thiking they might not have the whole picture.
 
2012-09-15 12:28:47 AM  

Linkster: whidbey: Linkster: Paper will always be paper. Money, digital money is gone when the lights go out. Material is wealth. Having something to sell that is needed, is wealth. Water, gold, silver, food. fuel, etc.

So labor and production don't count for anything anymore unless you have some stupid precious metal to back it up?

Where has labor gotten you?


It's gotten me a fair paycheck now and then.

Labor, however, is responsible for 15 trillion dollar GDP here in the US.
That's nothing to sneeze at. It's way more valuable than gold.
 
2012-09-15 12:29:54 AM  

MisterRonbo: All the CRA did was say that if you denied a loan, you needed a reason. You couldn't redline entire neighborhoods.

That many "banks" handed out no-doc liar's loans was not the government's doing. Banks chose to have poor underwriting standards. More regulation of that is a good idea, but the government didn't force them to do anything. It just didn't stop them.

Further, most of those loans didn't come from banks, as in something regulated as a bank. Most were from places like Countrywide - which took no deposits and therefore wasn't considered a bank. They just wrote anyone with a pulse a mortgage, bundled it in to a CDO, and sold it off.


They were bundled into mortgage-backed securities and SOLD TO FREDDIE AND FANNIE, who were GUARANTEED BY THE GOVERNMENT. That's why taxpayers are still on the hook for trillions right now.

And Barney Frank, while he was franking a Fannie executive, protected this situation because it encouraged lenders to lend to people in poor neghborhoods to whom no lwender in his right mind would lend money. In other words, Barney and other Congressional Democrats contributed a piece ofthe puzzle the fueled an inflated housing market, because government guarantees eliminated risk.
 
2012-09-15 12:30:42 AM  

oldernell: OK. So where else would you put your money. Recommendations, please.


If the US government defaults, your money is worthless anyway. So is everyone elses.

but on the bright side, its not really all that ... whats the word...possible, so this move is politically motivated.

carry on.
 
2012-09-15 12:34:46 AM  

sew_buttons: What does this mean exactly?

Will China will tighten up the purse strings or something?


China owns a suprisingly small amount of our debt.

Even if this ratings agency WERE legit, and not under investigation by the same government it just downgraded, the US government does not need credit ratings to borrow money. Its not Bob's bait and tackle financing a giant fish sign, and its not you buying a car.

People loan money to the US because that is the safest place on earth to put it. Since our original debt ratings reduction, the price we pay for credit has gone DOWN. no one pays attention to this.
 
2012-09-15 12:44:10 AM  
The ground shakes, drums... drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out... they are coming.
 
2012-09-15 12:47:57 AM  

Ruiizu: The ground shakes, drums... drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out... they are coming.


*thump*

*thump*

*thump*
 
2012-09-15 12:56:24 AM  
'Quantitative Sleazing' would be a cool fark handle.
 
2012-09-15 12:59:24 AM  

illannoyin: 'Quantitative Sleazing' would be a cool fark handle.


That's what the Fed just did.
 
2012-09-15 01:08:07 AM  
Credit rating outfit no one has heard of downgrades rating of country everyone is still basically taking a loss so country will take their money.

Clearly a terrible thing.
 
2012-09-15 01:14:33 AM  

smitty04: bunner: Jimmysolson: If I recall the Democrats were in control of "everything" at that particular time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong!

You are wrong. The same greedy bastards that both parties suck off on a regular basis, were. Would you like a nice campaign button to go with your kool aid?

The Community Reinvestment Act that helped to fuel the mortgage meltdown. What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.

In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make.


Which would have worked just fine. The banks might have lost a little money on those, but they were making piles of money off the low Prime rate, so they still would have done well. In fact, they should have ended up making more money- more subprime loans means more demand for housing, and higher market values (fewer homeless, fewer abandoned homes), so the rising tide should have lifted all boats.

However, the banks then bundled these semi-toxic loans in with regular prime loans, and then they and the ratings agencies lied like a rug and claimed they were all prime. They got a AAA rating when they should have been a B, and when they failed the market collapsed because nobody could figure out which bundles were honest. If one bank had done this, that one bank would have made boatloads of money. When they all did it, they crashed the market and killed the reinsurer. It wasn't the fault of anyone but the banks and the ratings agencies.

Which does beg the question...why aren't those people in jail?
 
2012-09-15 01:45:04 AM  
These guys are correct with their credit downgrade, and you can expect other agencies to follow soon I bet. First of all, think through what happens with QE3, It's VERY important to understand that the Fed had no urge to do this, especially in the middle of the presidential campaigns. They had to do it, and that fact is a really important indicator that Ben is about out of bullets. Europe is a true train wreck, and it matters. China's about done as well. The politicians are running around in DC trying to (or not) band aid a sucking economic chest wound.

The whole 2008 economic crisis is starting to collapse back inwards (it never really went anywhere, to be sure). QE3 happened because QE1 and 2 failed to work. The whole idea was to allow the Fed to force liquidity (money for borrowers .. ostensibly) into the markets to lubricate the economy. QE is the theory of doing this by injecting raw deflation, literally printing mountains of money. Rich people don't normally like uncontrolled QE, but because of the circumstances that led to this particular depression they (wall street in particular) have turned the deflation concept into a kind of circular money fishing net where a very small number of people (the 1% as it were) catch all those new money fish by borrowing said funds at .9% interest (or lower) and then loaning it out to people like.. well you and me.. for 25%. This effectively gives the banks (prime lenders) free money to pump back into the economy by engaging in rampant usury of the public, and from this sweetheart Fed deal they have both created a nation of debt slaves and directly unbalanced the fundamental principles of both American democracy and society. Their cunning plan has a flaw however, they are running out of suckers. The big secret is that the 1% can't sustain themselves, and they know it. Unfortunately they are also apparently mostly sociopaths, and will ride the burning wreckage all the way to the bottom for as long as it keeps them in hookers and cocaine.

The banks will turn record profits again out of QE3 until it all collapses. For all the stock market new record high score hype, traffic/volume is really a mere trickle of what it used to be, particularly from individual investors. It's flat out smoke and mirrors. Nobody trusts the markets anymore, and won't until people start going to jail for their crimes. When justice breaks down, society will inevitably follow. There's a general sense in the population that something is truly, fundamentally farked up with our national values, and that perhaps the American dream is a myth.. and maybe always was. Crime is rising, and it's the kind of weird and violent crime that doesn't make any sense to rational minds. People out of work for years are starting to lose it, and I fear that it's a trend likely to start snowballing as the value of what little money folks have left becomes worthless. The most dangerous person alive is a man with nothing left to lose, and as soon as the banks own everything, or just inflate the value of everything, to the point where the illusion of equality completely dissolves, the raw mathematical truths of our current economic situation will become glaringly obvious to even the dumbest of us.

There is no easy way of this mess, and its particularly heartbreaking seeing such a large part of a country founded on the ideals of liberty and personal freedom converted into raving ideological lunatics. Normally smart people have visceral opinions about gay marriage, but choose to ignore the banking crisis? It's like some kind of madness brought on by having to deal with the constant overload of information in the modern world, I think. With enough hate and fear based talking points, I guess some people can hide from reality in the inane minutiae.

They say the great depression really started around 1927 but nobody really admitted it until 1930, and I have to wonder if maybe we're now seeing our own "And the band played on" moment while the ship sinks. It has to end, and soon.
 
2012-09-15 01:49:08 AM  

oldernell: OK. So where else would you put your money. Recommendations, please.


Personally I am busy cornering the frozen concentrated orange-juice futures market.
 
2012-09-15 01:58:19 AM  

foxyshadis: Ayn Rand's Social Worker: Related?

Since the yuan is pegged to the dollar anyway, doesn't that make oil in China still on the dollar, just now with an extra conversion step?


Would be true if the Chinese let their dollar float with market forces - alas the Yuan is kept artificially low so that Chinese exports are cheaper for us to buy (but don't worry, once all major production has been moved from the rest of the world into China, you can bet your last (pretty much) worthless Dollar that they will jack up the price).
 
2012-09-15 02:01:23 AM  

Animatronik:

They [mortgages] were bundled into mortgage-backed securities and SOLD TO FREDDIE AND FANNIE, who were GUARANTEED BY THE GOVERNMENT. That's why taxpayers are still on the hook for trillions right now.


Wrong.

"In addition to buying loans directly, Fannie and Freddie also purchased mortgage-backed securities produced by Wall Street. From 2002 to 2007, Wall Street produced more than $3 trillion in securities backed by subprime mortgages and so-called Alt-A mortgages, another class of risky home loans. During that time, Fannie and Freddie purchased 23 percent of Wall Street securities underpinned by subprime and Alt-A loans, according to Inside Mortgage Finance."

(Research by the Center for Public Integrity)

And Barney Frank, while he was franking a Fannie executive, protected this situation because it encouraged lenders to lend to people in poor neghborhoods to whom no lwender in his right mind would lend money. In other words, Barney and other Congressional Democrats contributed a piece ofthe puzzle the fueled an inflated housing market, because government guarantees eliminated risk.

Fannie and Freddie's market share plunged through 2006 (when the housing market turned) as Wall Street's bubble machine went into high gear. It was a bit player in the riskiest loans. Just 5 percent of its loans were subprime. Wall Street's percentage was 500 percent higher.

Read any reputable economist on this, or a well researched book. Economists broadly agree that Fannie and Freddie contributed to the housing bubble, and the housing bubble was a neccesary pre-condition to the crash that occurred. But the main drivers of both were Wall Street.

And sub-prime mortgages were more of a trigger than a cause, as the housing bubble was based on wildly inflated values and an expectation it would go up forever. Most of the loans for those properties were not sub-prime.
 
2012-09-15 02:06:01 AM  
Bitcoin is immune to inflation.
 
2012-09-15 02:07:59 AM  
Of course, a resource based economy would be ideal, as it's purpose would be to serve human society, and not the few private individuals that manipulate the monetary system.
 
2012-09-15 02:38:13 AM  
Every time people start bringing up the oil discussions, I start thinking I should invest in horses... When we can't drive our cars anymore, they'll be worth a fortune :P
 
2012-09-15 02:43:32 AM  

bunner: Jimmysolson: There ya go being all insulting and stuff. Does the party pay you to troll here, or are you working for free?

I note that the entire two party system is a joke, and not only am I trolling, but I'm a paid shill troll for one of those parties? Ooooooookey dokey.


There are no Democrats or Republicans in Congress, or the Senate, or the White House for that matter.

One giant circle jerk between Congress, The Fed, and the Presidency, and next year will be no different.
 
2012-09-15 02:56:15 AM  

oldernell: OK. So where else would you put your money. Recommendations, please.


Canned food and shotguns.
 
2012-09-15 03:35:50 AM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-15 08:32:07 AM  

Mugato: Thanks, republicans.


Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.
 
2012-09-15 02:11:16 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.


Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

You sound stupid spewing Fox News talking points.
 
2012-09-15 03:01:52 PM  
Don't like the $US? Short it with the PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Bearish Fund (US:UDN).

If it looks like Obama is going to be re-elected, you bet your ass I will.
 
2012-09-15 04:56:48 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?


Um, you might want to make posts that don't make you sound like a shameless bootlicker for the "Grand" Oldparty, just a tip.
 
2012-09-15 08:06:26 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.

Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

You sound stupid spewing Fox News talking points.


We are supposed to have a debt ceiling for a reason. Why do you that is?
 
2012-09-15 08:12:00 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.

Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

You sound stupid spewing Fox News talking points.


You sound dumber than that. The credit downgrade was about our poor fiscal policy, including cutting deficit spending. If you wish to spout more, here's food for thought from S&P (from USA Today):

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."
"We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

In their view we need to cut $4 trillion over ten years, a little under $50 billion more than Obama and Bush has spent each year ($3.58 trillion and $3.52 trillion respectively). Even if you eliminate the defense spending entirely ($1.735 trillion), Where's the other $2.265 trillion going to come from?
 
2012-09-15 08:31:19 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

The USA has not always had high debt. The USA carried almost no long term debt, until post WWII when the federal government decided to stop paying off the war bonds quickly and take an intervetionist role in the national economy with the hope of creating perpetual growth. They only reason that canard has lasted so long is unceasing borrowing.
 
2012-09-15 09:30:20 PM  
As long as we keep arguing about blame and fault like a pack of gossip fence fishwives and don't address the underlying causes, America is safe.
 
Ehh
2012-09-15 09:35:19 PM  
Well, there's always Drunk Redneck Lottery Winner and Only Drunk Redneck Lottery Winner Left in the Bar at 2 a.m., and so on.
 
2012-09-15 10:09:51 PM  

RedVentrue: PC LOAD LETTER: People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.

Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

You sound stupid spewing Fox News talking points.

We are supposed to have a debt ceiling for a reason. Why do you that is?


Why do you think that is?
 
2012-09-15 11:04:41 PM  

Yoyo: PC LOAD LETTER: Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

The USA has not always had high debt. The USA carried almost no long term debt, until post WWII when the federal government decided to stop paying off the war bonds quickly and take an intervetionist role in the national economy with the hope of creating perpetual growth. They only reason that canard has lasted so long is unceasing borrowing.


This is true. We have had mostly high debt since the 1980s.
 
2012-09-15 11:09:25 PM  

RedVentrue: We are supposed to have a debt ceiling for a reason. Why do you that is?


Show and tell. Either you raise it or the economy takes a dump and credit goes to shiat. Not exactly a choice now, is it?
 
2012-09-15 11:19:16 PM  

People_are_Idiots: PC LOAD LETTER: People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.

Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

You sound stupid spewing Fox News talking points.

You sound dumber than that. The credit downgrade was about our poor fiscal policy, including cutting deficit spending. If you wish to spout more, here's food for thought from S&P (from USA Today):

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."
"We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

In their view we need to cut $4 trillion over ten years, a little under $50 billion more than Obama and Bush has spent each year ($3.58 trillion and $3.52 trillion respectively). Even if you eliminate the defense spending entirely ($1.735 trillion), Where's the other $2.265 trillion going to come from?


So, tell me, why did they wait until then to do it? We didn't suddenly get there. And note what you said: Congress and the Administration agreed. Review what happened. Congress went full retard. Obama decided to try compromising with the insane yet again. Congress doesn't give a fark about spending. You mention the military. That's more than Congress did. We have ongoing combat operations overseas in addition to the military budget (those are separate items). We MUST raise revenue as well, but Congress sucks Grover Norquist's cock. I have no problem with cuts in Medicare and Medicaid as long as it's not the Ryan "I live in a fantasy world where private insurers will underwrite the poor and elderly" crap. The problem is that Democrats don't have ideas to humanely cut Medicare and Medicaid and the Republicans won't raise taxes or touch the military budget and here we are.

S&P waited to make a political statement. If Congress had just passed another hike, nothing would have happened. It was literally the only thing different from the past times they upped the ceiling. S&P didn't have a magic number that suddenly became a problem. I don't disagree with their actions, I disagree with the idea that this was somehow all Obama's fault. I very squarely blame Congress. Obama gets residual blame.
 
2012-09-16 01:44:18 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: RedVentrue: We are supposed to have a debt ceiling for a reason. Why do you that is?

Show and tell. Either you raise it or the economy takes a dump and credit goes to shiat. Not exactly a choice now, is it?


Our credit is going to shiat because we keep raising the debt ceiling, and the economy is sliding into the toilet again, if you haven't noticed.
 
2012-09-16 08:37:20 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: People_are_Idiots: PC LOAD LETTER: People_are_Idiots: Mugato: Thanks, republicans.

Uhm, forget the Dems had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010 (Senate still in Dem control), and the White House since 2009? Also might note that Obama has done more to the national debt in his one term than Bush did in two?

/really beginning to miss Bill.

Hmmm...who blocked the raising of the debt ceiling that directly was the cause of the credit downgrade? That was the cause. Not the high debt. We have always had high debt. It's when some Republican assholes (a redundant term) decided that raising the debt ceiling was bad (unlike the other times they thought it was good...I wonder what changed--hint, see your answer) that this came down on us.

You sound stupid spewing Fox News talking points.

You sound dumber than that. The credit downgrade was about our poor fiscal policy, including cutting deficit spending. If you wish to spout more, here's food for thought from S&P (from USA Today):

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."
"We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

In their view we need to cut $4 trillion over ten years, a little under $50 billion more than Obama and Bush has spent each year ($3.58 trillion and $3.52 trillion respectively). Even if you eliminate the defense spending entirely ($1.735 trillion), Where's the other $2.265 trillion going to come from?

So, tell me, why did they ...


The poor fiscal policy goes back a -lot- deeper than you think. Obama only exacerbated the downhill turn we took. The main reason it didn't happen from the 60's to the 80's was we had the Social Security Fund (which was before '68 locked away from the general fund, see: Link), and from the 80's to late 90's because the power the US held with all the major banks. The 90's we reversed the trend thanks to bipartisanship from Clinton and a Republican-led Congress. What happened with Bush, as you pointed out, were two wars, which in 2008 Obama promised to get us out of (And Democrats had the chance to reverse in 2007). However, right now we are still at war, Gitmo is still open, spending has increased, borrowing has increased, and more people are out of a job, despite the fact Dems had a sweep in Congress with a Dem President in office. THIS is why I am really beginning to miss Clinton.
 
2012-09-16 01:32:05 PM  

Alonjar: mjg: Canada's dollar is going up to $1.05 on the US dollar. And Canada is maintaining it's AAA credit rating.

Yeah but they have socialized healthcare, which is socialism, which is the exact same thing as communism, which is really authoritarian. Like Hitler.

Who wants to be a nazi? Not this guy.


Heir Harper will be very disappointed to hear that.

www.the-better-man.com
 
2012-09-16 05:29:25 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: RedVentrue: We are supposed to have a debt ceiling for a reason. Why do you that is?

Show and tell. Either you raise it or the economy takes a dump and credit goes to shiat. Not exactly a choice now, is it?


The problem with your dichotomy is that even when we raised it the credit rating took a hit and the economy is still shiat. Perhaps we should try the option we've never tried before, i.e. not raise the debt limit for once?
 
2012-09-16 07:06:24 PM  
The problem with being a resource based economy like Canada is that when all your customers go broke, you end up with a pile of resources that no one can buy or they can only buy them at a steep steep discount.

When the USA, China and europe begin to seriously fail in a dramatic and public fashion,we Canadians will be going broke right along with you.
 
2012-09-16 11:29:26 PM  

whidbey: Linkster: Paper will always be paper. Money, digital money is gone when the lights go out. Material is wealth. Having something to sell that is needed, is wealth. Water, gold, silver, food. fuel, etc.

So labor and production don't count for anything anymore unless you have some stupid precious metal to back it up?


I think he was making the point that if our society goes completely belly up, having a Schwab account that says you have 5 million dollars of stock and bonds is going to be worthless. Real, physical assets like what he listed above, and including things like factories, farms, and useful skills will still be worth something.
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report